Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 10 December 2014

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q 1 When should the term bitcoin be capitalized? A: Use bitcoin (lowercase) in all cases. Example: "I installed bitcoin software, downloaded the bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip. Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a bitcoin exchange."

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 multiple WikiProjects.

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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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 (assessed as Low-importance). 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. 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. Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen This article has graduated from the Article Incubator.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Biggest Bitcoin purchase.

Article mentions the biggest Bitcoin purchase of a $500,000 Bali house, yet in Estonia a $1.3 million manorhouse has been reported to have been bought for Bitcoin. Two sources in English: http://news.err.ee/v/economy/53ba6308-7ca1-4b4a-9a52-0156165267d6 http://hans.lougas.ee/2014/03/bitcoin-can-buy-you-a-1-3m-manor-house/

Editwarring 3RR

Mining remains poorly explained

I joined this page in February 2014, because I found mining was poorly explained. I returned back to this issue today, and I find the article lacks the following quintessential info (quoted after our reference 13, I believe, BITCOIN A Primer for Policymaker:BITCOIN A Primer for Policymaker):

Mining is a purely mathematical process. It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". etc --Wuerzele2 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two explanations of mining in the article. The one in the Bitcoin#Mining subsection explains the accounting aspect of mining. The more complicated one is in Bitcoin#The modification attack and mining subsection, and explains the "security against ledger modification" aspect of mining. When compared to these, the formulation "Mining is a purely mathematical process" looks unclear and misleading. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, thanks for your opinion. of course I am aware what we have written about mining under mining: It lacks the quintessential info of how it is done, as you seem to admit. It makes no sense to describe only an accounting aspect, or to define something so central at the end of the article. I think you misunderstood my point. Also I didnt suggest to use the sentence "Mining is a purely mathematical process." I said I quoted it, followed by "It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". this sentence is neither unclear nor misleading.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense to describe only an accounting aspect, or to define something so central at the end of the article. - understood. So you want the explanations to be merged and moved to the "Mining" section. That makes sense, since there already are parts of the text in the "Mining" section that just do not make sense without a more complete explanation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The technical details of mining are well explained in Bitcoin network, so they do not have to be repeated here. All that matters for this article is that computing a valid block hash is so difficult that it determines the rate at which blocks are added to the chain. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi,thanks for your opinion. I think you misunderstood me. I am not suggesting to add "technical details of mining". also, there is no redirect to the bitcoinnetwork in the mining paragraph, so you cant call this a "repeat". I do think that, absolutely, yes, there should be a sentence of how bitcoins are created. A fork to Bitcoinnetwork is mentioned much lower under Bitcoin#software. first I doubt that anybody who seeks general info reads that far, and this section right away goes into detail, without ever mentioning the basics , the "computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data".--Wuerzele (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping at it, editing, Ladislav. sorry for the late (hesitating) response. I am still not happy with it. I see tremendous detail which is good, but I dont see a one-sentence explanation for non-experts. Imagine you want to explain what bitcoin is to your grandmother or children or nieces and nephews if you dont have any.

I come back to my quote above "Mining is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". For me this is half way there, because it expresses the ethereal and cryptographic nature although I have no idea of the hash algorithm). after that teh proof of work sentence should follow.

Re the latest edit: I think the first sentence ("To prevent double-spending of bitcoins it is necessary to keep the block chain consistent, complete, and unalterable.") and the second sentence "Maintaining the block chain is called mining" need to come after the basic info in teh third sentence. In other words the use of the concept 'mining' or the concept 'block' should come after explanation of the concept.

Is there a synonym for nonce? It is not good if you have to interrupt yourself to tell grandmother, son or niece to explain /read other wikipages to understand the most basic puzzle pieces.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

--Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• It looks our opinions in this case differ. I think that the formulation a sequence of data called a “block” is much less understandable than a group of transactions called a block not just for an "expert", but for everybody.
• I observe the same difference in that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data versus that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number - the first formulation is not simpler to understand than the latter, it is just more obfuscated, to the point that it ceases to be understandable.
• I think the first sentence ... and teh second sentence ... need to come after the basic info in teh third sentence. - That is problematic, since the third sentence describes only a part of the work miner does (keeping the block chain consistent and complete), while the proof of work is another part of the work miner does (more demanding, in fact), keeping the block chain unalterable.
• It is not good if you have to interrupt yourself to tell grandmother, son or niece to explain /read other wikipages to understand the most basic puzzle pieces. - actually, the text is self-contained in the sense that it explains bitcoin nonce. The cross link is unnecessary for understanding, that is why I moved it to the "See also" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the phrase a group of transactions called a block.
• The phrase that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number is completely unclear to me and cant stand alone/is not self-contained: Hash isnt explained and what target number is, is unclear. However ,that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data although may be less detailed is simpler and understandable.
• This is the most important part for me: the concept 'mining' and the concept 'block' should be explained before stating why they are employed.

--Wuerzele (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number" is completely unclear to me and cant stand alone/is not self-contained: Hash isnt explained and what target number is, is unclear. - I strived above to make it clear that I used the formulation "self-contained" to refer to your reservations related to the nonce notion. It turns out, however, that the "self-contained" characteristic applies also to the difficulty target, which actually is explained in the text to be a number periodically adjusted by the network, used as the limit for the hash of a new block.
• To the "unexplained" use of the "hash" notion: the text explains important, and, in fact, defining properties of a "secure cryptographic hash":
  • the fact that there is only one method to find data yielding a particular hash - the method trying different candidate data one by one until the condition imposed on the hash is met,
  • and the fact that the probability of finding such data can be made low by adjusting the condition imposed on the hash
• In this sense the text is more self-contained than the alternative text that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data you propose, which does not explain the notion of "hash algorithm" in any way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I dont have an original alternative text but I believe a VERY simple sentence that reflects the truth needs to precede the section. I know you dislike simple ( call it oversimplification). I think the current version is unacceptably poorly explained/ difficult to understand and I will flag it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A note to the "nonce" notion: it is possible to explain that the word "nonce" is a short replacement for a "number used only once". In case of mining for every new block a new number is needed. Do you think this should be added to the section?

I believe a VERY simple sentence that reflects the truth needs to precede the section. - OK, I think there is a source for a simple sentence I can use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you dislike simple ( call it oversimplification). - actually, I must apologize for my inappropriate wording. The fact is that the formulation Mining is a purely mathematical process. should not be called oversimplified. It is problematic for other reasons that have got nothing in common with simplicity:

• the notion of "purely mathematical process" is largely unknown, uncommon and unclear
• the formulation is uninformative, complicated, and inaccurate when compared to the concise and accurate Mining is a record-keeping service. by David Andolfatto, which is not just more accurate, but it also refutes the statement calling mining a "purely mathematical process". It is not a common practice to call record keeping a "purely mathematical process".

It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". - while there is a computational search involved, this sentence is not explanatory, it is just superficial. The important information missing is the fact that the block chain is kept practically unalterable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir thanks for the many rounds of edits on that section!

I already said that I am sorry that I dont have an alternative text, and to plse forget the ref 13 example, which you repeatedly bring up. I never suggested to insert it as such, and think we are done discussing it, since you have so many issues with it. what is missing in the explanation of mining is the fact that it is the point of production for the currency unit, like the mint, only virtual and not physical in space. The other thing missing is that mining bitcoin is done "out of thin air". This is why I like the phrase 'purely mathematical process' (or something like that). I disagree by the way that the term mathematical process is largely unknown, uncommon and unclear. It's something a kid in elementary school can relate to.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

...and plse forget the ref 13 example, which you repeatedly bring up - I am sorry if it feels annoying, but my above contribution served me well as the means to focus on what was missing in the text.

...what is missing in the explanation of mining is the fact that it is the point of production for the currency unit... - I see that explanation already present in the "Supply" section: The successful miner finding the new block is rewarded with newly created bitcoins and transaction fees. As observed by David Andolfatto, miners do the same work as they will do when the network stops rewarding them with new bitcoins. In this sense, it is actually the network creating new bitcoins as a reward for the miners, not the miners themselves. Do you think that it would be useful to add this information in some form to the article?

The other thing missing is that mining bitcoin is done "out of thin air". - The Wire states in , Haters love to point out how bitcoin just appeared out of thin air. This suggests that the out of thin air formulation is not describing a fact, it actually presents an opinion. The facts of bitcoin mining already are listed (what mining is, why it is done, how it is done, what the reward is). It is possible to explain opinions, but opinions are not a matter of design. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move the "Units" section

I gave the position of the section a second thought. In my opinion it makes sense to put the section to a place where it precedes the first use. Since the "Ownership" section speaks about an amount of 7,500 bitcoins, the natural position looks to be immediately above "Ownership". Any objections? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

why not ownership down to "Units"?

as long as the mining section is in such awful shape, unable to explain in one sentence the gist, with a nonsensical sequence of elaborating the idea and awful language (To prevent double-spending... To keep the block chain consistent .... To prevent modification... The miner has to find ...) all else is dressing up a pig.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is off topic to discuss the contents of the "Mining" section here. You can, and did, use a more appropriate place to discuss it.
• To your question why not ownership down to "Units"? - simply because there is also the "Transactions" section taking advantage of the use of the satoshi unit, that is why such a change would not help. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit #633157351

@Fleetham: - I am glad you copy edit the article, but I disagree that your edit is a "copy edit". The edit is introducing too many errors to be acceptable as a copy edit:

• The sentence, which was previously true, now became false: ...bitcoin is commonly referred to with terms that include the word "currency". Some example are: digital currency, digital cash... - the term "digital cash" simply does not include the word "currency"
• The above word "example" should be in plural, referring to multiple examples.
• The formulation "has some way to go" is what is stated in the cited source, and
  • you either think that your updated formulation has a different meaning (I can agree with such an opinion), but in that case you contradict the cited source, or
  • you think that your updated formulation has the same meaning (I can agree again), but in such case I prefer to use the original formulation, which, in this case, is equivalent.
• The new formulation: "bitcoins are the unit of account" is a mismatch of number, "unit" is singular, and the grammatically correct formulation is "bitcoin is the unit of account". Your edit repeats this number mismatch twice.
• Formulation: Various government agencies, departments, and courts have defined bitcoins differently. looks rather mistaken. I think that many words: "treated", "classified", "judged", ..., look more appropriate than "defined".
• Formulation: Journalists and academics likewise lack unanimous agreement on what to call bitcoins. - the word "lack" is what, e.g., JorgeGabriel disliked recently, and it may not be optimal in this case.
• ...what to call bitcoins ... declared it - another number mismatch.

Taking into account the sum of errors introduced, I cannot help but refuse the "copy edit" characterization as unjustified. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've gone ahead and made many of the changes... feel free to make add'l ones yourself. I'm not sure what you mean about my wording not being equal to the term "some way to go" in the source... And I didn't think it necessary to remove the term "digital cash" from the list of examples. I can't imagine including it will cause any confusion, but if you'd like to go ahead and take it out, please go ahead. Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• OK, being asked to look after the "digital curency..." examples I just shortened the formulation to keep it true without needing to delete any particular term.
• As explained above, the "has some way to go" formulation is directly supported by the cited source. Since there is no change in the source, there is no need to change the formulation. That is why I restored the wording.
• The formulation: " and, although bitcoin is the unit of account for the payment protcol and are not used as a unit of account outside of it." is a disaster. Problems:
  • "protcol" is a typo
  • "is ... and are" is still a mismatch in number
  • the formulation: "...although bitcoin is ... and ..." does not make sense, in fact

In my opinion it is much better to restore the previous wording until a better wording is found, the present one does not fit this criterium. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, I wholeheartedly agree with Ladislav Mecir. I would have reverted that edit today if it had been possible.

Apart from the points already made I have seen you repeatedly putting the director of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion at the University of California-Irvine prominently at the beginning. I dont see what makes this one prof of Anthropology and Law so special, compared to the universe of voices about this issue. Can you explain? It reinforces my impression that you think (and want readers to think) he is the authority. I have a problem with putting this ONE opinion on the top and prefer where it was all the time, at the bottom. You also again (re)inserted, if I remember correctly, the term "despite this", which is not logical and in general should be avoided because its editorializing.

I dont know why you wrote "journalists and academics likewise lack unanimous agreement"- the beforementioned were academics. And that they are not agreeing on something in flux is a platitude, no need to mention, as the facts speak for themselves --Wuerzele (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks that Wuerzele is right. The formulation despite this is illogical, since it is, in fact, the other way around. It is not true that Professor Irvine expressed an opinion, and others, despite of the opinion, chose otherwise. The truth is that many sources used and still are using the terms like "digital currency", etc., and Prof. Irvine made his single comment despite of the actual use. In this view, the formulation gives undue weight to a single opinion, while the previous wording was more balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you take at look at WP:UNDUE, it states that "neutrality requires each article or other page in the mainspace to fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:VER says that "If available, academic... publications are usually the most reliable sources." The fact that an academic whose specific area of expertise is relevant to bitcoin made the pronouncement dictates its superior position in the text. The idea that bitcoin is not a currency is actually more prominent among the sources that wikipedia deems most reliable. Fleetham (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, the rational behind why bitcoin is not a currency is expressly spelled out by those who discuss the issue, and the idea that bitcoin is a currency seems to revolve around the idea that "bitcoin is a currency because people say, 'crypocurrency' often."

Just because someone says, "crypocurrency" gives us little indication that their viewpoint is "bitcoin is a currency," whereas we know the viewpoint of those who don't think bitcoin is a currency because the theory behind that is spelled out. People will say, "bitcoin is not a currency because of X, Y, and Z," but no such defense of bitcoin as a currency exists. Use of the word "cryptocurrency" is not a viewpoint. Fleetham (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, citing the actual source used: "The virtual currency — straight up: computer money", i.e., the very source cited calls bitcoin "virtual currency" and "computer money".

Yet another problem is that contradicting your above informations, the source is not an academic publication as you are trying to convince us, but a USA Today article, i.e., just a single source that is in no way more prominent than the other sources mentioning the use of the "virtual currency", etc., notions.

Taking all the known facts into account, WP:UNDUE is more than justified. It is also advisable to note that your informations are heavily biased, and not just in this case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a quote from an academic. I'm unsure how that devalues its credibility. Also, you have in no way addressed my primary concern: that the idea bitcoin is not a currency is an actual viewpoint with a theory behind it whereas Misplaced Pages editors are simply assuming that people who say, "cryptocurrency" hold the viewpoint that bitcoins are money. Again, while there are multiple reliable sources that spell out reasons WHY bitcoins are not a currency, there does not seem to be a single source that explains WHY bitcoins are one. The idea that "bitcoins = money because people say 'cryptocurrency'" is a very poor argument. In fact, it's a Tautology. Fleetham (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, you're absolutely right, Maurer is an academic. And I do thank you for having brought him up in that USA Today reference you inserted, which quoted him, albeit 'fleetingly' . I did look Maurer up at the time to learn more about his work and views. And I even inserted a sentence from him under 'political economy' yesterday which, alas, was deleted as being a minority view ! So it goes! As stated above: I dont see what makes this one prof of Anthropology and Law so special to you, that you assign him quasi-authoritative status, compared to the universe of voices about this issue. please reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"I'm unsure how that devalues its credibility." - the credibility of the source is like the credibility of any journal article, since it is a journal article. That is not a problem. What is hurt is the credibility of your claim that the discussed source was an academic publication. As for the quality of the other argument you mention, that is again a problematic thing (straw man), since such an argument is not present in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the PA. Anyway, perhaps this cartoon makes my point in a more easily digested fashion... Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, hello-o ! Whom are you talking to?

Which WP:PA? I see no PA and nothing was removed.

The comic is no real reply. Is it to gloss over the serious mistakes you made in the edit? Mistakes that as Ladislav pointed out, are not a one-time problem, and which I consider WP:disruptive editing (see Talk archives). To me at least this cartoon makes no sense in the discussion we are having and looks like you are dodging the issues. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Note about illicit purchases made with bitcoin

Someone recently added a footnote to the lede sentence that describes bitcoins as being used to purchase illegal items online. The note reads something along the lines of "bitcoins are 'just like cash' and people also buy non-illegal items with them too!"

This is completely unnecessary, and the fact that someone feels it's necessary to point this out again makes me think that this page is pushing a specific POV. Perhaps the note should include a mention of the illegal items that people do purchase with bitcoins online such as child pornography, drugs, and credit card details? Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

David Andolfatto, a Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, analyzed many aspects of bitcoin. Andolfatto's findings advancing the knowledge about bitcoin are:

• he found out that bitcoin mining is a record-keeping service
• he pointed out that it is misleading to think that bitcoin mining is similar to gold mining
• he found a relation between bitcoin price, liquidity premium, and the tendencies to call bitcoin a speculative bubble
• he suggested that bitcoin will motivate central banks and other financial institutions to operate sound policies
• he mentioned that bitcoin facilitates illegal trading
• he listed the similarities and differences between bitcoin and cash when used for illegal purposes
• he mentioned that bitcoin facilitates legal trading

Andolfatto's analysis brings new claims: not that bitcoin is used for illegal trading (that is not a new claim, and it is already present in the article), but that it also facilitates illegal trading (that is a different claim). Similarly, Andolfatto's claim that bitcoin facilitates legal trading is different from Fleetham's claim that "people also buy non-illegal items with them too!".

Seeing the last three points above, it is not hard to find out that Andolfatto's point of view is neutral, mentioning both legal and illegal trading in bitcoin from a different (facilitating) perspective

@Fleetham: justifying your edit #633445806 you wrote: to dispel idea that "bitcoins are just like cash" - this is a typical noneutral edit, since:

• Your edit purports to "dispel" an opinion you previously deleted from the article. While you try to accuse another editor of making nonneutral edits, that is exactly what you are doing when trying to "dispel" an opinion that you deleted from the article.
• Your argument is a straw man, since what your edit is trying to "dispel" is not what Andolfatto stated, misusing the fact that the original claim is no longer present in the article, being deleted by you. Andolfatto mentioned both similarities and differences between cash and bitcoin in his analysis, i.e., made different claims than your made up " is just like cash".

Summarizing the findings:

• you deleted claims made by a notable expert that is independent from bitcoin
• the deleted claims were presenting a neutral point of view
• you accused the editor inserting the claims from "pushing a specific POV",
• while that is exactly what your subsequent edits did, obviously violating the WP:NPOV policy
• I cannot give you even a benefit of a doubt that you did it in good standing, since WP:NPOV mentions: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.

Now, to conclude, the only suggestion I have got for you is to reread WP:NPOV before making any further edits to the related parts of the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing terminology

In the "Media" section there's a reference to students at MIT receiving "$100 in bitcoins." Considering that $100 will (barring a crash) currently only purchase a percentage (potentially a small percentage) of one single bitcoin, shouldn't another term be used such as a percentage or satoshi? One reason why people are having problems getting their heads around the whole BC thing is because very few people in regular day to day transactions would actually spend multiple bitcoins, but fractions of. So presumably, unless the value of Bitcoin was really low when MIT did its allotment, it was actually a percentage of one bitcoin, like 0.01 or something, correct? (My fraction may be off, but you know what I mean.) There may well me similar examples in this article or others on Misplaced Pages related to the topic of Bitcoin, but if you guys want to make it easier for people to understand the concept, one way of going about it is using consistent terminology and making it clear that (based on current exchange) if someone has, say, 5 bitcoins this actually represents an equivalent investment of hundreds if not thousands of dollars. And if the value of BC goes up the way some have predicted, only the very rich will ever actually be able to possess one complete bitcoin. So "$100 in bitcoins" becomes meaningless. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The original source mentions "$100 worth of bitcoins", which the editor (I do not know who was it) transformed to "$100 in bitcoins". As far as I am concerned, I do not see "$100 in bitcoins" as a misrepresentation of the formulation "$100 worth of bitcoins". I think that your reservation applies equally to "$100 worth of bitcoins"... The problem is that we should not correct independent reliable sources. In particular, it is not reasonable to "correct" journalists telling them how they should formulate their thoughts. It is not hard for anybody to check the actual price of bitcoin to find out how many bitcoins "$100 in bitcoins" means, and taking into account the volatility of bitcoin, that is subject to change. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

68.146.52.234, thanks for the note, I see your point. When I added this sentence in May, I merely tried to add what I had read, oblivious of the fact that 100$ is a fraction of 1 bitcoin. As Ladislav pointed out, we cant correct the source. I also see no similar examples on this page or lack of consistency. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish to remove the statement: "Volatility has little effect on the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system."

The statement "Volatility has little effect on the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system," is not valid. I intend to remove it from the article. The author of the quoted reference actually stated: "I agree with Timothy Lavin that the price swings of the last few weeks are a bad sign for Bitcoin's long-term viability, since no currency with such crazy volatility will ever be trusted as legitimate money." The bitcoin price is still volatile. Price volatility is an acknowledged problem in the bitcoin payment processing system. JorgeGabriel (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1. ^ Roose, Kevin (21 November 2013). "How Bitcoin Can Go Mainstream, in One Easy Step - Daily Intelligencer". Nymag.com. Retrieved 25 November 2013.

The part of the source you cite is not the part describing the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system. There is a more relevant part of the cited source related to the claim you refer to: In a system like this, it wouldn't matter if bitcoins were trading at $600 or $6 million, since the money would only stay in bitcoin for a millisecond or two before being converted into another country's currency. Another, different source states: ...there are cases where exchange rates don’t matter at all. Online gambling, for example, is all about bearing risk for the fun of it. If you’re putting your cash on a virtual roulette wheel, the volatile exchange rate might only add to the excitement. Similarly, people have begun using bitcoin as a way to tip people on reddit. Here too, it’s hard to see any harm from a fluctuating exchange rate. A final example is international money transfers. People sending money to relatives overseas are already familiar with exchange rate risk. If the time between buying bitcoins at one end and selling them at the other is small, the risk of losing money due to exchange rate changes will be similarly small. I guess that the second source looks better since it lists more cases in which volatility does not matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Gabriel, aside from Ladislavs correct explanation, is it possible that you overread in the sentence you quote from the source, that the author referred to bitcoins volatility as limiting its utility as legitimate money?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Even in the USD and other relatively stable currency markets, businesses take out forward contracts to "protect" themselves against the currency risk - in "relatively stable" markets. I noticed on Coindesk - or somewhere - that you can pay 1/2 percent to protect yourself against volatility. 1/2 % is a huge fee. The cost of the protection is not the point. I just think that it is not reasonable to state that volatility has little effect on the utility of the bitcoin payment process system. It has an effect and it is dealt with in the normal way markets dealing in low volatility currencies deal with the matter. And bitcoin is accepted as a high volatility market. The basic premise of the statement is wrong. In my view it has an effect: the normal effect of volatility in a currency market (a virtual currency in this case). JorgeGabriel (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the issue has now been addressed in the text. JorgeGabriel (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A possibility to add a chart

Hi, I added a Huffington Post article containing several interesting charts to external sources. In particular, I find the chart displaying the relative difficulty of mining (the relative difficulty at the time of bitcoin inception being defined as 1, higher number meaning that the mining is more difficult) interesting. If I understand it well, I should not just copy the chart from the article. However, the article contains a reference to the source of the data, which is Blockchain.info, and I can recreate the chart using the original source. Is there a consensus to add such a chart to the "Mining" section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes add it. Fleetham (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir before going through the trouble of re-creating next time, consider checking with the source if they would "donate" their figures for the commons, for wikipedia. They might!--Wuerzele (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: hi, thank you for the suggestion. (I previously had a negative experience with a request for donation to the article, which seemed like a sure bet to me. Do you think you would be able to get a photo of Hal Finney for the article this way?) The positives of the recreation are:

• I learned how to work with Libre Office (did not use it before, and it looks usable). Next time it will be much easier for me to create a chart.
• can update the charts if such a need occurs
• the recreated charts use a larger range of dates than the Huffington Post article, capturing esentially all data available from Blockchain.info
• I used a logarithmic scale for the "relative difficulty axis" of the relative difficulty plot, which is a natural fit for the growth observed; if you compare Chart #4 in the article using a much smaller date range and the relative difficulty plot, you may find out that there is a significant difference in readability
• I removed the notes and titles from the charts, intending to put them to captions, where they should be more readable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, I know there's always upsides and yes, I saw you did a really very good job. Thank you. tell me whom to write to for a Hal Finney photo (his widow probably?) and I ll do it. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I tried to contact his widow through twitter, but no success. Nevermind. There may be another way. I thought about finding some photos on Internet and asking the respective publisher for donation, what do you think? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of bitcoin price drivers

Hi, I found this source to be interesting. Is it acceptable for the article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

why not? we have now several arXiv articles. I remember Fleethamn objected to the first one I added and reverted, but not since. but I think the summary, sticking to a short sentence may be difficult. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy? There are many, many theories, models, types of analysis, views out there, technical analysis, Elliot waves, moving averages, etc, etc, about what drives any speculative item´s price. Are you going to cover them all? This one about "wavelets" I have never heard about. I think it fails noteworthiness, for starters. JorgeGabriel (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of bitcoin price drivers is noteworthy. This particular paper is not - in my view.JorgeGabriel (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I sometimes judge remarkableness by looking at the contents of the article. Elliot waves and wavelet analysis have in common as much as astrology and astronomy (they have stars - astrum - in common, similarly as Elliot waves and wavelet analysis have waves in common, and that is not where the analogy ends). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorgeGabriel: I find yet another part of your above comment to be interesting. It is the use of the term speculative item. I am not sure what exactly you mean by that, because, perhaps surprisingly for you, this notion is not notable enough to be explained in Misplaced Pages. In contrast to that, the subject of the article we are discussing here looks much more notable, let me just point you to the number 259 representing the count of unique citations verifying the claims in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please present the paper in the article. I am sure I will find it interesting. I was just thinking that if the article were to address the question about what drives the bitcoin price, then a discussion of the normal ones would be well accepted in the article. I was just surprised that a completely unknown or new view should be the one presented first. Please present the article. I for one will find it interesting. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure once there is a "Bitcoin Price Drivers" sub-section, then all the other normal ones will be added over time. This would be a starting point. I think price drivers should be included. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I do not intend to take advantage of the consensus. I think that it will be best to present the interesting findings here to make sure there is a consensus on them. Wuerzele has also the right to check what I intend to present. Just as an explanation, the wavelet analysis is a general tool used to analyse many types of data. It is in no way specific to pricing. Popular applications are: analysis of sound (many modern sound compression methods are based on wavelet analysis), picture and video analysis, studies in geophysics, ... Summing up, wavelet analysis is becoming a common tool to analyze many types of data.

The article analyzed drivers of the exchange rate between Bitcoin (BTC) and the US dollar (USD) between 14 September 2011 and 28 February 2014, and the conclusion was (citations in quotes):

"even though Bitcoin is usually labelled as a purely speculative asset, ... standard fundamental factors – usage in trade, money supply and price level – play a role in Bitcoin prices in the long term"

"increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners"

"the prices of bitcoins are driven by investors’ interest in the cryptocurrency"

"Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment"

"even though the USD and CNY markets are tightly connected, we find no clear evidence that the Chinese market influences the USD market"

The conclusions may depend on the methodology used, but they are obtained using a commonly recognized analysis tool. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Some objective comments: "increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners" appears to be a driver for (an increase in) mining and not a driver of the price. "Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment" is obviously not a driver of the price or is it taken as driving the price down? The statement that "even though the USD and CNY markets are tightly connected, we find no clear evidence that the Chinese market influences the USD market" is disputable since the Chinese market is by far the biggest market in the world with clearly many more trades per second (not just per minute) with always very clear and very detailed trading patterns being formed while this is very clearly not the case in the US market. The US shortest interval trading patterns are very "rough" or undefined: not intricately detailed (showing intense supply and demand market forces at work all across even the shortest price moves) like the Chinese ones. All the different known trading patterns always appear "beautifully" formed in the Chinese market as a result of the volume and intensity of trading taking place. It "appears" obvious - to me - that the Chinese market defines/dictates the market moves.JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Some objective comments: "increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners" appears to be a driver for (an increase in) mining and not a driver of the price. - you are right, but the fact is that the analysis was performed to find the relations between the price of bitcoin and other factors (let's say "candidate price drivers"). The tools used were able to discern many types of correlations: no correlation, positively correlated, but no clear dependence, negatively correlated but no clear dependence, positively correlated, price depending on the factor, positively correlated, the factor depending on the price, etc. The article simply presents the results obtained. As for the relation between US market and Chinese market - the result was surprising, but it is the result obtained, not something you are supposed to agree with. Perhaps surprising for you, but your comment is not objective in this regard. Nevermind, I do not push for reflecting the results at all costs, that is why I asked here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative to national currencies

While bitcoin is called an alternative currency, that is not what the section is about. The contents describe the situation when it is used as a hedge against inflation and financial crises. That is why I propose to replace the title by "As hedge". Another alternative that comes to mind may be "Safe haven". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

According to you, the paper you want to present specifically stated: ""Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment". So, that certainly rules out "safe haven". It certainly is not a safe haven during 99.9% of the time. Only under extremely bad financial conditions in a country, for example, during the crisis in Cyprus, even volatile and decreasing in value bitcoin was seen as a safe haven, but, in order to keep your asset in a place the government cannot confiscate it. If you left your local money or even USD in your bank account, many governments (Argentina) simply go and take your money. During the Cyprus crises there was also talk - at one stage - about depositors possibly being required to make good part of the losses. People went into bitcoin to take their money out of the Cyprus banks. So, only under extreme situations can bitcoin be seen - possibly - as a safe haven for a short time to solve a specific problem. It is certainly not seen as a long term safe haven in the way many people treat gold as a long term safe haven against all the financial problems in the world. Even the idea that it is an alternative to national currencies in any way is wrong in my opinion. It is not real money. It is not legal tender anywhere. It is not relatively stable. It is very wrong to think of it as a hedge against inflation. In the vast majority of the world economy, inflation is rather low: 2 to 10%. Very volatile and generally decreasing in real value bitcoin is definitely not a hedge against normal low inflation. Again, in a very extreme situation of hyperinflation it, of course, could be used as some sort of hedge, especially when it is difficult to buy US Dollars. The current problem is that it is very difficult to put a lot of money into bitcoin as a hedge in Venezuela (hyperinflation) and Argentina (very high inflation) since no-one is interested in accepting the fast depreciating local currencies as payment for going into bitcoin. So, bitcoin is possibly, only a hedge in very rare, very extreme situations. Gold is seen as a hedge all the time. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "As hedge" looks less controversial. As you correctly point out, there is no need for everybody to share the same worries, it suffices if some worried people use bitcoin as a hedge. "Even the idea that it is an alternative to national currencies in any way is wrong in my opinion." - there are reliable source verifying that there is an opinion that bitcoin is an alternative currency, it is also possible that some sources think that bitcoin isn't an alternative currency, although I do not remember seeing that opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think what is important is that the term "under exceptional circumstances, like very high inflation and hyperinflation" should be added. It is used as a hedge, "only under exceptional circumstances." It is not the normal course of business. JorgeGabriel (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing the title of the section here. I understand it that you dislike the "Safe haven" title. Am I to understand that you propose a third candidate? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Alternative to National Currencies being discussed under the Bitcoin Price Drivers section? Is the fact that it is sometimes (very rarely) used by a small number of people as an alternative to a national currency during high inflation being seen as a bitcoin price driver in general? JorgeGabriel (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to your original statement: Yes, I agree with you that the title is not correct. I think the last part of the second sentence of your original statement could be a good heading: "Hedge against inflation and financial crises." It is a bit long for a title and I would even like to add "high" to inflation which would make it even longer. Maybe "Hedge against financial crises" could be a good title, since high inflation, in principle, is also a financial crisis. JorgeGabriel (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also "financial crises" excellently implies that it is exceptional in application - that is, not a general (every day) attribute.JorgeGabriel (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Hedge against financial crises" looks as a compromise, since the title should not be long. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculative bubble

The "Speculative bubble" section presents 5 different opinions ranging from "Bitcoin is a speculative bubble" to the rejection of the term. It is a matter of dispute whether bitcoin is a speculative bubble or not. The section name is not neutral, picking one of the opinions and presenting it as a fact. I am sure that a more neutral section name can be found. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think since of all opinions cited only the last refutes speculative bubble, the title is justified. If you really worry about it, I think posing the subsection title as a question would do justice. Ladislav, easy does it. Dont fix what ai'nt broken...--Wuerzele (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wuerzele, that is not what the sources state, in fact. Even the second opinion that mentions that bitcoin has got many (but does not state all) properties of a speculative bubble, is actually not presenting the opinion that bitcoin is a speculative bubble, and the only opinion we can find stating that bitcoin is a speculative bubble is just the first. Every other opinion states something else. As for your "Speculative bubble?", suggestion, I have got a different idea, which looks more neutral: let's use: "Speculative bubble dispute", or "'Speculative bubble' dispute". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, then I think the section is NOT written well. I wrote the above merely after reading the section, not the sources.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To explain it: to fit a specification, the thing must have all the properties required, not just some, or many of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

to fit a specification, the thing must have all the properties required.: According to whom? that's no universal law. maybe in your line of expertise/ work/ computer science. in my line of work there's shades of grey with classical vs probbale or likely, not binary. you know i am not an economist but it seems more like a social science to me with room for "probable".--Wuerzele (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"According to whom? that's no universal law." - well, I (and I bet that you too) would not accept as ice cream something that has all the properties and ingredients of an ice cream except for being frozen. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, my opinion is not relevant. I just observe that there are two citations presenting an opinion that "bitcoin is a speculative bubble" and that there are other (distinct from each other) citations not presenting that opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, I think that the section is written well. I just want the title to reflect its contents, and my idea of neutral wording of the title is 'Speculative bubble' dispute, or Speculative bubble dispute, whichever is more acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, another section underwent a similar procedure until it finally acquired a neutral name: "Classification". I understand that some of the editors wanted to underline that bitcoin does not fit the most widely used economic definition of money (and I do agree that it does not), while others wanted to use a title underlining that it is classified as money by some sources, and neither of the titles was neutral. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article: 'Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives' as a source

@Wuerzele: your edit #634475859 uses the following justification: "Bitcoin magazine is a primary source". I do assume good faith, but your justification turns out to be poorly researched:

• WP:USEPRIMARY defines primary sources. It states:
  • "In science, data is primary"
  • "A secondary source is built from primary sources. Secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the source is building on the foundation of prior sources"

Examining the article you marked as a primary source, it is very easy to find out that the sources of the data (the primary sources) used in the article are:

• bitcoincharts.com
• Yahoo! Finance, and
• quandl.com

This makes it easy to judge that the discussed article is a secondary source. Based on this evidence, I find your edit unjustified, and have to revert it for that reason. Hope you will do a better job next time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! I merely flagged the source as "third party source needed" And I still think so.

Bitcoinmagazine is a questionable source at this time. I strongly question the independence of writers and the editorial board from the matter. The Executive Producer is co-founder and CEO of BitPay, another Board member is the Executive Director at Bitcoin Foundation, the third is an ardent defender of Bitcoin in his RunForGold enetrprise, another is a Bitcoin developer, running a mining pool and the last is on Bitcoin Foundation’s China Chapter and Director of mybitfund. All members are ripe with a conflict of interest. This introduces bias. The publisher is Coin Publishing Ltd, not independent either, and I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing. Certainly looks self-serving.

Re primary secondary source:I apologize for writing primary source in the edit summary at 2am or whatever (cut me some slack, man), but the gist is: this magazine should be used as little as Bitcoin.com or bitcoin.org refs.

Before I forget I think your section headings are accurate, but insiderish in their technicality; Please use everyday descriptions, so others can get an idea what's being discussed, if they look at this page. Thanks for your work.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You now changed your mind and I should have guessed that and written the section name accordingly? How was I supposed to guess? I was only able to resolve what there was to resolve: revert an incorrectly justified test edit.

I strongly question the independence... - question whatever you like, and please do your research properly first, I see that you did not do it yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, no, the was no test edit! I dont understand why you say I changed my mind ( I didnt) and "do your research properly first", because obviously I did my research first as explained above, and because of that, I think the flag that a third party reference is needed is justified. But: I did not want to edit war so I didnt reinsert it yesterday, before having this discussion about the source. Since you do not respond to my arguments above, that Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source I will reinsert it. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you do not respond to my arguments above, that Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source I will reinsert it. - I did respond, saying that you did not do your research properly. Your above (as I mentioned improperly researched) allegations are suffering from several fallacies. I already observed the "hedging" fallacy - you completely changed the meaning of your words after I refuted your original justification. Now your above contributions also contain the Proof by verbosity fallacy, since there are many (purportedly true), but in fact contradicting each other "reasons" why the source cannot be acceptable. I can refute every of your allegations, but I do not intend to try to refute them all, since that would require me to write a refutation containing more than 10 thousand words. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: now I see that instead of taking seriously my suggestion to research the problem properly, you hurried up to push your opinion again. Due to the existing hedging fallacy and Proof by verbosity, I cannot refute all what you said above, but I refute enough to prove that your edit #634782486 is not justified by your above arguments. Your current claim I shall refute is: Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source.

• The first error you made and did not correct yet (although I already mentioned it above) is the fact that the source we are discussing is this article
• now, the author of the article is Radoslav Albrecht,
• while the publisher of the article is CoinDesk Coin Publishing Ltd
• it can be easily found out that the author is actualy an external contributor, not being the member of the Bitcoin Magazine team
• the primary sources of the data conveniently listed in the article and already mentioned above are independent from both the author and the Bitcoin Magazine
• These facts refute your above this qualifies as self publishing, since by WP:USESPS Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.
• Now to your claim that the source is not WP:IS
• first of all, the data are from independent sources, and the article contains many charts created from the data and explanations of the volatility notion, characterization of bitcoin volatility as high, historic volatility, the analysis how the high volatility of bitcoin may influence several categories of people, and the last section of the article discusses possible causes and observed tendencies as seen in the charts.
• where the article discusses the properties of volatility claiming that the volatility is high, or where it discusses the possible reasons why the volatility is high, its findings are not noticeably distinct from the claims already present in the "Volatility" section. That is why I did not care to mention them. The only part of the article bringing a different subject is the part analyzing the observed trend in the charts.
• The argument you used to support your claim that the source is not WP:IS is: The Executive Producer is co-founder and CEO of BitPay.
• I see more than one reason why this argument is wrong:
  • The Editor in Chief is Ruben Alexander, i.e., a person distinct from the executive producer,
  • while the executive producer is involved in new business development, marketing and customer service, i.e., not in the contents of the articles
  • moreover, even if the publisher was the BitPay, it is unclear how exactly does that make the source "not independent", since the BitPay is known to both sell and buy bitcoins. It is obvious that if BitPay produced bitcoins and then just sold them, its vested interest would be to keep the price high. Similarly it is obvious that if BitPay just bought bitcoins, its vested interest would be to keep the price low. In the case when BitPay does both buying and selling, and lives off fees, the vested interest in price is actually zero.

Regarding your arguments related to Jon Matonis, they have the same level of relevance, but I do not intend to continue, seeing that this rebuttal is already both convincing that you:

• did not do your research properly,
• and are piling irrelevant arguments

Having refuted your justification again, I see that your edit specified above is unjustified, and am reverting it for that reason. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, I had to look up Proof by verbosity, which I have never heard before. I am sorry that you feel that way. I have no intent to intimidate. I do not see my argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results. So I dont quite understand this.

I know and knew all of what you "pile up" (your term, more justified ) before I inserted the flag, though. your accusations listed above are without substance:

• Re "The first error you made and did not correct yet is the fact that the source we are discussing is this article": I refer to that source, exactly, so there's no error.
• Re "Radoslav Albrecht is an external author" Yes, I know.(Maybe you even know him personally?) That in and by itself does not refute a lack of independence. Many commercial sources will invite external authors, whose view fits theirs.
• Re this qualifies as self publishing is your error, a misquote. I wrote "I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing." because, yes, it doesnt fit the classic definition, but as I wrote "it looks self-serving."
• Re "The Editor in Chief is Ruben Alexander, i.e., a person distinct from the executive producer." Exactly, as was implicit in my comment.
• Re: "the publisher of the article is CoinDesk"- ?? what does that prove or refute? Besides, the publisher is Coin Publishing LLC., ≠ Coin Desk, to the best of my knowledge, which bought out the previous owner for cash and bitcoins.
• Re "you did not do your research properly." remains an unproven allegation. It is no reply to my argument, that at the core of my flag is the magazine's COI. I believe that Bitcoinmagazine is a source that has a vested interest in Bitcoin. It holds a financial relationship with the topic. Its not neutral and impassionate. Its easy for them to please advertisers etc etc This isnt easy to "prove" and it aint exact science. You are right it is an opinion, as these judgement calls usually are. I hope you understand better what I've meant all along.

I will not reinsert the flag. I have nothing against Albrecht's statement.

But I will change the section heading to what the core of this discussion is about: Is Bitcoinmagazine an independent source for our purposes? And I'd be interested in what other readers/ users think.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Bitcoin Magazine independent source for our purposes? - while this question looks relevant to you, it actually isn't. The independence depends on the topic as the WP:IS makes obvious. You are contradicting yourself when stating: "I refer to that source, exactly, so there's no error." while asking "Is Bitcoin Magazine independent source for our purposes?". Regarding the Bitcoin Magazine, that is not the source. As you already acknowledged, the source is the "Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives" article, and the proper way, therefore, is to ask whether the Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives is a WP:IS. Also, it was me who wrote the title of the section and I know how the title looked. You are simply using a hedging fallacy, trying to edit the title all the time. Due to the misrepresentation of WP:IS and other reasons such as the fact that this is a talk page and there is no need to change the wording other editors use and due to the hedging fallacy resulting in recurring attempts to reformulate the section name, I think that it is appropriate to use something neutral that won't need to change with every contribution. I change it to: "Article: 'Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives' as a source".

As for the Proof by verbosity fallacy, I do not wonder that you don't understand, neither do I. Instead of explaining that it means "verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details" as stated in List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies, the link redirects to Proof by intimidation, which purports that "Proof by verbosity" is a purely "mathematical" fallacy. This is an obvious inconsistency in Misplaced Pages, similar to another where I was recently redirected to a largely unrelated explanation of a dissimilar term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re "Radoslav Albrecht is an external author" Yes, I know.(Maybe you even know him personally?) - the fact that you know that Radoslav Albrecht is an external author demonstrates enough that you do know that the article is not self-published by WP:USESPS. Your above words, however, convince me that you ignore this information known to you and state I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing regardless. Piling invalid arguments surely qualifies as a "Proof by verbosity" fallacy. Another obvious fallacy is the suggestion that I may know the author personally. No, I do not. What I do know personally is the contents of the article. I read it to learn more about bitcoin volatility. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

the publisher is Coin Publishing LLC - thank you for mentioning it, correcting the citations in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Achieving neutral point of view

To recap, before Fleetham made his edit #633586783, the wording of the note #7 was:

Bitcoin facilitates illegal trading like USD, gold, etc. It is like cash in facilitating illegal trades. The difference is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not. Bitcoin also facilitates legal trading.

Fleetham justified his #633586783 as follows: "add further info to footnote for balance". I think that it is OK to achieve the WP:NPOV, but the current result is actually violating the policy, and here is why looks like needing a closer inspection:

• the first step to WP:NPOV is:
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts", but also
  • "Avoid stating facts as opinions"
• Andolfatto's claims are all stated as facts, here is the list:
  • bitcoin facilitates illegal trading
  • USD, gold and cash also facilitate illegal trading
  • the difference between bitcoin and cash in facilitating illegal trading is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not
  • bitcoin also facilitates legal trading
• To obtain the neutral point of view we need to check whether any of the claims listed is disputed. Here we may try to use Fleetham's help, since he added a bunch of other opinions intending to balance the note:
  • The Washington Post calls it "the currency of choice for seedy online activities" - I do not see this claim as a claim disputing any of Andolfatto's claims, is there a consensus on this? Otherwise, we need to know which of the Andolfatto's claims it contradicts.
  • CNN refers to it as a "shady online currency" - the same opinion
  • Bloomberg states that the ability to purchase child pornography online "seals Bitcoin’s virtually amoral status" - and once more the same opinion, I see it so that Andolfatto's claims do not speak about "moral" or "amoral" status
  • Eventually, let's see if any of Andolfatto's claims is disputed by a different source? For example, is there a source contradicting that bitcoin facilitates illegal trading? (Or contradicting some other claim?)
• After we are done with this examination, we can proceed further, I am pausing here to obtain the necessary input. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• This edit is unecessary and does not need to be expounded upon in the introduction to Bitcoin. Considering every government currency facilitates and is used for Illegal trade, it is not necessary to go into such great detail early in the article. It has been researched that less than 1% of Bitcoin's total volume is of illicit nature. I respect Fleetham contributions but I believe this entire paragraph is flawed, and their could be a later subsection about controversy.
• In addition In June 2014, GQ journalist Marshall Sella concluded that what remained of the Silk Road black market site was one of the few places where one could purchase items for bitcoins. is entirely a false comment, just because it is cited by a journalist. Less than 1% of bitcoin volume is drug related you can buy almost anything with bitcoin including donate to wikipedia.
• Please correct the false statement about where Bitcoin can be purchased:

Creationlayer (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC) - My comments are as follow (apologies if formating is not standard)

Hi, Creationlayer. Welcome to the dispute. I slightly edited the formatting just in case you want to know how it is usually done:

• Use ':' at the start of the text to indent it. (this helps a reader to understand that you are responding to the previous contribution)
• It is preferable for your signature to follow your contribution.
• I replaced the ref. you used by an external link. This form is preferable for the talk page.

To your list of places where bitcoin can be used to purchase goods or services: indeed, the text explicitly mentions just the Silk Road, not mentioning any other place. You are right that it is not neutral, and it has to be balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The same reservation is true for the list of items that can be purchased with bitcoin. The paragraph contains this list: "child pornography, credit card details, and drugs", while not listing any legal goods or services. Creationlayer is right that it is unbalanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I fully understand the argument... I'm not sure where in WP:NPOV it states that material can only be added if it directly challenges material that already exists in the article. I think it's very clear that Mr. Andolfatto's view and that of the major new sites differ when it comes to bitcoins and illegal purchases. The major news sites seem to view the ability to purchase things like child pornography as having a major impact on their perception of bitcoins and its "moral status" while Mr. Andolfatto's statements do not address stigma or public perception. Basically, I don't believe that Mr. Andolfatto's statement covers "all of the significant views" on bitcoin being a facilitator of illegal trades. WP:NPOV states that "a neutral point of view (NPOV)... means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

I'm not sure where in WP:NPOV it states that material can only be added if it directly challenges material that already exists in the article. - you are right in what you are saying. There is no such statement, but I do not think I pretended there is one, did I? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So, when you talk about bitcoin being a facilitator of illegal trades, one view is that "bitcoin facilitates both legal and illegal trades, and another view is that "because bitcoin facilitates illegal trades, it has a stigma." Ladislav's argument seems to be that because neither of these viewpoints directly contradicts the other, only one view should be represented in the article. Fleetham (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav's argument seems to be that because neither of these viewpoints directly contradicts the other, only one view should be represented in the article. - of course not, that is a misunderstanding. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing the above discussion, it looks that there is no contest that Andolfatto's views in note#7 are presented correctly and in a way compliant with WP:NPOV. Thanks, Fleetham, that is what I wanted to know. Now to the need to balance aspects, which is what Fleetham appears to be worried about. Indeed, there is a requirement per WP:NPOV to represent the aspects giving different points an appropriate weight. Here are the facts:

• as Fleetham correctly pointed out, the other claims inserted to note#7 present a different information than Andolfatto's claims, namely the fact that The major news sites seem to view the ability to purchase things like child pornography as having a major impact on their perception of bitcoins and its "moral status"
• following the Andolfatto's claims there is an editorializing sentence starting with "Despite this", which builds a false impression that the claims contradict each other, which they do not, as Fleetham acknowledges.
• the "moral status" claims added to note#7 are copies of the text already present in the article
• Andolfatto's facilitation-related observations are not represented in any other place in the article, they are only in note#7

Summing up, the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As explained here, I removed the duplicates of the claims already present in the article. (see edit #635351791 and the justification I wrote here. Fleetham reverted using this unjustified revert. I do not start any edit war, I am just pointing out that:

• the revert was unjustified
• the revert worsened the readability of note#7, making it much longer
• the revert inserted copies of the claims already existing in the article. It is not true that balace can be achieved by repetition of claims, quite the opposite is true. I see the repetition as an obvious example of undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really polite to post your view on a talk page and then remove cited material saying you're doing so "per talk." That indicates that a consensus was reached when in this case none was. Again, I struggle to understand the meat of your argument--it seems that for you, it's repetition of material that is most offensive. As I see it, that's what the lede is for... to summarize the article. Perhaps the material should be removed from the note and placed in the lede itself? That would allay your stated concerns of repetition (the lede is nothing but a repetition of material stated in the body of the article) and the readability of the note (moving the material to the lede would reduce the note's length). Please let me know what you think! 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: You wrote: it's not really polite to post your view on a talk page and then remove cited material saying you're doing so "per talk." That indicates that a consensus was reached when in this case none was. - I do not think this is the proper forum to discuss politeness. However, I see this as the proper forum to discuss accuracy of statements:

• regarding my purported removal of the cited material: you justified your edit #635045120 as follows: replaced "despite this" per talk page request. This confirms that you were aware of my summary finding that the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. and that The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way.
• Taking into account that you did not take the opportunity to respond to the finding while being aware of it for some time, I find your claim that there was no consensus inaccurate and misrepresenting verifiable facts.
• In the light of the finding that the cited claims remained in the article, your formulation remove cited material is yet another claim misrepresenting the known facts.

Re: --it seems that for you, it's repetition of material that is most offensive. As I see it, that's what the lede is for... to summarize the article. - frankly, I do not think there is something "offensive" in the text of the article. I just see a problem with readability of the note - the note is not supposed to restate the text that can be found next to the place where the note is used. To not forget about the due weight in relation to the purpose of the lead section to summarize the article:

• The article currently cites 267 distinct sources.
• The lead section contains 5 paragraphs.
• The duplicate text added to the note#7 cites 3 of the article sources, i.e., it represents 1% of the cited sources.
• The paragraph #4 already summarizes claims verified by those 3 sources, specifically it says: Bitcoins are used to purchase illicit items—including child pornography, credit card details, and drugs—at deep web black markets,... In June 2014, GQ journalist Marshall Sella concluded that what remained of the Silk Road black market site was one of the few places where one could purchase items for bitcoins. This summary looks quite sizeable in relation to the actual weight of the cited sources.
• Your question: "Perhaps the material should be removed from the note and placed in the lede itself?" disregards the fact that the summary already is present in the lead section. I cannot believe that you honestly think that restating all claims once more would give the 1% opinion the due weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham I dont think your #633586783 edit was reasonable. I agree with Ladislav. I dont agree with your reactions and replies above, which are more emotional (accusation of impoliteness) than guided by facts. It's neither fair nor justified to say Ladislav is pushing his opinion. You two may have differences in opinion, and I see yours incorporated, but you for one are not adhering to WP rules by using editorializing and repeating. I find it very unwise to employ WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it's passive-aggressive and ultimately uncooperative. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for being WP:BOLD, but I moved the statements to the lede themselves. The main issue is one of fairly representing the major viewpoints on the issue per WP:NPOV, and I suggest editors reference this rule when they continue to discuss their agreement or disagreement with this decision. Simply saying, "I don't agree with you because I think you are emotional" isn't really a valid way to reach a rule-based consensus. Please remember that WP:NPOV states says "a neutral point of view (NPOV)... means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Fleetham (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the significant views must be represented fairly and proportionately. That is why I spent the effort to calculate the proportions. Your edit #633586783 may have been WP:BOLD. However, repetition in general is not the proper way to WP:NPOV, and my proportional analysis reveals that the repetition not only did not bring any improvement as far as the proportions are measured, making a disproportionate mess of note#7. What is worse, your edit #635363006 still remains an unjustified revert going against the consensus that demonstrably existed at the moment you did it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: This is a dispute handling the neutrality of the article. To remind you, there have been these findings related to your edits:

• edit #633444683 violated WP:NPOV - As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.
• edit #633445806 violated WP:NPOV, trying to "dispel" the opinion your previous edit #633444683 deleted from the article
• edit #633586783 put undue weight to opinions by unnecessarily repeating them
• edit #635363006 was an unjustified revert going against the existing consensus
• edits #635438273, #635438747 and #635439305 were disruptive edits ignoring the ongoing neutrality dispute explicitly warning you against unbalancing the article by unnecessarily duplicating claims (@Wuerzele: I had to warn Fleetham.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the contents of the paragraph #4 of the lead section to the status quo. That does not mean I am content with its present wording. There are issues that must be handled:

• The first sentence of the paragraph claims: Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny..., while the cited source states: A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings... It is not possible to use the will hold hearings.. formulation referring to an expected future event to confirm that the event actually did happen. (I mark the claim as dubious to signal that this issue must be resolved.) Moreover, the hearings had some result/results, and it does not make sense for the Misplaced Pages to inform about them using an article that just expects the hearings to happen. Alternatively, if the consensus turns out to be to just understand the hearings as a "historic" event, it may be possible to move this part to the "History" section.
• It is possible to summarize the opinions criticizing bitcoin, but it is necessary to give a properly weighted short summary, not a duplicate of formulations presented in the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer that you "comment on content, not on the contributor" per Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Let's keep the conversation civil and focused on achieving a rules-based consensus. Fleetham (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple explanation, if you did not notice it yet. All the edits listed above by me are edits related to the note#7 and the issues we are discussing here. I did not refer to any unrelated issues irrelevant to the present discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no--it's not about "unrelated issues." It's about making WP:PA. Please be polite. Fleetham 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue the discussion about the content with respect to the neutral point of view. Above I proposed that the first sentence of the paragraph #7 of the lead section misquoted its source, pretending that the hearing actually "has been" held, while the source clearly stated that it was written by The Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy on 5 November 2013 before the event started. The same Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy wrote on 18 November 2014 2013: 'U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' This is the actual report from the hearings containing facts from the hearings, not a preview written before the scrutiny started. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This demonstrates that the current first sentence of the paragraph #4 is nonneutral in presenting the preview opinion as a fact, instead of properly using the facts from the source informing about the event. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account that it is infeasible to list all items that can be purchased with bitcoins in the lead section, it is also inappropriate and nonneutral to list all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoins. Therefore, the list of illicit items should be removed from the lead. Similarly, it is infeasible to list all opinions on bitcoin, therefore, to be nonneutral, it is also not avisable to list all the opinion Fleetham tried to introduce. Also, it is infeasible to list all the merchants offering goods or services for bitcoin, therefore one should not single out Silk Road either. To not leave out important informations, I propose to use this formulation replacing the current wording of the paragraph #4:

The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2014 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.

The text is verified by above mentioned Washington Post article. The proposed wording represents the concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit purchases balanced by the result of the senate hearings. Importantly, this wording also respects the reservations presented by Creationlayer, and does not present journalist opinions, but facts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from mentioning "anonymity" since that is very questionable right now. I remember seeing a report on the web about bitcoin transactions not being anonymous any more to investigating authorities with highly developed tools with them saying something about "even when they (the bad guys) use Tumblr".JorgeGabriel (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. To make the formulation both neutral as well as consensual, I propose this updated wording of the paragraph #4:

The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2014 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Can" should be "could", shouldn´t it? JorgeGabriel (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the source says "can", and it is not the only source stating that. Actually, I do not doubt bitcoin can facilitate illicit trades as well as legal trades. (I know that there are criminals preferring cash for privacy reasons.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean with using "could", the conditional tense, is that we are not 100% sure that bitcoin would be used for criminal activities. Anything we state about crime is uncertain. Only if it were to be used as such (a condition, not a certainty) then "bitcoin could help to facilitate crimes". Using "can" means we are 100% sure bitcoin is used in crime and thus we are 100% sure bitcoin can falilitate those crimes. We are not 100% sure of that since we are not 100% sure of the crimes. We normally use "could" when we are not absolutely sure about something in the future. The proposed statement makes it look as if it is a good thing that bitcoin can do: great! bitcoin can facilitate crimes: that seems to be a good thing bitcoin is doing. What we actually wish to state is that only if bitcoin were to be used in criminal activities, then it could facilitate those crimes because of this and that. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do admit I am being a little pedantic. It is not that serious a matter. You can ignore it too, if you so wish. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean with using "could", the conditional tense, is that we are not 100% sure that bitcoin would be used for criminal activities. Anything we state about crime is uncertain. Only if it were to be used as such (a condition, not a certainty) then "bitcoin could help to facilitate crimes". Using "can" means we are 100% sure bitcoin is used in crime and thus we are 100% sure bitcoin can falilitate those crimes. - and you think you are "pedantic" ;-). Now here is what "pedantic" looks like:

• I think that can facilitate does not mean that it is used that way. It just means that when used that way it will facilitate. As opposed to that, could facilitate means that the facilitating aspect is less certain.
• Misplaced Pages is not about what "we" think, it is about what the sources claim. In this case the source claims "can".

I understand your "You can ignore it too, if you so wish." to mean that we actually achieved the necessary consensus on the neutral wording of the paragraph #4, and therefore on the wording of the section. Thank you for your cooperation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:-) JorgeGabriel (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: thank you for correcting the mismatch in dates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Creationlayer: @JorgeGabriel: @Wuerzele: - you may have already noticed that Fleetham made edits contradicting the consensus achieved above. I warned him that he is disrupting the consensus, but did not succeed to convince him to stop. The only way how to proceed further is if one of you tries to convince Fleetham to stop making edits that are not compatible with the WP policies. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Enhancing the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart

Hi, I think that it is possible to enhance the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart to it. There are already two sources containing charts related to the subject. One of the related charts is the chart #7 in the Bitcoin Charts, Finally article. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives also contains charts depicting bitcoin volatility. I guess that it would be best to take the above mentioned chart #7 as the basis. There are some issues I am having with the chart, though:

• The chart depicts only a small part of available historic data.
• The volatility is calculated on a 14-day basis. That is not standard, more common is to calculate volatility on a 30-day basis. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives does that.
• However, even the standard, 30-day basis seems to be much better suited for established assets or currencies than for the nascent bitcoin. The author of the Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives article acknowledges this fact stating that the volatility calculated this way "jumps from moderate values to values beyond 30%", while, in my opinion, it does not make sense to present such "moderate values", because they do not, in fact, represent the true volatility of bitcoin. The true volatility of bitcoin calculated on a yearly basis is, as professor Mark T. Williams also cited in the section revealed, significantly larger than 30%. Therefore, my idea is to add a "Price versus volatility" chart to the section, using a larger range of dates and volatility calculated on the yearly basis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a chart would be good. A picture is worth a thousand words. Obviously, the chart has to be a log scale chart.JorgeGabriel (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of it, it makes sense to use the log scale for the USD/bitcoin axis, while the volatility axis and the date axis will look best linearly scaled. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The correct term is semi-log chart. However, the popular use in the press, etc. is to use log scale when they mean semi-log. Log-log scale is very rarely required. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

@JorgeGabriel: your recent additions to the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section are unrelated to the subject. There once was a "Ponzi scheme" subsection in the "Criminal activities" section, which contained the news you are referring to, using even better sources than your contributions. The contents was removed by Fleetham. Please discuss here if you want the contents to be restored, I do not object against it, I just insist that this particular contents is not subject to dispute and does not belong to the "...dispute" section where you put it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if the contents could be restored. I do think it is noteworthy that there are sporadic instances of ponzi schemes using bitcoin. I agree with you that it is not relevant to the dispute whether the entire bitcoin concept is a ponzi scheme or not. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the article: the "Criminal Activity" subsection definitely needs a Ponzi Scheme subsubsection. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, it is strange to deal with "Ponzi Schemes" in two locations. It seems logical to deal with it in one location. In order to justify two locations for dealing with the same subject, very distinctive headings should be used. I have no suggestions, at the moment. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I restored the contents to the "Criminal activities" section. Feel free to improve it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Report of the Federal Council (Switzerland)

Note 14 should be translated into English. This is the English Misplaced Pages. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To explain the note: per WP:A#Language it is possible to use foreign language sources if there are no equivalent sources in English. (In this case there aren't, the report by the Federal Council (Switzerland) is not available in English.) In such case, per WP:A#Language, " the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves", which is what I have done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I follow the logic. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I just found the English translation of the document, replacing the citation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Ladislav Mecir

90 minutes is not enough to establish a consensus, especially given that many of us work 9-5 jobs and can't keep monitoring your constant stream of edits. So I restored the content that you removed (thus pushing a biased POV). Vladimir old chap I think you need to take a small wiki-break from wiki-editing. You're constantly reverting and editing people's edits to push your pro-bitcoin agenda and there's hardly an opening for any other properly-cited yet somewhat-negative-to-bitcoin-aficionados to get a word in. Why not get off the computer and take a small holiday? When you come back, the article will be in much better shape. BoA-BTCopsec-14 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see, your account is younger than the consensus you are trying to disrupt. Please try to read Misplaced Pages policies and rules first. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus is not "disrupted", it is changed. Secondly, your account is younger than a lot of the consensus you try to change, but that's equally irrelevant (and yes, I've seen the age of your account). - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of consensus in lede

There doesn't appear to be a current consensus on how the lede should deal with the issue of criminality and bitcoin... While one editor (Ladislav) appeared to have gotten a consensus that the phrase "bitcoin is a subject of scrutiny" should be removed, the entire paragraph that began with that quote was removed and replaced by what appeared to be POV-pushing material... I went ahead and removed the "subject of scrutiny" phrasing from the lede, but further changes should be discussed. There's no firm consensus on removing an entire paragraph related to bitcoin being used in online black markets. Fleetham (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits trying to override the consensus achieved above are not welcome. Regardless of your opinion, you were not supposed to start disruptive editing. You know better what the Misplaced Pages policies are. If the consensus was achieved, then you are not supposed to override it on your own. If you pretend it was not achieved, then the proper way would be to continue discussing instead of making disruptive edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't act like you own the bitcoin page. Have you read WP:OWN? It is clear that you have a particular point of view to push regarding Bitcoin and will ceaselessly revert, label as vandalism or otherwise mess with edits that any other editor makes that don't fit with your particular point of view. I claim that it is you, Mr. Mecir, who is the main disruption to this article and call on you to solemnly reflect on your actions and whether you are, in fact, keeping with established Misplaced Pages policies. BoA-BTCopsec-14 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not being a criminal, I have never read (never had an interest in reading) the subsection about black markets until today. I have contributed content regarding Ponzi schemes since it is in my area of interest, namely finance. Having now read the subsection titled Black Market, I think that it is an excellent subsection and a summary of it should definitely appear in the lede. On a conceptual basis, I think I agree with the view in the subsection that bitcoin´s success has a lot to do with how perfect it is for criminal activity. Bitcoin wants to be money. It is not money. The closer bitcoin could get to money, the more successful it would be and the more it would be used in crime which would be good for bitcoin. A virtuous loop? :-) Money is perfect for crime and always will be. However, no-one would today try and do away with money because it is perfect for crime. The same applies to bitcoin. I am sure that the more perfectly bitcoin is used for crime, the more successful it will be in the future. In this respect, bitcoin has a lot of bad luck in the fact that transactions can be traced. That makes it worse for crime and also less like money. A doubly-whammy bad luck for bitcoin. So, bitcoin supporters should hope for (support) the perfection of bitcoin for crime.JorgeGabriel (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Is the following version a summary of what is in the article? "The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.". To me it appears - after a glance at the article - that this is not a summary of what is in the text. This is new content - not already in the article. Am I wrong? JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

...the more it would be used in crime which would be good for bitcoin... - while your opinion on this may be interesting, it is not appropriate here. The purpose of this talk is to discuss the contents of the article, not what is or isn't good for bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

...This is new content - not already in the article. Am I wrong? - yes, the hearings are already described in the article, and the reference to the hearing was present in the lead section for long time before the neutrality dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. JorgeGabriel (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added Ladislav's text about someone saying "legitimate financial service" at a US congressional hearing to the lede. It looks like there's a clear consensus to add this material. Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that the same WSJ article used to cite the above-mentioned content also says the sole Senator who attended the hearing "expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including 'selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services.'" Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin Foundation

A recent editor removed sourced content that explained that while many bitcoin thefts have occurred, the Bitcoin Foundation states that theft is impossible. The note left explaining this removal stated: "The Bitcoin Foundation clearly claims that theft is impossible if and only if the private key is secure. If that weren't the case, the system would not work. In every single instance of theft, the key was improperly secured."

This is false. The Bitcoin Foundation states, in full, "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal bitcoins. To ensure that Bitcoin is a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we legally protect the protocol and its many lawful, productive uses.". See this page.

No where in that is mention of securing private keys. Please take more care when editing...

Are you looking to have your edits reverted? Apologies in advance if that's a WP:PA... Fleetham (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What is false? If it were possible to steal Bitcoin without first stealing the private key, the system would not work. This is a fact. I believe it is painfully obvious that Bitcoin Foundation does not state that the theft of a private key is impossible. "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success" clearly assumes that the private key is kept private, not leaked in any fashion. I am reverting your revert. That statement adds nothing but confusion, especially if you read the following few sentences. Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statement itself may or may not be false. It may be absolutely factually true that you cannot ever steal bitcoin if the privatekey is properly secured (a proposition requiring varying levels of effort as in all cryptography, and admitting various definitions of "secured") - but this is not the proposition the Bitcoin Foundation makes. Sourcing commentary on bitcoin to The Bitcoin Foundation may have problems of its own, but you can only use a source for what it says. You cannot infer what they mean by "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success". That no one can steal bitcoin is a pretty broad statement to make and it may be untrue without your qualification 'no one can steal bitcoin that has a properly secured private key'. But we're editors, not writers, and it is not for us to rephrase a statement to go beyond the literal interpretation of its text via synthesis or original research. Raeft (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do believe our goal here is to create a reliable fact-based encyclopedia despite contradictory claims by different sources ripe for misinterpretation, is that not so? If so, I think it is reasonable to attempt to understand what the Bitcoin Foundation is implying by "Cryptography is the key " Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it not true that all bitcoins exist only in the blockchain?. Thus, what were stolen were the access to the private keys or the private keys. All bitcoins "lost" or "stolen" in the past, means, in fact, that the access or the actual keys were lost or stolen. It is absolutely impossible for the bitcoins to leave (be removed) from the blockchain. Even the lost or stolen ones are still in the blockchain - now without legal owners? Or is that statement that "all bitcoins only exist in the blockchain" wrong? JorgeGabriel (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking here. Yes, Bitcoins only exist in the domain of SHA256, they have no other representation. Yes, the only possible way to swipe Bitcoin from the rightful owner is to somehow steal the private key. Bitcoin does not have a concept of legal ownership. The proof of ownership is the knowledge of the private key. If the knowledge of the private key is shared among more than one party, then at best you get shared ownership, until one of the parties who knows the private key moves the money to a different, non-shared, address, securing individual ownership. My point here is that the Bitcoin Foundation clearly assumes that the private key is not shared in any way, otherwise "Cryptography is the key " is simply not relevant. The qualifier is implicit, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally misinterpret the claim. Mrcatzilla (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"moves the money to a different, non-shared, address, securing individual ownership." You are wrong here, aren´t you? Nothing gets "moved" and there is no "money" involved. Bitcoin is not money. The bitcoins stay put in the blockchain - forever. The private key gets "secured" in a new location that is only accessible by one keyholder? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I concede the key is moved. Not the bitcoins. Is that correct.? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Obviously, your statement: "Bitcoin does not have a concept of legal ownership." cannot possibly be correct? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems you have a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works, I am going to attempt to correct that.

Bitcoin is essentially a reincarnation of the Rai stones, with the exception that instead of recording the ownership history of the token by oral tradition "everyone in the village knows that stone belongs to John", Bitcoin uses a decentralized cryptographically secure ledger (the block chain) to record ownership history. In addition, Bitcoin is an automaton and is completely disconnected from the physical world, unlike the stone money that was tied to actual persons. To solve the issue, Bitcoin uses a public-private key cryptosystem where ownership of tokens is recorded as belonging to a particular public key. To spend the money belonging to a public key, a transaction must be created using at least one input (a transaction to the address) and one output (a public key of any address). This transaction must be cryptographically signed with the private key in order to be deemed valid by the network. Thus, the blockchain being public knowledge, anyone can create and sign a transaction using the private key corresponding to the spending address, provided that they know the private key.

Very good example: the private key of the brainwallet created by using the passphrase 'correct horse battery staple', a "good" password mentioned in a popular xkcd comic, public address 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T, is public knowledge: 5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS (you can check this yourself at brainwallet.org). Thus, any money sent to that address is up for grabs for literally anyone in the world. Whoever grabs it first and sends it to an address that no one else knows the key to is the new actual owner. Take a look at the transaction history on that address: https://blockchain.info/address/1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T

I hope I have sufficiently explained why Bitcoin has no concept of legal ownership. It is self-evident if you know the above.

Also, Bitcoin is clearly money as it is a tradeable token of value. Mrcatzilla (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me summarize the state of this dispute. After the edit #636087685, there was this sentence:

There have been many cases of bitcoin theft despite claims made by the Bitcoin Foundation that theft is impossible.

While both parts of the sentence are properly sourced, the whole sentence fits the description at WP:SYN stating: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thus, the sentence is a synthesis of the published material. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme dispute

Edit #635867692 uses the following justification: Restoring original version per WP:BRD. It makes no sense to include these names per WP:NPOV, especially given the sources themselves.

These are the reasons why the edit is not negotiable and must be reverted:

• The edit does not "restore original version". There never was an "original version" looking like that. This makes the justification invalid.
• The section name is "Ponzi scheme dispute" to indicate that the statements contained in the section are opinions. Per WP:NPOV, opinions "should be attributed in the text to particular sources". The version proposed by Aoidh tries to attribute, e.g., Jim Gibson's opinion or Jeremy Kirk's opinion to bitcoin supporters. However, neither Jim Gibson nor Jeremy Kirk are identified as "bitcoin supporters". Consequently, the edit misattributes the opinions, and must be reverted per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That wording has been in the article for somewhere around six months, and was determined after a discussion that you took part in. Hardly invalid. Further, you cannot change the name of the section to try to selectively choose what can go in the section. The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. To include Jim Gibson or Jeremy Kirk without qualifying who they are presents undue weight; they have no Misplaced Pages article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters, so why, other than cherry-picking them out because they support a particular viewpoint, should they be included, by name? They shouldn't. That is why the edit was reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. - OK, why then do you want to use different sources when they do not support the content and unconvincingly pretend you are reverting to WP:STATUSQUO? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not accept the wording you are pushing for as WP:STATUSQUO, since it is not WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to "pretend". The sentence, worded exactly as it is now, has been in the article for about nine months now (since April), and was added as part of the preceding sentence in February. It has been a stable part of the article for almost a year now; it is the status quo. - Aoidh (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, sounds like its a good time to challenge that almost a year old mistake. I support naming individual sources instead of generalizing and assigning that opinion to all "bitcoin supporters". Either we're going to name individuals for the sake of neutrality or remove the reference altogether. "They have no Misplaced Pages article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters", you said. Perhaps their opinion is not notable enough to appear in this article, either. Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Aoidh, I have to agree with Mrcatzilla agreeing with Ladislav Mecir it's time to correct the problems of the section.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To resolve the things in a clean way, I summarize the issues violating WP:NPOV in the section:

• The first sentence in the section starts with Various journalists and it is verified by this article. The WP:NPOV states: ...opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. While the opinion is attributed to Various journalists, The Slate identifies the author as Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Therefore, the attribution to Various journalists is a misattribution. The opinion professor Pozner presents in his article is: A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.. In contrast to Pozner's opinion, the text in the section states voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme, which is a misrepresentation of Pozner's opinion.
• The sentence continues with U.S. Economist Nouriel Roubini, this time verified by two different articles. The Business Insider article states in Roubini's voice: Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities, while the CNBC states that Roubini declared bitcoin a Ponzi scheme and a lousy store of value. This time, the attribution is proper, but neither of the sources does state that Roubini voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme. To not attribute conflicting opinions to Roubini, we should pick the most accurate citation. Since the primary source for the claims is available, citing the Business Insider looks the most accurate.
• The sentence ends with head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela, cited by Bloomberg L.P. The attribution is proper this time. The citation in the source is: All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme Since other banks are cited in the subsequent text, it makes sense to also cite the Estonian central bank to make sure no misrepresentation occurs.
• The subsequent sentence states: Bitcoin supporters disagree. This is yet another misattribution, since there is no citation identifying the authors of the respective articles as bitcoin supporters. Moreover, the opinions of the respective authors are not represented by stating that they disagreee while not giving a hint with what they actually disagree. This si a nonneutral treatment of both opinions.
• There was another opinion in the wording from April 2014, which Aoidh deleted. This opinion, for some reason, does not suit him well, even though the replacement sources don't fit the wording at all, adding to the nonneutrality of the wording he is trying to enforce now. For some sentimental reasons (mainly the fact that the source has been accepted for that long, but became suddenly unacceptable for Aoidh now), I prefer to keep the opinion. The fact is that the source is a primary source, but that does not matter at all, since it is used only to verify that there is a specific opinion contained in it, which is exactly the purpose for which primary sources are acceptable. If there is a perception that it could violate any balance, it is still possible to add a source presenting an opinion of a journalist or two that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. While such a formulation has been present in the article, there is currently no source verifying that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of the article written by John Mather and published by the economist Jeffrey Tucker. Since they both have articles in Misplaced Pages, they actually are notable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) As for the notability of the Huffington Post article or the PC World article. I do not know whether the authors are notable or not. In case the authors aren't notable we should write an attribution like: The Huffington Post stated:... , or The PC World stated:..., since both The Huffington Post and the PC World are notable. It surely is more neutral than misattributing the opinion to bitcoin supporters. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing we should make sure of: can any of the statements be considered a fact instead of being an opinion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To take care of the above listed WP:NPOV issues and handle the matters in a neutral way, I propose the following wording of the section (the "verification" notes are in place of citations verifying the opinions):

The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme stating: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by ) Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School stated: "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities."(verification by Business Insider already present in the article) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", answering the question: "No!" The PC World stated: "While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment." Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2012 report by the European Central Bank states, "it easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi.(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article)

Since nobody criticized the proposed wording, let me pick the glove and find a problem in it: the first part of the citation from the Federal Council report is actually not an opinion, but it is a fact, confirmed also by, e.g., the report by the European Central Bank. By WP:NPOV it should be stated as a fact, in Misplaced Pages's own voice. My proposal is to state it in Misplaced Pages's own voice as follows: "The question whether bitcoin can be deemed a pyramid or a Ponzi scheme is recurrent." Is there an agreement on this wording of the introducing sentence of the section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, Thanks for your diligence dissecting and prepping this section and patience with your fellow editors. I admit that the topic isnt dear to my heart and b) I've seen too many Ponzi scheme disputes between you and Aoidh over the past 10 months that I just didnt want to deal with it. That said, I think your points are well taken. The Ponzi scheme opinions by the press and the analyses by governmental and supranational bodies needed to be phrased without editorializing and creation of two camps.

In answer to your question can one use the term fact? I would leave the term fact out of here, because all of these are opinions; in the case of the ECB, the World Bank, and Federal Council they are layers and layers of opinion, called expert opinion in analogy to the levels of evidence, as used in the classification ofmedical world- individuals esp with COI are similar to 'anecdotal evidence' and analysis by a group or gremium is higher level evidence. But fact? No.

I found 2 more references mentioning Ponzi scheme, but am not sure if we want to include them: Russian Central Bank opinion, Febr 2014 and a July 2014 Bitcoin paper prepared for the US Congressional Research Service, a good, non-partisan WP:RS-we have an older one in our references already. The authors describe the 2 instances of ponzi scheme trials, basta. There's no discussion is it or is it not, which is the most matter-of-factual treatment of the topic I have seen to date.

I agree with Ladislav's wording, particularly since it addresses Aoidh's concerns. Have the following small changes: order opinions chronologically, also because there may be an opinion shift over time, add detail re the "voice" of the NY Post (not a journalist, but managing member at Pendulum Capital Management)-its always betterto specify than call it the newspapers opinion-, and Roubini (formerIMF etc), and otherwise small copy edits/wikilinks.

A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, "it easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi".(verification already present in the article) 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."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities."(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by ) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", and answered the question "No!". The PC World stated: "While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment." Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article, add page 21)

AoidhThe ball is and has been in your field since Dec 2. I see you've been editing other pages since, so I d like to draw your attention to this section, have you participate in the discussion and help in getting this worked out. If you do not, I think it's fair for us to interpret your silence as agreement with the compromise above.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for the improvements. I agree to treat all statements as opinions, and find your proposed wording of the section acceptable. Also the chronological order is fine. Questions (I do not mean them as disagreement with the proposed wording, take them as brainstorming ideas):

• professor Pozner expressed he is uncertain about the "delusion", so I wonder whether it would not be better to replace his citation by: "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago saw the contrast between Ponzi scheme and bitcoin in the fact that Ponzi scheme is fraudulent."
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of PC World article to: "bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme".
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Nouriel Roubini to: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi game"
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Mihkel Nummela to: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, agree with your proposals to shorten quotes to the core, except for the first one. I see no sensible way to shorten this statement and would stick with what is.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To make the things clear for newcomers to the dispute without requiring them to reread the above, this is the last wording after the quotes are shortened to the core:

A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, "it easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi".(verification already present in the article) 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."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game"(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by ) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", and answered the question "No!". The PC World stated: "bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme". Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article, add page 21)

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis in the lead section

The formulation:

Although its status as a currency is disputed, media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency.

Fits the definition of WP:SYNTH since it combines different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion that the claims may contradict each other, while no such implication is present in the source. To correct it, I propose to replace the formulation by:

Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed.

Keeping the citation already present in the article to verify the claims. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Mrcatzilla (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

True.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding removal of black market gloss in lede

A recent contributor has removed material relating to bitcoin's use in online black markets (see diff here). Supposedly, this is in accordance with a consensus reached at Talk:Bitcoin#Achieving neutral point of view. However, not only was removal of the material not discussed in that thread, a participant in that consensus, JorgeGabriel, stated in a separate talk thread (Talk:Bitcoin#Lack of consensus in lede) that "having now read the subsection titled Black Market, I think that it is an excellent subsection and a summary of it should definitely appear in the lede." Fleetham (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but I'll be re-including the material soon. Fleetham (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The contributor saw the dispute and understood that the removal was discussed in it,citing the reason why the material was removed. Regarding JorgeGabriel's opinion, I asked him specifically whether he wanted to change his opinion on the subject, and he wrote: " I would rather just withdraw from this dispute." This obviously does not support your proposed change. I am against such a change as well, since it would make the lead section biased for the reasons specified above: it is not possible to list the ways how to make illicit purchases, if not balanced by a similar list of legal purchases, but such a list would be too big not only for the lead section, but also for the whole article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, since the contributor in question, JorgeGabriel, made the comment that "a summary of should definitely appear in the lede" it appears that he would like to see the material in the lede. You seem suggest otherwise, but I'm unsure on what basis. Fleetham (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And just as a reminder, WP:LEAD states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Fleetham (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

JorgeGabriel expressed the opinion in this edit. I recall that other editors took part in the above dispute, and the change proposed here will be biased and usupported by consensus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Simpy because an editor decides to withdraw from a discussion due to "argument fatigue" does not mean the statements he or she made prior are suddenly irrelevant. I have yet to hear one rules-based reason why the material shouldn't be included in the lede. Fleetham (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the "concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes" is already represented in the lead in a balanced way. Your proposed addition can only disbalance the state listing all ways how to make illicit purchases. That does not belong to the lead section, since it is not a short summary of the matter, and since it is not balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Importantly, there is still a consensus that the change proposed here would not be a short summary, and that it would disbalance the lead section by listing all the illicit purchases possible to make. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Also, importantly, the opinion presented in the lead section is a summary opinion made by representatives of all law enforcement agencies represented at the senate hearings. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I actually have no idea what you're talking about... Perhaps you could be more perspicuous because WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Fleetham (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm asking you to explain further. There is no consensus I am aware of, and I'm actually not sure why it's in any way important that "the opinion presented in the lead section is a summary opinion made by representatives of all law enforcement agencies represented at the senate hearings." In any case, that's false, as the only law enforcement body quoted in the lede currently is the US Department of Justice while the same article you pulled the DoJ quote from states that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Secret Service have also been present at congressional hearings per the following quote,

"At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it." At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies."

Likewise, the "summary opinion" of the DoJ is not necessarily that bitcoin is a legitimate financial service, as a DoJ employee is quoted above as saying, "the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement." Fleetham (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've asked multiple times for clarification. You say "there already is a consensus" but I really would appreciate it if you could point that out to me. I do not believe that there is such a consensus. Fleetham (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm going to go ahead and put the material back into the lede soon. Fleetham (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I've asked several times for clarification and for you to point me to where I can find some consensus that the material is to be removed. You have not done so instead simply reverting attempts to replace the content. Consensus can change, and as myself and another editor have expressed a desire to see the material covered in the lede, it appears that consensus is currently in favor of keeping the content. Please discuss not revert. Fleetham (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy + paste from news article in lede

The lede currently contains a mention of a US Senate hearing about virtual currencies that is copied and pasted from the article it cites. The lede section reads:

The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.

The source, a WSJ article, reads,

WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks. The price of bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.

U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.

Is Bitcoin another flash in the pan? Or are the early investors onto something -- that will make them rich? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. More Price Zooms Ahead of Hearing Read the Regulators' Testimony Bits and Pieces Mystery still surrounds Bitcoin. Its creator -— or creators -— has remained anonymous and specific details surrounding the history of the virtual currency remain fuzzy. Still, buzz is growing. Here's a rough timeline of the Bitcoin evolution.

View Graphics

"The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce," Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the department's criminal division, said in testimony before the SenateHomeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who didn't attend the hearing, said in a letter to senators that virtual currencies "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."

Enlarge Image

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman, at hearing. Associated Press The price of bitcoin soared early Monday after the officials' statements were widely reported. On one exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, the price topped $700. Bitcoin traded at about $13 in January.

The total market capitalization of the bitcoin economy now exceeds $8 billion based on recent prices, according to the website Bitcoincharts.com.

The congressional hearing is the first of two being held this week, with the Senate Banking Committee expected to hear from a senior Treasury Department official and a Massachusetts banking regulator on Tuesday. Despite interest in bitcoin, Monday's hearing was attended by only one member of the Senate panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who chairs the committee. Other senators were still en route to Washington after spending the weekend in their home states.

Enlarge Image

Gabriel Scheare uses the world's first bitcoin ATM in October at a coffee shop in Vancouver, Canada. The ATM, named Robocoin, allows users to buy or sell the digital currency. Getty Images Sen. Carper didn't outline any legislative proposals for digital money and said he was focused on gathering information. "Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others and confused the heck out of the rest of us, including me," Sen. Carper said.

Bitcoin is a four-year-old virtual currency that isn't backed by a central bank and can be traded on a number of exchanges or swapped privately. Its price has vaulted to records in recent weeks, fueled by investor views that the virtual currency can have a credible future as an alternative to traditional methods of payment. A number of merchants are accepting bitcoin as payment because the transaction costs associated with the currency are generally lower than those with credit or debit cards.

The skyrocketing prices of bitcoin, along with the use of the currency by both online and brick-and-mortar retailers, have caught Washington's attention. Regulators have warned money-transfer businesses they must follow the same rules as established financial institutions, including complying with anti-money-laundering laws. Authorities have begun meeting with other government agencies to follow new developments, including one led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is tracking emerging threats related to the technology. Last month, authorities disclosed they took down Silk Road, an online marketplace for illicit goods that used bitcoin as a form of payment.

At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. (Photo: AP) U.S. law-enforcement officials outline the pitfalls and promise of virtual currencies at the first-ever Senate hearing on the matter. Aaron Lucchetti reports on the News Hub. (Photo: Getty) From the Archives Bitcoin Couple Leave Wallet Behind (Nov. 14, 2013) Hire Boosts Bitcoin Credibility (Nov. 14, 2013) For Virtual Prospectors, Life in the Bitcoin Mines Gets Real (Sept. 19, 2013) Bitcoin Primer: What to Know Video: What's a Bitcoin? Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it."

At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said virtual currency transactions are still relatively small in value compared with global criminal proceeds.

She said she didn't believe the virtual currencies had exposed significant gaps in current law. "We feel like we have a pretty good basis to act," she said. Ms. Shasky will attend Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Sen. Carper said he is "encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate" criminal activity.

However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services."

I propose that the material be removed from the lede and replaced with the version below.

The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US congressional hearing on virtual currencies, The Department of Justice "recognize that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services." The sole Senator who attended the hearing, Tom Carper, warned of bitcoin's role in facilitating the sale of illicit goods and services, however."

. Fleetham (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following wording:

The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US congressional hearing on virtual currencies, Tom Carper, a US Senator, warned of bitcoin's role in facilitating the sale of illicit goods and services. However, the Department of Justice "recognize that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services."

Mrcatzilla (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham , please clarify why you propose this change ( not evident), then I can comment on your proposal.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to respond here, but, due to shortage of time, I will only be able to do it much later today, thank you for your patience. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To recapitulate the state of the lead section:

• The section contains five paragraphs, the fourth one summarizing the fears related to possible illicit uses of bitcoin. The fifth summarizes the regulatory situation in USA and China. The opinion on the relation of the US government to bitcoin naturally belongs to the fifth one, and it is confirmed by its own sources. This is why I think that there is no need to duplicate it to the fourth paragraph.
• The fourth paragraph contains, and contained for quite a long time (before the above neutrality dispute) the information that there were fears by officials higlighting the role of bitcoin in illicit activities, that such fears preceded the first ever senate hearing in November 2014. Using a source that referred from the hearings, replacing the previous source by the same author which preceded the hearings, it was added that at the hearing the officials stated that they see bitcoin as a legitimate financial service. The above proposed wording removes the substantial information about the fears preceding the hearings. That is the second point in which I disagree with the newly proposed wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham , I asked you 2 days ago to clarify why you propose this non evident edit. YOu did not answer although you are editing, reverting and are commenting on editors on WP. Here is your chance to discuss CONTENT, which you advise others all teh time. You put me in a bind by not replying - I can't comment on your proposal.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section

In his revert #637305164 Fleetham wrote: "Discuss this on talk", while that is exactly the opposite of what he is doing. Pretending there was some consensus on his changes. Since that is actually not the case, I revert the head section to the consensual state following the last neutrality dispute and open this new dispute to find out whether there is any new consensus on the neutral wording of the section. I summarize my opinions here:

• The section contains five paragraphs, the fourth one summarizing the fears related to possible illicit uses of bitcoin. The fifth summarizes the regulatory situation in USA and China. The opinion on the relation of the US government to bitcoin naturally belongs to the fifth one, and it is confirmed by its own sources. This is why I think that there is no need to duplicate it to the fourth paragraph.
• The fourth paragraph contains, and contained for quite a long time the information that there were fears by officials higlighting the role of bitcoin in illicit activities, that such fears preceded the first ever senate hearing in November 2014. Using a source that referred from the hearings, replacing the previous source by the same author which preceded the hearings, it was added that at the hearing the officials stated that they see bitcoin as a legitimate financial service. The above proposed wording removes the substantial information about the fears preceding the hearings. That is the second point in which I disagree with the newly proposed wording.
• It is not neutral to list all illicit items that can be paid with bitcoin in the lead section, since it would need to be balanced by legal items that can be paid with bitcoin. Such lists are not summarizing and don't belong to the lead section.
• Similarly it is not neutral to introduce the darknet marketplaces using bitcoin in the lead section, the lead section is a summary and it also cannot contain legal marketplaces using bitcoin either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please avoid WP:PA. This is likely the second or third time that I've had to remind you to do this. You say that discussing the issue is "exactly the opposite of what doing." I'd like to point out Talk:Bitcoin#Regarding removal of black market gloss in lede. I repeatedly attempted to engage you in discussion on this very issue on that thread. Again, please be careful when talking about other editors and "focus on the content not the contributor" per WP:PA.

Secondly, I think a summary of the criminal activity section is warranted in the lede, and it doesn't appear you disagree. Am I correct in thinking this? Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fleetham's first action after this dispute was properly announced at the talk page is that he changed the status quo. That is not how a proper discussion Fleetham asked for can look.
• I consider it pointless to revert Fleetham's one-sided edit #637388139 trying to circumvent this discussion after it has started. For the record, the state before the edit was:
• I listed the reasons why recent Fleetham's changes are nonneutral. The summary of fears of illicit activities was in the lead section before Fleetham one-sidedly and without consensus made his edits.
• This dispute was started to give Fleetham the opportunity to achieve a change of consensus. However, Fleetham just proved that his preferred way of editing is to do what he wants and requiring other editors to discuss. It is not clear what can be discussed, if Fleetham disrespects any results of dispute that he dislikes, and relies on enforcing his will through edit warring.
• I maintain that the addition of a list of illicit items/services that can be bought with bitcoin is not neutral, since there is no balancing list of legal items and services that can be bought with bitcoin, nor it is the goal of the lead section. The lead section is supposed to contain summaries, not lists of items.
• I maintain that the naming of the Silk Road black market is not a neutral treatment of bitcoin markets, since there is no balancing list of legal markets where bitcoin can be used, nor it is the goal of the lead section to contain such lists.
• I also maintain that any sourced information that is not discussed in the article body does not belong to the lead section per the manual of style.
• This list explains the reservations I have with respect to Fleetham's editing practices not respecting the ongoing dispute and his attempts to make the lead section biased by incorporating whole lists of illicit items and mentions of Silk Road without respecting the necessity to rely on summaries and balanced views in the lead section.
• Observing the edit warring behaviour at two article sections today, I warned Fleetham also at his talk page to stop making the disruptive edits, being actually the second editor to do it, Wuerzele being the first to warn him. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I point out that Fleetham repeatedly states the reasons why he put the material to the lead section. He never tried to address the objections related to the nonneutral character of his edits, which is the main reason why this dispute is taking place. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research in the Black markets section

Fleetham reverted an "according to whom?" template added by Wuerzele, justifying the reversal as follows: "a logical conclusion needs no citation". That is an obvious disrespect to WP:NOR policy, and edit warring. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I flagged an unsourced statement, because it looks like WP:OR.

Fleetham reverted the edit which was not visible as such in his edit summary . I am no vandal that needs to be reverted, and suggested WP:TALKDONTREVERT on his talk page. Suggested if he was keen in getting flags off the page, why not start with the oldest and obvious, right at the front of the article about the lede's lack of neutrality. Since November 21 Ladislav has patiently and diligently worked with Fleetham on . The majority of editors involved editing the page have given their opinion to a proposed alternative, Fleetham did not, stonewalling the agreed upon process. Ladislav went through the trouble of filing an ANI, which for unclear reasons unfortunately went nowhere, so we're still dealing with this WP:POV tag for the lede.

Fleetham was also editwarring in November, violating 3RR with 5 reverts in 24 h, as noted by Ladislav and EdJohnston (admin warning) -and deleted the admin warning from his page. .--Wuerzele (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed 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
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Mid-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
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• C-Class Internet articles
• High-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class numismatic articles
• Low-importance numismatic articles
• WikiProject Numismatics articles
• Article Incubator graduates
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists