Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 21 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

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)

I see that the current wording achieved the necessary consensus. (Aoidh was alerted by Wuerzele and from his edits it can be detected that he does not intend to add another contribution to this dispute.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 13 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)

The reason brought this up is because it's likely a copyright violation. Per WP:COPYVIO, "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism."

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."

As anti-bitcoin rhetoric can be contentious, please let me know if Tom Carper's quote is disagreeable. Mrcatzilla and myself appear to support its inclusion while I would imagine that Wuerzele and Ladislav would oppose it. Fleetham (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My opinion on the proposed changes has been posted above, and it does not have anything in common with mentioning Tom Carper. Being at it, I did not see any warning from Tom Carper in the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

For a reminder, due to the repeated requests the neutrality dispute was started below, since Fleetham promised to discuss and change the previously achieved consensus. However often Fleetham declared his willingness to dissuss, the actual state is that he still has to take the neutrality of the lead section into account in the dispute instead of making unbalanced changes, nota bene after the discussion in which he promised to change the consensus has started. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So, just a heads up--as I have yet to hear anyone say NOT to switch out the copy+paste that's currently on the page, I will go ahead and do so soon... please register your complaints below if you're against this occurring. And @Ladislav Mecir: we have two quotes from Tom Carper. Perhaps instead of using the one I initially selected, the first one should be substituted? If you'd prefer to refer to his quote about bitcoins facilitating illicit purchases, you can have your choice of words and phrases that mean the same thing as "raise concern" if you don't like the one I selected, "warn."

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."

Fleetham (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: just to let you know, I'm going to go ahead and replace the WP:COPYVIO in the lede with what I proposed earlier. I don't feel I fully understand your stance on this... as it's clear that it's simply copy+pasted, it does have to go. If you don't like my proposed text, I do encourage you to add your input. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Just to let you know, but I replaced the copy+paste WP:COPYVIO that you added to the lede with the below text.

"The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US Senate 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, expressed a desire to see an end to virtual currencies' facilitation of the sale of illicit goods and services saying, " encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate "."

Fleetham (talk) 22:26, 16 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)

Well, I think the best way forward would be to come to a mutual agreement how best to summarize the criminal activity section in the lede. I'm not really sure how to respond to most of your comments many of which don't appear content-related. Fleetham (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So, again no discussion of neutrality at all? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to engage in a content related discussion, and I'm sure we can hammer out a summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually agreeable. Fleetham (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the neutrality of the contents. Any note on that? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Let's work together to create a lede summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually acceptable. Fleetham (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, when you say 'we can hammer out', I expect that you include me too, because your long term habit to refuse to communicate with me is incompatible with consensus. (I am still waiting for an answer to my question why you propose what you propose in another section about the lede above, 3rd reminder).

BothLadislav Mecir and Fleetham: the discussion is getting extremely spread out on way too many sections. I think non regular editors will be/are confused. There is PLENTY material on NPOV of lede on Talk:Bitcoin already and repeats of repeats are unconstructive. Please avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Let's all improve the signal-to-noise ratio, be concise, focus and get to the point. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Wuerzele. I will add a brief summary below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Brief summary

The WP:NPOV dispute at #Achieving neutral point of view has been resolved on 27 November 2014, by inserting a paragraph summarizing the fears of illicit uses of bitcoin.

Fleetham requested a discussion to change the consensus. Instead of discussing a change as declared, Fleetham inserted a duplicate of the list of illicit items that can be bought with bitcoins from the "Criminal activities" section.

That is not acceptable, being an unbalanced change, and a change not adhering to the policy to put summaries of contents of the article body to the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

End of the brief summary

Just to reiterate--I'm happy to participate in content discussions. Maybe you should ping me when one starts to occur? And thanks for recognizing that the lede is a place to put "summaries of contents of the article body." Fleetham (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To make things straight for other editors, this is a neutrality dispute that has been properly announced using the "POV-section" template, and started due to Fleetham's request. Since then, Fleetham announced his willingness to discuss the neutrality of the section here, but disproved his willingness making these edits that were found nonneutral and nonconsensual: , , , , .

(For interested editors, notice that Fleetham made himself one of the "above par" sources of the article, as his "as far as I know, bitcoins are ALWAYS seized when online black markets have been shut down" statement demonstrates, and an authority to remove sources he considers "below par" without a proper justification.)

Wuerzele TyHeers Scott Illini Pgan002 Creationlayer Mrcatzilla TimidGuy Chrisarnesen Richardbondi please check this balancing

Proposal

• This was the state of the lead section when the NPOV dispute started
• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, enhancing it to:

In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service.

End of the proposal

Justification:

• the changed wording is more specific in attributing the opinions
• the changed wording reflects the meaning of the source summary information, yet it uses a distinct formulation
• this wording both summarizes the concerns related to illicit activities using bitcoin, as well as presenting the summary in a neutral way, balancing the concerns with the finding that the currency is called "legitimate" financial service by officials Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) editor pings corrected --Wuerzele (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like your proposal would be better discussed here: Talk:Bitcoin#Copy + paste from news article in lede. Fleetham (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the problem I have with the proposed text is that it deviates greatly from the citations. The first source you use doesn't appear to support the idea that in "2013 U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities." For example, when mentioning the two Senators, the source reads, "By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies." Asking regulators and law-enforcement agencies about their policies is quite far removed from "expressing concern."

Furthermore, in your second sentence, you write that "at the senate hearing the officials... called the currency a "legitimate" financial service." This is misleading, as it makes it appear that all the officials previously mentioned were in agreement on bitcoin being a "legitimate" financial service. Only a DoJ official is quoted in the source using the word "legitimate."

Finally, the wording makes it seem that authorities who prior emphasized the use of bitcoin by criminals no longer did so after the hearing. This is untrue, as at the hearing itself a DoJ official stated, "the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement" and the sole Senator in attendance expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services". Also, at the hearing "officials from the U.S. Secret Service... and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin..."These are quote from the hearing itself, not before it.

I've coped and pasted the WSJ sources below because they are behind a paywall.

First citation

Bitcoin Comes Under Senate Scrutiny

By RYAN TRACY

CONNECT

Bitcoin is about to get some time in the Capitol Hill spotlight.

A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings on the policy issues raised by virtual currencies in the coming weeks, according to Senate aides, a development that comes amid growing attention from government regulators to digital forms of money.

Bitcoin, a currency that is essentially a computer code and is not backed by any government, has seen its value surge this year because of interest from retailers and investors. But government agencies have also stepped up their oversight of the loosely regulated currency amid fears it could be used to facilitate criminal activity.

The two Senate hearings – the first to focus on bitcoin – are likely to examine how regulators are responding to the new forms of payment, the aides said. Potential points of discussion include how financial-industry regulators will watch over investment in the new currencies and how virtual currencies might impede tax collection or facilitate trade in illegal products out of the sight of law enforcement.

No dates have been set for the hearings and the witness lists are not final, but representatives of the government and private sector are expected to testify. The hearings will be held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and by a subpart of the Senate Banking Committee, the aides said.

By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies.

In an Aug. 12 letter, the senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue.

“As with all emerging technologies, the federal government must make sure that potential threats and risks are dealt with swiftly; however, we must also ensure that rash or uninformed actions don’t stifle a potentially valuable technology,” Messrs. Carper and Coburn wrote in their letter, which went to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department.

22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs)

It is this part of the source: "senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue" supporting the idea that senators expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Second source

Authorities See Worth of Bitcoin

By RYAN TRACY CONNECT Updated Nov. 18, 2013 11:56 p.m. ET 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 17 December 2014

And this part of the source: 'U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' directly supports the second sentence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To accomodate to the style of the lead section, and to account for the fact that Fleetham does not support the idea to mention senators Caper and Coburn, here is an update to the proposal:

Proposal

• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, enhancing it to:

In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service.

End of the proposal

How about the below?

At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, law enforcement officials, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin provide legitimate financial services.

Fleetham (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This version is too short at the expense of understandability, that is why I prefer the longer version. The second advantage of the longer version and the proposal is that the text uses two sources, one describing the situation before the hearings started, and the other reporting from the hearings. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason why we can't use two sources with the shorter version, but how about the below, which is a bit longer? This one is understandable and describes the situation before the hearing started and at the hearing themselves.

US law enforcement officials and regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to legitimate customers.

Fleetham (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In order to

• incorporate the above changes proposed by Fleetham and
• make it clear where the respective citations will be introduced and
• improve wording by suppressing repetition, I come with this updated

Proposal

• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, replacing it by:

U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.

End of the proposal

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus. I'll add it to the lede. Fleetham (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please wait until others, Wuerzele TyHeers Scott Illini Pgan002 Creationlayer Mrcatzilla TimidGuy Chrisarnesen Richardbondi have the opportunity to express their opinion, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, FYI:@Wuerzele: doesnt ping/ leave a note alert on one's page. I thought I let you know, so you dont interpret lack of response of the above editors here as implicit agreement. I will change these to pings, since I see this as a justified/ formal edit of the talk page in your favor.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you correctly guessed that I wanted to ping the editors, thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:37, 20 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)

Nonneutral lead of the Criminal activities section

The lead of the "Criminal activities" section has just three paragraphs. These are the starting sentences of the first two:

• "Bitcoins have been associated with online criminal behavior and cybercriminals."
• "Many major news organizations have linked bitcoins to criminality."

There is no doubt that some editor is trying to underline this point of view. Both sentences are just slightly adjusted versions of the same statement. The nonneutral treatment of the subject is:

• To restate the same opinion twice at the start of 2/3 paragraphs.
• To represent the opinion as a fact at first. The second, restated occurrence correctly presents it as an opinion, although "Many major news organizations", looks weasel-worded.
• A reader rightfully expects to see facts about criminal activities, but, instead, he is served a repeated and nonneutrally treated opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite impressed with the lead, overall. I think the first instance you mention is okay. In the second instance, I feel like two sentences should be moved out of the lead and into the body of the article. It's too detailed for the lead, and may help resolve your concern. The sentences are:

"At a 2013 US Senate 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, expressed a desire to see an end to virtual currencies' facilitation of the sale of illicit goods and services saying, " encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate ". TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

TimidGuy, what lead are you impressed with? It sounds to me you are talking about the main lead. this talk page section is about the lead of Bitcoin#Criminal activity- Anyway, I agree with your opinion on both issues. remove:"Many major news organizations have linked bitcoins to criminality." and the sentence on the hearing is too detailed for the main lede and should go into the body.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: It seems to me that you forgot to address the problem that the first sentence of the "Criminal activities" section is an opinion, and, in fact, an editor's opinion, since the opinion is not contained in the cited source, nonneutrally presented as a fact. I propose to replace it by an information that would be directly supported by the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele Yes, my mistake. I was in a hurry and mistakenly thought that this thread was related to the main lead. Apologies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

surge in Bitcoin page views on 23 Nov 2014- your opinion?

I am curious to hear what people think about the dramatic surge of Bitcoin page views from regularly 5,000 to 8,000 at the moment to >62,000 on November 23 see page view statistics here. I have a possible explanation but do not want others to be biased by it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is a bug that occasionally results in an unnaturally high page view count. Not sure if it's fixed yet. A recent relevant discussion is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:31, 13 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