Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Refuting arguments made in the recent AfD
I'd like to refute a few points made in the recent AfD (see the merge post by Dingo1729).
In reply to I'm not human: Firstly there are cryptocurrencies that implement an inflation based system, PPCoin and Novacoin (via proof-of-stake) are two examples, they have no real limit on the number of coins. Namecoin is also different, as its primary purpose is not as a currency, but as a decentralized DNS. Secondly, I see your concern that makes it harder to make sure that people are pushing crap, but Wikipedia shouldn't remove articles/content out of fear of scammers/advertising, it's why Wikipedia has people checking articles to avoid these problems. As for your claim that digital currencies all share very important features, and face many of the same issues, this is true, but there are also many differences. For example, most other digital currencies are centralized, and hence are easily closed down or subject to rampant inflation from the central authority. Cryptocurrencies have neither of these issues, they have other worries instead such as a 51% attack, whereas a centralized non-cryptocurrency lacks this problem. The severity of issues is also completely different, the double spend attack trivial for a centralized digital currency and barely needs to be mentioned, the double spend attack for a cryptocurrency is far more complex and would need a large section dedicated to it.
- Cool. I certainly understand your points. I was just thinking that it was not needed to have two articles at this same time. I won't be doing much (if any) editing on this page (I don't do much editing anywhere actually, so don't think I just don't like this page), but I'll keep an eye on it to make sure that it doesn't go to hell or whatever.
- Also, I didn't think anyone actually used NameCoin at the moment (I certainly don't, nor do I see it as a good and useful tool). I didn't know that PPcoin and NovaCoin implemented inflation (when I made the comment on the AfD page), it's good to know. One less argument that anti-cryptocurrency people can use. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
In reply to Dingo1729: As far as I can see, though Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article, this should not be done here. Whilst Duplicating these issues would be a problem, but that's not what would happen, although in name both articles would have the same issues, their approaches and severity of issues are completely different. For example, with a centralized digital currency, the double spend problem is trivial, they simply check a central list before allowing any transactions, it barely needs mentioning. For a cryptocurrency, solving this problem is very difficult and requires an advanced proof-of-work scheme with a block chain, and would preferably have a fairly large section dedicated to it. If anything, having all these issues side by side in the digital currency section would probably cause more confusion than just linking the reader to a new page, where they could (if they wanted to) read about the issues facing cryptocurrencies only, and not have to read about problems which are not relevant for cryptocurrencies. I wouldn't want readers to have to sift through information about digital currencies in order to find what they actually want to read (presumably they want to read about cryptocurrencies if they visit the cryptocurrency page). With regards to your claim that The fact that the articles do not yet cover these very important technical issues is no reason to make this split, I agree with you here, but this is irrelevant and not why the article should be separate. It should be separate due to its notability, the fact that it is different from a digital currency, and the fact that the major issues facing cryptocurrencies are different from the major issues facing all other digital currencies. I also agree with Mark viking's statement that organizing only by functional requirements is too broad a brush to paint the fundamental distinctions between these different types of currency (as far as I can see, this is not a strawman). Cliff12345 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's really worth our time to continue this discussion, however I would point out again that, for example, the digital currency article needs to explain why non-crypto currencies need a trusted central authority. The crypto-currency article needs to explain why non-cryptos need a trusted central authority and to what extent cryptos avoid this. The same duplication with privacy. The same with double-spending. The same with forgery. The same with theft. Let's just see whether the articles develop into anything better than the current "wow isn't this cool" stage which has no idea of the motivation or the problems which the different schemes are trying to solve. I'm not planning on doing any editing here. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)- I think there are other articles I'd prefer to work on, so try developing these. If you're right and there's not too much duplication then everything is fine. If there is too much duplication then merging can always be revisited as an option. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I agree that we can always reconsider if duplication becomes a serious issue. Cliff12345 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
history of cryptocurrencies
An early attempt was made in wikipedia User:Bank_of_Wikipedia but it was not sanctioned by the project. All data from this project has been deleted by wikipedia administrators. Do you think this should be mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.50.141 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- What is the "Bank of Wikipedia" ? If you could provide a little more detail, we'd be better able to discuss the pros and cons of its inclusion. Chris Arnesen 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- All data of User:Bank_of_Wikipedia is gone. This bank was created here, in wikipedia. So no other reference can be found. Maybe administrators can still undelete bank's logs, so that we could see what this bank was about. Bababow (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you show us where this data is/was, it seems unlikely that administrators would delete it. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- As far as i know, there is no other place where this data was kept, except wikipedia. And as I can see administrators deleted almost every trace of it. As we cas see here the announcement that the project was not sanctioned was made 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC). By following (in history) the quotes of Bow bank account, we arrive to Bank of Wikipedia that was created 2007!!!! A total distruction of evidences, in this place that it is supposed to keep them! And the reason? Just not sanctioned, with no other references. Bababow (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you show us where this data is/was, it seems unlikely that administrators would delete it. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- All data of User:Bank_of_Wikipedia is gone. This bank was created here, in wikipedia. So no other reference can be found. Maybe administrators can still undelete bank's logs, so that we could see what this bank was about. Bababow (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Michael Nielsen on Bitcoin
Michael Nielsen wrote an excellent piece on How the Bitcoin protocol actually works which could be used to expand this (and the Bitcoin) article. DarTar (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Blogs generally aren't accepted as sources. They might if they are by an expert in a popular publication, but these may still come under fire (no guarantee). Thanks for your effort. It is acceptable for Wikiversity, instead. - Sidelight12 Talk 08:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Major markets
I have removed this section for the following reasons: 1. It doesn't even list Mt Gox (so therefore can't be a list of all the major markets). 2. There is no indication of how or why these markets are major. 3. There are no references beyond the name and URL (see 2. above, and 4. below). 4. It seems rather scammy. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the section is back however without the random spamvertising and with more sensible content VinceSamios (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleting Dogecoin
It was not the first cryptocoin started after a meme. Look for Anoncoin and MEMEcoin. Both of which predate dogecoin by many many months.
Some proof https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260311.0 This crypto is based on a meme and was released in july 22nd
- Dogecoin has been restored. It should be included in the list. It's sufficiently notable. Chris Arnesen 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It is not the first meme cryptocurrency and is quickly becoming irrelevant. It has also been described as a Pump_and_dump scheme and a joke. http://thebot.net/cryptocurrency/241542-why-dogecoin-suck/
Cryptocoincharts.info a reliable source?
I'm removing information that was referenced as coming from Cryptocoin Charts. I don't think it meets the standards of WP:RS; it just seems be one guy's web page, of no more reliability than a blog post. What do others think, on its meeting WP:RS? ––Agyle (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- IMO it doesn't, the only reason it's being used so much is because it is convenient. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Coinwarz, Dustcoin, and Coinchoose reliable sources?
I'm removing references and data supported by those references from Coinwarz, Dustcoin, and Coinchoose, as they do not seem to meet the standards of reliable sources in WP:RS. Most of the references and information in this article seem to rely on websites like these that anyone can publish, and many contain contradictory information. Context matters for a source, and it's a subjective call, but just being "the best source I can find" doesn't mean it's good enough to be relied on for an encyclopedia. I'd appreciate hearing from others, on either side of the "reliable source" question. ––Agyle (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I would go as far as to consider CoinDesk a reliable source for cryptocurrency-related subjects, and that's pushing it a bit. These three sites could be possibly used to cite trivial or technical statistics like market cap and price, but that's really it. Citation Needed | Talk 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a question about reliability of a given site or source, I'd suggest opening an entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the input of experienced editors.Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Dialectric, appreciate the suggestion. If there's no disagreement it won't be needed; just getting a feel for whether that's the case.––Agyle (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Citation Needed, I agree on CoinDesk being a bit of a stretch, though it seems to be a professionally run company with editors; clearly weaker than the NY Times or an IEEE journal, but usable for uncontroversial facts within the context of digital currencies. One thing that struck me is that they provide current market data only for Bitcoin, and they cite the three sources they average for their quote so it's verifiable in some sense, which sets it apart from the other sites I've seen used for market quotes in Wikipedia that simply list data. CoinDesk would certainly be able to quote other currencies, and the fact that they don't leads makes me suspect that they consider the other data not reliable or meaningful to publish, which raises the question of why Wikipedia is publishing it. ––Agyle (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- If there is a question about reliability of a given site or source, I'd suggest opening an entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the input of experienced editors.Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Planning on removing algorithms from table
The current table of notable cryptucurrencies lists hashing algorithms for the currencies. The cryptocurrencies all use different crypto algorithms for different purposes; bitcoin does a double sha256 hash (sha256(sha256()), or sha256d) for blocks, and ripemd160(sha256()) for asset definition addresses, and elliptic curve DSA with secp256k1 on signatures. Info on different crypto approaches (slower, faster, more memory-intensive, etc.) seems better suited to the non-space-constrained text of the article. Let me know if you disagree. ––Agyle (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing uncited data from notable currencies table
I previously removed unreferenced and not-reliably-sourced data from the "notable cryptocurrencies" table. YubbaDoo restored the data without providing citations. The terms "difficulty adjustment", "blocks", and "hashing algorithm" are not mentioned in the article, and including them in the table without explanation is rather vague; as I noted above, at least some of these cryptocurrencies use more than one hashing algorithm. But at the very least, citations from reliable sources are required to verify information added to the article. ––Agyle (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the data is correct so adding or requesting reliable sources is better than deletion. YubbaDoo (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it's better to omit info than to have wrong info, but we've gone back and forth five times on the same data, and I don't care to engage in "battle". The entire section has a request for references, which seemed preferable to cluttering the table with 50 individual [citation needed] requests. ––Agyle (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing Quark from notable coins
Quark was recently added by Maqayum, reverted by Dialectric with the comment “revert unexplained addition of Quarkcoin, redlink coin previously deleted at afd as non-notable - discuss on talk before re-adding”, and the reversion reverted by Maqayum with no comment or discussion in the talk section. It is not a notable cryptocurrency. It occurs among examples/lists of new coins in a small number of articles, but I can find only one article specifically about Quark from a (questionably) reliable source:
- Buterin, Vitalik (17 December 2013). "QuarkCoin: Noble Intentions, Wrong Approach". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd. Retrieved 22 January 2014.
Note that what looks like an article on the Wall Street Journal website is an unaltered corporate press release; it is included on other websites as well, and does not established notability. I'm going to revert the reverted reversion, but if Maqayum ignores Wikipedia norms like other contributors to this article, we'll just have to live with more bad info. ––Agyle (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"It occurs among examples/lists of new coins in a small number of articles, but I can find only one article specifically about Quark from a (questionably) reliable source:
- Buterin, Vitalik (17 December 2013). "QuarkCoin: Noble Intentions, Wrong Approach". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd. Retrieved 22 January 2014." It is a critique article, does not validate the QuarkCoin is non-noticeable. I can give you lots of coverages about Quark. It is interesting Dogecoin has not attracted any criticism which is just a copycat of Litecoin and some viral marketing behind it.
- The list is for notable coins only with articles, and the definition for "notable" is that, which Wikipedia follows -- notability, as in -- covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. It is especially improper to add it if it was previously deleted at AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to challenge the decision by Dialectric to remove Quark from the list on the basis of being non-notability. I would like to remind that Wikipedia's definition of notability is not limited to just a number of mainstream media articles. Quark has one of the most vibrant communities of users with tens of thousands of users and there are more than 50,000 wallet addresses that contain more than 0.1 Quarks. That being said, there are also plenty of mainstream media articles and articles from other reliable sources that talk about Quark:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments
http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/12/qkc-vs-mec-wdc-ftc-pts/
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/34947-what-comes-after-the-bitcoin-bubble-bursts.html#
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-alternatives-to-bitcoin-you-probably-havent-heard-of-2013-11
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/62041-10-Bitcoin-like-Cryptocurrencies-
http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bitcoin-rival-mintchip-pilot-currency.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/01/10/are-the-days-of-cash-numbered-these-companies-hope/
http://www.coindesk.com/alternative-cryptocurrencies-thrive-bitcoins-shadow/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/79017/bitcoin-vs-dogecoin-which-one-is-really-worth-more
More articles can be found if you took the time to do the research. Please read the articles that I have listed. What all these articles have in common is that when they refer to a list of notable cryptocurrencies, Quark is always mentioned in such lists!
I believe that I have made the case that that in all fairness Quark has long earned its position among the notable cryptocurrencies, and an objective Wikipedia article on cryptocurrencies and their current state should reflect that.
I look forward to you either reinstating Maqayum's changes to that list, or providing a well supported argument that would refute my and Maqayum's and my arguments. --matrixfighter (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The removal was not solely based on my decision, but on WP policy. Quark was found to be not notable in a recent articles for deletion discussion - afd of Quark Coin on 26 December 2013. If you want to have it in the list, you will need to go through a deletion review, and make your case for the article's undeletion/Quark's notability there.Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Matrixfighter, as I noted, several sources include Quark's press release or include Quark among lists of Bitcoin-alternative cryptocurrencies, which you've listed, but those don't establish "notability" required for a standalone article in the specific sense that Wikipedia defines it (see WP:GNG for general notability, or WP:WEBSITE for website notability). Contrary to your "Quark is always mentioned in such lists," Quark is included in exceptionally few, and hundreds of counterexamples could be listed. I found one article that was specifically about Quark Coin. While inclusion in Cryptocurrency has no strictly defined criteria, it should probably be notable in that standalone-article sense, unless it's to illustrate a specific important point that can't be made another way. ––Agyle (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The removal was not solely based on my decision, but on WP policy. Quark was found to be not notable in a recent articles for deletion discussion - afd of Quark Coin on 26 December 2013. If you want to have it in the list, you will need to go through a deletion review, and make your case for the article's undeletion/Quark's notability there.Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- From WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This single article (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments) satisfies the notion mentioned the premise above. Now one should not argue details of algorithm used in hashing, block numbers etc., it should/must be assumed that readers have idea how Cryptocurrency work. Some of the article mention Quark along with Bitcoin. For example Inc. magazine mentions "Bitcoin, Ripple, Litecoin, Quark are the names of just a few crypto-currencies." What that means is that Quark is a term that writer thinks the readers have significant knowledge about it. That may cover significant notability. For example Inc, magazines mentions Krugman thinks "Bitcoin is evil". Should they have to mention in details what Bitcoin is and Who is Krugman. Is not it the Irony, people who don't know Quark should check Wikipedia (encyclopedia) for details. Another irony- this article mentions CatCoin, Coinye West, should they be notable mention as Cryptocurrency? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/19/dogecoin-coinye-catcoin-a-dummy-s-guide-to-cryptocurrencies.html. It is no brainer what is the intention here. Inference, intention, proposition matters in these notable articles for notability checking; not the detailed mention (eg. CatCoin). --Maqayum (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maqayum, the Guardian article has only one sentence about Quark Coin, then says "there are over 60 different altcoin currencies". That is not “significant coverage”. The Inc. article mentions Quark to illustrate that there are many cryptocurrencies, and does not assume readers are familiar with it. The afd of Quark Coin last month decided 5-to-1 to delete. (Note: do not edit that page; discuss the topic here.) You're also asking about other issues; let's focus on the issue of including Quark among notable cryptocurrencies. ––Agyle (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agyle, it discuses what are other major cryptocurrencies and dedicates a paragraph on Quark "Another altcoin in its infancy, launched in 2013, Quark coin takes the security elements of the cryptocurrency very seriously employing nine separate rounds of encryption using six different algorithms." This is the biggest difference of Quark with other cryptocurrency. As the article's main purpose is to discuss other major Cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin and mentioned Quark as one of them, describes what is difference about Quark. The last mention of 60 other cryptocurrencies are just mention. For example, a writer is discussing precious metals, he discuses Gold, Silver, Platinum, Titanium; he will discus what precious metal is, why it is precious, then discusses one by by one, final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!), will not repeat the common features. There are other 60 metals that are precious, he will just mention their names. The sequence and structure of the article is enough to declare Quark as notable, main topic of the article with other cryptocurrenies there. But there are couple of more recent articles like Guardian (which is older) that mentions Quark more elaborately (notably) , http://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-competitors-what-you-should-know-about-6-alternative-cryptocurrencies-1540168 is the recent one. By the by, the I am in talk with administrators about undeletion through WP:DR --Maqayum (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- That “one paragraph” is one sentence. WP:GNG says “‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail....” The “list” articles do not address Quark in detail; they mention it exists, among a list of a few other cryptocurrencies, and spend one or two sentences briefly describing it. ––Agyle (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again you miss the point why it is one sentence--"final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!) needs fewer sentences, will not repeat the common features." Please understand the main topic of the article which is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of them, it is as good as Litecoin as the coeverage. It is not about Bitcoin or, Litecoin solely, all the coins here has of equal importance- due to article type. Another example- IBT writes "Another bitcoin alternative, Quarkcoin, calls itself “the elementary currency,” says it is faster, more secure, and easier to mine than other cryptocurrencies. According to BitInfoCharts, Quarkcoin is the fastest, as it only takes 0.5574 minutes for a transaction to be confirmed. Quarkcoin also has the distinction of being the most-mined, as 548,325 blocks have been created in just over six months." Again the main ‘Significant coverage’ is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of the six currencies, what do you suggest here? That one article from IBT is enough to have ‘Significant coverage’ at least of my bias. After all, we are all biased (see List of cognitive biases). It is very hard to change one's bias. --Maqayum (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but having checked every link, I don't see how any of the articles are even minor coverage, let alone "significant". In hundreds of AfDs, I have never seen such coverage considered to be anything but trivial. This is a textbook example of not passing the bar. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again you miss the point why it is one sentence--"final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!) needs fewer sentences, will not repeat the common features." Please understand the main topic of the article which is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of them, it is as good as Litecoin as the coeverage. It is not about Bitcoin or, Litecoin solely, all the coins here has of equal importance- due to article type. Another example- IBT writes "Another bitcoin alternative, Quarkcoin, calls itself “the elementary currency,” says it is faster, more secure, and easier to mine than other cryptocurrencies. According to BitInfoCharts, Quarkcoin is the fastest, as it only takes 0.5574 minutes for a transaction to be confirmed. Quarkcoin also has the distinction of being the most-mined, as 548,325 blocks have been created in just over six months." Again the main ‘Significant coverage’ is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of the six currencies, what do you suggest here? That one article from IBT is enough to have ‘Significant coverage’ at least of my bias. After all, we are all biased (see List of cognitive biases). It is very hard to change one's bias. --Maqayum (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- That “one paragraph” is one sentence. WP:GNG says “‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail....” The “list” articles do not address Quark in detail; they mention it exists, among a list of a few other cryptocurrencies, and spend one or two sentences briefly describing it. ––Agyle (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agyle, it discuses what are other major cryptocurrencies and dedicates a paragraph on Quark "Another altcoin in its infancy, launched in 2013, Quark coin takes the security elements of the cryptocurrency very seriously employing nine separate rounds of encryption using six different algorithms." This is the biggest difference of Quark with other cryptocurrency. As the article's main purpose is to discuss other major Cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin and mentioned Quark as one of them, describes what is difference about Quark. The last mention of 60 other cryptocurrencies are just mention. For example, a writer is discussing precious metals, he discuses Gold, Silver, Platinum, Titanium; he will discus what precious metal is, why it is precious, then discusses one by by one, final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!), will not repeat the common features. There are other 60 metals that are precious, he will just mention their names. The sequence and structure of the article is enough to declare Quark as notable, main topic of the article with other cryptocurrenies there. But there are couple of more recent articles like Guardian (which is older) that mentions Quark more elaborately (notably) , http://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-competitors-what-you-should-know-about-6-alternative-cryptocurrencies-1540168 is the recent one. By the by, the I am in talk with administrators about undeletion through WP:DR --Maqayum (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maqayum, the Guardian article has only one sentence about Quark Coin, then says "there are over 60 different altcoin currencies". That is not “significant coverage”. The Inc. article mentions Quark to illustrate that there are many cryptocurrencies, and does not assume readers are familiar with it. The afd of Quark Coin last month decided 5-to-1 to delete. (Note: do not edit that page; discuss the topic here.) You're also asking about other issues; let's focus on the issue of including Quark among notable cryptocurrencies. ––Agyle (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- From WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This single article (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments) satisfies the notion mentioned the premise above. Now one should not argue details of algorithm used in hashing, block numbers etc., it should/must be assumed that readers have idea how Cryptocurrency work. Some of the article mention Quark along with Bitcoin. For example Inc. magazine mentions "Bitcoin, Ripple, Litecoin, Quark are the names of just a few crypto-currencies." What that means is that Quark is a term that writer thinks the readers have significant knowledge about it. That may cover significant notability. For example Inc, magazines mentions Krugman thinks "Bitcoin is evil". Should they have to mention in details what Bitcoin is and Who is Krugman. Is not it the Irony, people who don't know Quark should check Wikipedia (encyclopedia) for details. Another irony- this article mentions CatCoin, Coinye West, should they be notable mention as Cryptocurrency? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/19/dogecoin-coinye-catcoin-a-dummy-s-guide-to-cryptocurrencies.html. It is no brainer what is the intention here. Inference, intention, proposition matters in these notable articles for notability checking; not the detailed mention (eg. CatCoin). --Maqayum (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- HELLKNOWZ "I don't see how any of the articles are even minor coverage, et alone "significant". What do you want- are you kidding? Article "Bitcoin Competitors: What You Should Know About 6 Alternative Cryptocurrencies" and discusses Quark along with other five. What is the main topic of the article- Bitcoin or, alien invasion! Sorry, for being emotional, but I can see it but I cannot change others biases (see List of cognitive biases). --Maqayum (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not kidding or biased, I am explaining how GNG works in practice. The topic of that article is "Bitcoin Competitors" and it lists 6 examples. Quark is one of them, but the amount of material on Quark specifically is trivial. This is not what "significant coverage" asks for -- the guideline clearly says "addresses the topic directly and in detail". It does not address Quark directly other than the 3 sentences. Same is true for all other sources linked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- What are the percentages of lines of total lines mean significance or, trivial? There is no such thing. "addresses the topic directly and in detail". How does it not address directly and detail? It does not discuses PeerCoin more than 2 lines. Number of lines to find the significance is not a proper interpretation at all. Also, one should not repeat the arguments common to all, write one sentence to make major significance is quite possible. Finally, for details how Crypto works (1000 lines, or more) is not the intention of the article (people are free to read Bitcoin's white paper), the details (differences) of Quark is explained. --Maqayum (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not kidding or biased, I am explaining how GNG works in practice. The topic of that article is "Bitcoin Competitors" and it lists 6 examples. Quark is one of them, but the amount of material on Quark specifically is trivial. This is not what "significant coverage" asks for -- the guideline clearly says "addresses the topic directly and in detail". It does not address Quark directly other than the 3 sentences. Same is true for all other sources linked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- HELLKNOWZ "I don't see how any of the articles are even minor coverage, et alone "significant". What do you want- are you kidding? Article "Bitcoin Competitors: What You Should Know About 6 Alternative Cryptocurrencies" and discusses Quark along with other five. What is the main topic of the article- Bitcoin or, alien invasion! Sorry, for being emotional, but I can see it but I cannot change others biases (see List of cognitive biases). --Maqayum (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article's topic is cryptocurrency, not alternatives to bitcoin. I have read your suggested references; we simply disagree on the interpretation of "significant coverage" and "in detail". ––Agyle (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Guys now I have to discus difference between cryptocurrency and alternatives to bitcoin which are essentially same lol. I will make another article "Alternative to Bitcoins", you guys are welcome :P I and others (I will bring more biased Quark supporters?!?-- humor intended) to make more supporters--"Then we simply more than agree on the interpretation of "significant coverage" and "in detail"". Finally, are you guys serious to see a DOGE on here?! Cheers! --Maqayum (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why is this being discussed here when WP:DR is the correct venue if one disagrees that a deleted article is notable? AfD was closed and local consensus on this page won't overrule that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is being discusssed here because information about Quark was being added to a list of "notable cryptocurrencies" in cryptocurrencies. The article's deletion was brought up as one example to illustrate that it is not considered notable under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ––Agyle (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Removing Megacoins from notable coins
I'm removing Megacoins from the table of notable cryptocurrencies. I can't find any articles about the currency in reliable periodicals, or inclusion in any non-self-published books. The term "mega coin" does appear in other contexts (e.g., minting a single ultra-valuable "mega coin" was floated as a solution to the US debt crisis a couple years ago), but not about the recently created cryptocurrency. ––Agyle (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- comment search news headlines in google. both Megacoin and Worldcoin made first search on news. with Megacoin hitting it strong. (though MEC has low trading volume so moves will be amplified) i will make a suggestion below, i wish to discuss. WintersEnding (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
A Cryptocurrency Approved by the Banking System?
Bitcoin Magazine ran this article which talks about a possible asset backed global cryptocurrency that would seek to be approved within the banking system. Link to article is: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9900/global-bankers-cryptocurrency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.238.252 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- It has interesting ideas, but it reads like an informal editorial or opinion piece (it uses first and second person, for example), rather than discussing encyclopedic facts. If the author were independently notable, the conjecture might be notable (e.g. if Alan Greenspan had written the same piece). ––Agyle (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Notability Question
What are the current guidelines used to determine a coins' notability. There seem to be new altcoins arising on a weekly basis an notability should be assessed when creating new articles for them. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's the notability guideline. In short, multiple reliable independent in-depth sources covering the coin. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it's gotten so easy that there are at least a dozen new altcoins created every day; new ones are added to this article every week or two, and it can take a couple weeks or more to have their articles removed from Wikipedia. Hellknowz is right, general notability guidelines are the basic standard, or in some cases the company-specific criteria may apply (WP:CORP). If you want an example of what it takes, the currency should have several articles specifically about that cryptocurrency in strong reliable sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and respected academic journals or IEEE/ACM-organized conference proceedings. Weaker sources like The National Enquirer or NBC News, new industry-specific sources like CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine, and even small local newspapers are also considered, but the source and quality of the coverage are weighed along with the amount of coverage, and if there are no strong sources that provide significant coverage about a topic, it's got an uphill battle meeting Wikipedia's notability standards. Criteria some people have suggested, but which are not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines, include the number of supporters/users of a currency, the value of a unit of the currency, or an estimate of "market capitalization" of the currency if it could be traded as a liquid asset. Personally I don't consider those factors whatsoever. ––Agyle (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I see much of the market cap is outdated, would like to contribute. meanwhile, let me update individual pages of the coins then. MatthewBuchwalder (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
- You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
- You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
- You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
comment: this article appears to be inaccurate on more than 1 count. i came in to see wikipedia has to say and was disappointed. can i recommend adding a 3 tables? first by notable ones. another full list with market cap and trading volume info. last table for dead cryptos. as it stands now the notable list is not only misleading, it also seem arbituary in picking. I will edit when the protection ends. WintersEnding (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not simply add other currencies when the protection ends. This is against the consensus. We currently only include notable entries as defined by Wikipedia -- see the notability guideline of how we decide this (market cap or similar info ins't relevant to that). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- comment very well. though pls note i suggested that after reading the talk page here, and i find the talk discussion highly biased, not up-to-date, and no offense intented, but some people are making rather uninformed suggestions, or highly suspecious actions that appears to be purposefully misleading. Crypto is a rapid developing market, and followinh wikipedia notability rules might create gaps from reality, reality being that the media is very slow in inaccurate in describing the market. as such i see people purposefully using that to their advantage/intent of obscuring info. which i thought is highly against wikipedia's rules and intentions. as such you can keep notabke crypto on one table as ur consensus comes to, but to be informative, i suggested adding 2 more tables as i described above. am i making sense? or is that still wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WintersEnding (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- WintersEnding, you're making sense, in that I understand exactly what you're saying. Covering your specific points:
- Regarding Wikipedia lagging behind "reality", WP is not a news source reporting minor day-to-day developments, but an encyclopedia that tries to report on topics that are judged notable. See WP:NOTNEWS.
- Regarding inaccurate content: mistakes do happen, quite often; you can correct them, or just mention them in Talk and others can review the issue. If your correction is disputed, discuss it in Talk. Your own corrections should be supported by reliable sources.
- Regarding purposefully misleading content: if it cites no reliable source, just remove it, or correct it and cite a source. If it is supported by reliable sources, I'd suggest discussing it on the Talk page, and depending on the circumstances remove the misleading content even before it's been discussed.
- Regarding allegations of conflict of interest and abuse of Wikipedia procedures: I've seen allegations that some people are promoting one currency over another, because they contributed to the Dogecoin article but judged another currency to be non-notable; if that's what you're talking about, it's not a conflict of interest or an abuse of Wikipedia's rules. There has been substantial criticism from new Wikipedia editors interested in cryptocurrency that the satiric Dogecoin is included as a notable cryptocurrency. I think this stems from unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would sincerely suggest reading and rereading WP:N.
- Regarding addition of tables about trivial currencies: There have already been tables that included trivial currencies, and the consensus in the past has been to remove them. Standards are probably applied more conservatively and strictly in this area than they would be for a list of imaginary unicorns, for example, because of clear profit motives in promoting certain currencies. Personally I think the current approach is a good one, listing notable currencies essentially based on Wikipedia's general notability guidelines that are used for notability of any topic.
- ––Agyle (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- WintersEnding, you're making sense, in that I understand exactly what you're saying. Covering your specific points:
- comment very well. though pls note i suggested that after reading the talk page here, and i find the talk discussion highly biased, not up-to-date, and no offense intented, but some people are making rather uninformed suggestions, or highly suspecious actions that appears to be purposefully misleading. Crypto is a rapid developing market, and followinh wikipedia notability rules might create gaps from reality, reality being that the media is very slow in inaccurate in describing the market. as such i see people purposefully using that to their advantage/intent of obscuring info. which i thought is highly against wikipedia's rules and intentions. as such you can keep notabke crypto on one table as ur consensus comes to, but to be informative, i suggested adding 2 more tables as i described above. am i making sense? or is that still wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WintersEnding (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Other notable coins
Was thinking maybe Vertcoin is notable enough to merit an actual article on Wikipedia as well as a mention here. The main reason why it is notable is that it is designed to limit the "arms race" of ASICs by scaling its difficulty over time in a way that ASICs wouldn't be able to adapt to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.218.121 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Notability to justify an article is generally determined by "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". Fighting the ASIC arms race issue isn't unique, but that's also irrelevant. If someone wants to start the article, I'd suggest it's started with Draft:Vertcoin unless there's already enough coverage from reliable sources that it warrants its own article. Many cryptocurrency articles are nominated for deletion an hour or two after they're created, so you don't want to create an article in anticipation that there will be more media coverage about it in a couple weeks. Vertcoin seems like a fad coin from back in the early days of February, and faded well before mid February, but you never know, and International Business Times gave it very minor coverage in at least ten articles between Feb 5 and Feb 21. Of industry publications, CoinDesk only mentioned it in passing as one of many alt coins accepted by a London hostel chain, and Bitcoin Magazine doesn't mention it at all, though they're presumably pulling for Ether over other new currencies at this point. Agyle (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Technical discourse
Requesting chart comparing the technical differences of popular Cryptocurrencies. The current chart focuses on economic differences. I'd like to also see blockchain differences and other classifications that would illustrate, of example, if one system were "broken" which other related systems would also be broken because they are the same design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't think there are reliable sources that do a good job of comparing them in a table-friendly way. The current chart attempts to compare "hashing algorithms" anyway, synthesizing information from many different sources, and the result is a misleading, context-free comparison of apples to oranges. I would not suggest Wikipedia editors attempt further original research like that. Agyle (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
NXT and Auroracoin draft articles
I'm removed NXT from the list of notable cryptocurrencies, as it does not seem notable at this point. I've created two draft articles, Draft:NXT and Draft:Auroracoin, as starts on articles about those cryptocurrencies, if anyone would care to contribute to them. However I don't consider either as meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this point. Someone try creating full articles, but they'll quickly be nominated for deletion; I am confident NXT would be deleted, and Auroracoin would depend on who's judging it. Agyle (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- thanks for creating Draft:NXT, I tried to create a full article. What do you think about it? Where should it be improved? Thanks. Salsacz 18:30, 10 March 2014 (CET)
- I added a comment in the Talk page detailing some of the sources I find questionable or not reliable. Remove the weakest and try to replace them with the strongest sources available. Also, I'd try to write sentences, rather than rely on bulleted lists, for sections like "features"...this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. ;-) The article has a lot of info, which is a good starting point, but some of it might be hard to support with good sources at the moment. Agyle (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why cryptocurrencies are not Fiat-Money.
Here i attempt to respond to GliderMavens implicit question "why aren't cryptocurrencys classified as a form of Fiat-Money?"
It may well be appropriate to dedicate a section of article space for this topic in the future if many others have trouble - for now i shall provide a simple barraging answer.
Herein we will specifically use the well defined cryptocurrency protocol - Bitcoin as a currency-definition reference against which to compare the more loosely defined cash-money specification.
Fiat Money first off, is defined as any currency which possesses all of the following properties:
A money declared by a government to be legal tender. State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard. Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.
Clearly Government approved Bills of paper stamped 'legal tender' do fit into this definition very well. Clearly the Bitcoin protocol does not fit into this albeit rather-specific definition. ( nor do any of the successful Bitcoin spin-off protocols )
There's also a far more informal definition of the term Fiat which simply means 'to not be backed by anything precious'; however even this relaxed definition does not apply to Bitcoins ( or any of it's popular spin-offs )... Cryptocurrency specifications fundamentally do-not maintain monetary value as a magnitude - Instead; a cryptocurrency wallet pertains value by becoming associated with some number of 'transactions' - each of which is itself associated with a diverging tree of previous transactions which unequivocally anastomosise from transactions within which the coins now owned by a wallet via its association with a transaction tree were first initially created...
In simple vernacular; Bitcoins are infact backed, they are perfectly backed, but they are backed by themselves - unlike any two real $1 notes you find which are functionally identical, every Bitcoin is unique and unreproducible, whether they are virtual or otherwise they ARE Fundamentally Scarce. if you still have trouble understanding or simply do-not agree then study the Bitcoin specification; it's an important point which is continuously made very clear in the designers technical writings, Bitcoins are Precious (that is to say they are difficult to acquire) Bitcoins are backed (thanks be to there implementation as an unreproducable tree of transactions) and so Bitcoins are not a Fiat-Money. ( nor are the popular Bitcoin spin-offs )180.216.130.114 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree a discussion comparing crypto to fiat would be useful (also on Electronic money and Digital currency. There is a good article on Fiat money which could point us in the right direction. Fiat money gains it value from Government backing, Bitcoin from the quality of its encryption and transfer protocols. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Currency Infobox - Cryptocurrency, Digital current and Numismatics
An Info box listing the different type of currencies would be good. I'm unsure if once currently exist. The Currency page list the Template:Numismatics. But does Numismatics, the study of Notes and Coins, really cover Electronic money? Does Numismatics even cover currency - the flow of money, rather than the physical objects used as money. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion of death section
I noticed that a recent edit added a "death" section in the list of cryptocurrencies, but I wouldn't have thought that this made much sense, as cryptocurrencies (due to their decentralized nature) don't die suddenly, they are more likely to slowly decline and gradually become inactive, hence the original "inactive" section. The same goes for this section here. Cliff12345 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ignore this now, an admin has deleted the page which held this content. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think long term this is still something we will need to discuss... Although arguably an inactive cryptocurrency isn't noteworth and therefore hasn't really got a place on wikipedia? VinceSamios (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- An inactive cyptocurrency may still have historical relevance. As such, they would still have a place on Wikipedia. (Or do you think we should remove the articles about the Ottoman Empire?) Probably should be considered on a case by case basis. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Crypto Question - New Standards
Let's state the obvious: Ever since Bitcoin hit the scene, people have loved using, exchanging, and creating cryptocurrencies. There are also a ton of these various altcoins. Some, like Peercoin, Namecoin, Dogecoin, and Coinye West are among the few lesser altcoins that have met notability standards and then gone a little beyond in some cases, like Litecoin. However, most of these brand new and existing lesser altcoins are also getting articles when in fact they don't meet or barely meet any standards at all. Five subjects regarding cryptocurrency, with admittedly me being the prime nominator except for a few articles, are taking place right now, almost all of them are hitting the same arguments, and almost all will surely get deleted without any improvement within the next few days.
"Well, why don't you improve them, you big deletionist meanie?"
Because you really can't, regardless if you're digging hard for sources other than blogs and forum posts. Because of the influx of altcoin articles being created and nominated, several editors have raised the proposal of new standards, or at the very least an essay serving as a basic viewpoint specific for all of these coins during various deletion discussions. I'm starting this to ask for the community to have a discussion on the willingness to propose such standards or viewpoints. Hopefully, the end result will end in a productive discussion. Citation Needed | Talk 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is one of those cases when a trend has become popular and numerous products have come to existence. As a consequence, new articles are being created individually and added to lists (often for promotional purposes). Inevitably, this means way more AfDs and reverts on the topic. With a quick, narrow-view reaction, this will indeed seem like "deletionism" or some other judgmental label. Whereas in fact, all the discussions and edits are generally based on our guidelines and policies as well as good sense and editorial judgment. I understand the frustration of new users, especially if it happens to be the same person AfDing or reverting. But I cannot see any faults in Citation Needed's edits and efforts to follow procedure. Removing non-notable entries and AfDing non-notable currencies is completely warranted per WP:V/WP:N. I strongly disagree that we need any kind of new standards to make exceptions in this case. New editors often approach their topic of interest with different views than is adopted throughout Wikipedia, and I don't see any convincing arguments for making this particular case an exception. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the thing. I don't think it's a trend like say when My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was the hot ticket and every male from the ages of 18-56 were storming in to create an entire WikiProject and articles relating to bronies, fan-fictions (I'm guilty of this one), and pony conventions. Actually, I think bronies are a bad example because it turns out that it's still kicking after four years. Some of these coins have been around well into when Bitcoin was considered the only big player in the crypto market, and Bitcoin was well into 2007-09. My personal opinion: I think WP:N should have a bit more categories specific to subjects like high schools, internet memes, and if this goes at it's current rate, currencies (especially those of a cryptic nature). These coins are only going to be pumped out and eventually dumped out onto the mainspace as time goes on, and eventually we're going to see coin discussions at least every week on AfD. Citation Needed | Talk 14:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- But what exactly are you proposing that N doesn't yet cover? Topical notability guidelines usually add common "extra" reasons for keeping articles, not remove them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Many of these nominations will almost always mention market cap. I'm not saying that we should remove any article below a set market cap (say $8 mil), but a set cap expectation should at the very least serve as to a gauge of how well many of these altcoins are really doing, sorta like an Alexa rank. I realize Alexa rankings don't constitute notability, but it should serve at least as a check to see if it's worth bothering to even look for sources or if we should just speedy/AfD the coin. Another one to look at is if the coin is just a generic Scrypt/SHA coin with no notable improvements or notes, or if there is a special aspect to the coin (Dogecoin is based on a meme, Litecoin transactions are speedy as fuck because it's scrypt-based and the first one to be so, etc). Basically, all these considerations would make it easier to not waste the time of potential Wikipedians in participating in daily coin deletion discussions over at the AfD process. Until then, we don't have a bot to close discussions or archive stuff (at least I don't think we do), and it ends up simply wasting the time of administrators or other users when these discussions almost always end in no concensus or delete. Citation Needed | Talk 15:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- But what exactly are you proposing that N doesn't yet cover? Topical notability guidelines usually add common "extra" reasons for keeping articles, not remove them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is the thing. I don't think it's a trend like say when My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was the hot ticket and every male from the ages of 18-56 were storming in to create an entire WikiProject and articles relating to bronies, fan-fictions (I'm guilty of this one), and pony conventions. Actually, I think bronies are a bad example because it turns out that it's still kicking after four years. Some of these coins have been around well into when Bitcoin was considered the only big player in the crypto market, and Bitcoin was well into 2007-09. My personal opinion: I think WP:N should have a bit more categories specific to subjects like high schools, internet memes, and if this goes at it's current rate, currencies (especially those of a cryptic nature). These coins are only going to be pumped out and eventually dumped out onto the mainspace as time goes on, and eventually we're going to see coin discussions at least every week on AfD. Citation Needed | Talk 14:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It costs about $10 to create a new alt-coin, and plenty of mug journalists prepared to write about them. My personal criteria when voting on keep or delete is novel development. Ie. is it just a copy, or does it contain novel features. This isn't a normal wikipedia policy, but a good rule of thumb in my book when it comes to cryptocurrencies. VinceSamios (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think ease of creation is an important issue, but I strongly disagree with inventing a new standard of “novelty” to justify WP articles, or Citation Needed's idea of a mininum market cap. “Novelty” is like saying only YouTube videos that are “good” should have articles. If a service with novel features is ultimately deemed significant by reliable sources, then it will meet WP:N, without the need for new and different criteria. Same with market cap; it's completely arbitrary, and in practice is unverifiable through reliable sources for most currencies.
- As an example of ease of creation, and abuse of novelty & market cap, I am now thinking up a new cryptocurrency...ok got it, AgyleCoin uses the novel idea of being a single coin, identified and authenticated by a random number I've memorized, which I'll only sell for $50 billion...where's my article? At that price it's over five times more notable than BitCoin! ;-) --Agyle (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why is WP:GNG not a good enough standard for this? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the RfC tag as Citation Needed appears to want to make an addition to the notability guideline to make things that pass WP:GNG non-notable. This isn't how notability works. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- You removed the RFC tag however was there actually an issue of contention among editors, and if so, was that resolved? An editor obviously felt the need for a Third Party review so I'm wondering if the editor that requested it legitimatly did so or not. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rather than having a single test for inclusion, why not have multiple tests. Market cap is important. New features (if adopted by others) may be important. If a currency dies, then historical relevence is important. Perhaps the method of its death. (If one grew very large and died because it turned out to be fraudulent, that would be a valid reason for inclusion.) I'm sure there are other reasons a currency would qualify for inclusion. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
"value of money supply"
Given the ridiculous volatility that Bitcoin sees daily, this should be removed or at least replaced with some sort of range or annual average or something like that. Same goes for the other cryptocurrencies, I suppose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, adding a measure of volatility for the same interval besides the value alone would help this article be something other than an advert. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- An interesting idea for the value of money supply (and for any articles dealing with currency of any type) would be a bot that updates conversion rates on a regular basis. I don't have the skills to write such a bot, but it would address the issue of volatility. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think there's a steadfast policy against including real-time or frequent, automated updates like this to Wikipedia articles. I've only read that in discussions, and don't know where to point to a policy, but it seems like such an obvious idea for so many articles (stock prices, sports standings, current weather, etc.), that it sounds like it has to be true or somebody would have done it by now.
- Maybe range from the last full year and last full month would be an appropriate compromise, to offer a sense of the volatility and recent range, without without requiring frequent updates. For example, $1.5b–$12.3b in 2013, $5.5b–$10.2b in February 2014. However, finding a verifiable, published, reliable source for a range of our choosing would probably be difficult. Agyle (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Inherent Deflation Risk
Won't having a finite number of coins cause deflation? More money needs to be created as things of value are created so they can be exchanged. Too much money creation rate and you get inflation. Too little results in deflation. None results in a useless medium of exchange at some point, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.203.96 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not all cryptocurrency have a finite number of coins, although bitcoin does. I though in Bitcoins case it is to create scarcity so they become more valuable. Edit: do you think a section should be added in finite-nous ? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I thnk a section should be added or at least it should be pointed out. Seems like if they are ever to be a viable currency then they need to have a mechanism for increasing the supply, automatically in a decentralized way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.203.96 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Tentatively removing Zetacoin and Darkcoin from chart
Darkcoin does not yet have an article, Zetacoin has an article but has a deletion request pending, and in all likelihood will be deleted through a Speedy Delete or AfD process. (That sounds presumptuous, but having seen more than a dozen articles like this, I have yet to see one survive when not a single reliable secondary source is cited). Auroracoin also has a deletion request pending, but it does cite reliable secondary sources, and currently does not seem headed for deletion. Agyle (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- The removal of Zetacoin was reverted, with the edit summary "Added Zetacoin, a well established cryptocurrency which is along with Bitcoin and Litecoin to be involved in Cryptr, covered by Yahoo Finance." The Yahoo Finance "article" is a press release from a company called Cryptr, not an independent reliable source. Whether Zetacoin is established is irrelevant toward notability on Wikipedia, and as has been explained in Talk:Zetacoin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zetacoin, there is inadequate independent coverage by multiple reliable sources to establish its notability. I am re-removing the information; please do not add the information back unless this issue is addressed. Agyle (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)