Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Lead again

@A455bcd9: I propose that the WP:LEAD be updated to properly summarize the article, I thought I would make a new section here. We previously discussed this Talk:Bitcoin#"Excessively_dated"_content_in_the_lead.

I propose that the lead have 4 paragraphs, an into paragraph and then one paragraph each for each of the articles three main sections. I will provide a very general proposal below, as I think that might be the easiest way to start.

• Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person" -I just copied from existing text....
• Bitcoin#History. 'Bitcoin started in x year, a few things happened along the way, and today we are at the most recent event.' -We can just summarize what we have in the body here.
• Bitcoin#Design. 'Bitcoin is designed in x way and does y. "Its proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
• Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021.

Anyone care to expand from there? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal seems good to me, although the devil is in the details :) Feel free to be bold and implement it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender." => this should go in the "History" paragraph btw. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@3df: would you like to expand on the design paragraph? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a design paragraph in the lead, as long as the first paragraph covers that bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralized cryptocurrency using a new type of ledger called a blockchain. I think these are all covered nicely. We could use this paragraph to cover the environmental effects instead. 3df (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We do have a need to summarize the article as best as we can. I will add a sentence or two in the lead about design then. It would be undue to ignore the design and only cover the design's externalities. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I agree with @3df that the design is already well summarized: we mention that it is decentralized, pseudonymous cryptocurrency secured by an energy intensive process called mining, with a ledger called blockain, and that the whole is open source. What else can be said?! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your right, I also dont see much to add. Maybe this: A new block is created every 10 minutes on average, updating the blockchain across all nodes without central oversight.

Any other comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The reader has no way of knowing what block means in this context without looking ahead at the article. I don't think that sentence is needed 3df (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@3df Yes and the 10 min delay is useless and irrelevant in the lead. We could add "peer-to-peer" (with link) before "bitcoin network" and add the word "consensus" somewhe. That's it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft 1

Please feel free to edit below. (We will delete the wikilinks at the beginning of each paragraph and the bullet formatting (they are just there for organizational purposes) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the lead you suggest is an improvement from the current one. Who cares about the 2 pizzas or Silk Road in the lead?! Why is there twice "Based on a free market ideology" and "Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal."? Where does "rogue governments" appear in the body? (I've just added peer-to-peer + consensus btw, poke @3df). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to help with this, but I'd say the current lead is much better than this draft as it is now. The pizzas definitely don't belong in the lead. I don't think we need to mention SR or the Austrian economics. Actually, I don't think anything in the History paragraph of the draft needs to be in the lead. The one-paragraph-per-section model might not be the way to go here. 3df (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems there is not support for this (proposed change to lead), so i will drop. Appreciate both of your feedback. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person"
• Bitcoin#History. In 2010 Bitcoin was used for the first commercial transaction, two pizzas. Beginning in 2011 Bitcoin was used extensively on the Silk Road, a dark web marketplace. In 2013 various governments began to take notice and both China and the US placed restrictions on Bitcoin's use. In February 2021, Bitcoin's market capitalization reached $1 trillion for the first time.
• Bitcoin#Design. Bitcoin uses a blockchain and is designed as a peer to peer network. "The proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
• Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021. Several economists have reported that bitcoin is in a bubble.

=piping

Please reduce or limit the use of piping in the lead per WP:NOPIPE. Especially where text states bitcoin and links to cryptocurrency. This might have been mostly resolved, but wanted to document this policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

history

@A455bcd9:, you reverted to re-add this the article, which I had moved to the sub-article so we have at least two sentences in the 2023 section. Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article? What is your explanation of which history remains on the main article and which history stays on the sub-article? Is this content you reverted particularly WP:DUE for some reason? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article?: yes, of course, that's how Wikipedia works: The most important content from the subarticles is repeated in the main article.

You did not provide any reason for removing this sentence, that's why I reverted you. Why do you think it should be removed? It's sourced in a good academic journal. And Ordinals are, I think, one of the biggest news events of 2023 for BTC (see Sotheby's recent auction and Bitcoin NFTs now above all other chains in sales volume. Of course these are not RS, just FYI.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Environment effects in the first paragraph

@Grayfell: In response to your revert, my concern is not with the proportion of the greenhouse matters discussed, it is with its placement in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be reserved for a basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Any remarks about mining or the environment feel tangential to bring up that early. They should be in the second or third paragraph in the lead. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per many prior discussions, the environmental impact is a major factor which defines how sources discuss bitcoin. To put it another way, few, if any, reliable sources provide an overview of the larger topic of bitcoin which do not mention this issue. Per reliable sources, being environmentally wasteful is part of the basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Grayfell your position on this is false and you have had many editors complaining about this. This is in violation of MOSLEAD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Like @Grayfell: said this is important information to include and could be emphasized even further in the Intro. Recent research emphasizes this:

"The Environmental Footprint of Bitcoin Mining Across the Globe: Call for Urgent Action", https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003871 Uninspired Username (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

One of countless such studies. That particular study has been covered by a couple of science-journalism outlets, such as Discover Magazine. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant, as you already know. Reality isn't decided by the complaints of a handful of editors, and from past experience, most of those editors are citing unreliable pro-cryptocurrency nonsense for their sources -again, as you already know. Saying that this is "false" is ignoring what reliable sources are saying. Pretending this isn't a defining problem for bitcoin is neither appropriate nor wise. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anything you suggested is false, Grayfell. I don't know what the history is here, but my concern was only with its mention in the first paragraph. First paragraphs are defining in Wikipedia's tone, so when I read the paragraph before, it felt like it was pushing some kind of POV. One can succinctly describe bitcoin without remarking on environmental effects, just as one can describe soft drinks without bringing up obesity, or tobacco without mentioning cancer. I think the current state is fine, though could use some re-org. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Its not my personal opinion, we follow MOSLEAD, and this content has no business in the first paragraph. Your position that it belongs there is false. We are not debating the environmental content in the article body in this section, we are discussing your position relating to the weight you want to apply to it in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll bite. From the MOSLEAD page:

"It should identify the topic, [...] and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

While the environmental impact is established, it is certainly controversial and is only referenced once else in the article, which seems low. Uninspired Username (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's goofy to give this such precedence How many industries, hobbies, or activities exist where we give their power consumption/CO2 emissions/etc in the lead? Video games? Pornography? Football? How many kilowatt-hours, tons of CO2, and/or gallons of water have sovereign states spent on shooting each others' citizens to death this year? Should that be in the lead of war? jp×g🗯️ 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair point... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a fair point, it's silly whataboutism. Bitcoin and other proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are designed to waste electricity as self-licking ice cream cones. Video games and pornography, by contrast, exist to meet a real-world demand. If you want to link to Environmental impact of war in the lead of war, go right ahead. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a real-world demand for bitcoin. Whether this demand is "good", "moral", or "useful" is another question. But people do use bitcoin, to speculate, buy drugs, fund crime, or hedge inflation, do cross-border payments, store value, etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCACY applies to this comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Add to history section,

In 2021, a Bitcoin Futures ETF, BITO, from Proshares was approved and listed.

References

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! Vgbyp (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Add to history section,

In 2017, the first futures on Bitcoin was introduced in the CME.

References

207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vgbyp (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

Change 'bitcoin' throughout the article to 'Bitcoin' because it is a proper noun and deserves to capitalized. 218.149.60.143 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: While I agree with the IP, I also believe that first, we must change the titles of the linked articles (such as Environmental effects of bitcoin). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

See Bitcoin#Units_and_divisibility: No uniform capitalization convention exists; some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the unit of account. The Oxford English Dictionary advocates the use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Decentralized?

According to our cryptocurrency article:

An October 2021 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Bitcoin suffers from systemic risk as the top 10,000 addresses control about one-third of all Bitcoin in circulation. It is even worse for Bitcoin miners, with 0.01% controlling 50% of the capacity. According to researcher Flipside Crypto, less than 2% of anonymous accounts control 95% of all available Bitcoin supply.

References

Saying Bitcoin is "decentralized" is a bit misleading because it implies that the bitcoin network is democratic and fair to its users, but really it is not the case. I think it would be better to say "trustless" or something like that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin is described by RS as decentralized, so we describe it like this. However, there decentralization is a continuum and centralization challenges you mention are addressed in this subsection: Bitcoin#Scalability_and_decentralization_challenges. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

There are three kinds of decentralization in bitcoin: decentralization of stock (highly centralized, but mostly through exchanges and wallet services), decentralization of mining (highly centralized, but mostly through pools), and decentralization of network nodes (highly decentralized). When the article says that bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, it means it in a sense of network, because neither control of stock nor control of mining gives control over the protocol. We could try finding RS for each sort of decentralization and discuss them in more detail in the article, of course. Vgbyp (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC on energy use estimates in the LEAD

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Statement

Shall we including this statement diff in the LEAD: "and was responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." (or similar)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, the statement (and other similar and often cited statements related to digiconomist.net) are anchored by a group of mostly students that seem to promote themselves as climate activists and influencers related to this position.

• Alex de Vries: operator of often cited digiconomist.net. He is PHD candidate and his linkedin refers to himself as "Global influencer"
• Ulrich Gallersdörfer: Lecturer at Technical University of Munich and founder of the "Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute" according to his linkedin.
• Lena Klaaßen: PHD candidate at ETH Zurich according to her linkedin and her school website
• Christian Stoll: seems to be a "former student" according to MIT. Do we have an actual position for this person?

Are we contributing to these students fame by citing it with this weight? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The journal Joule is published by Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.

As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:

• Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition
• Up in smoke: Considerations for lithium-ion batteries in disposable e-cigarettes

So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a WP:PREPRINT as Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.

Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.

I also agree with JPxG's comment above. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count 20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".

It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).

Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).

The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the debate, this recently published paper Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review mentions that de Vries' analysis "has been widely criticized for its oversimplified view of mining operations and dependence on anecdotal examples to back the assumption". They explain further in the article what they consider are weaknesses of de Vries' estimate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have requested a close by an uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that was the way to do it. Actually Jtbobwaysf had already done it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request. Nemov (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Polling

• Remove from WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is WP:PROMO of WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral tending towards remove: per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY + per JPxG (yes it's whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as WP:WIKIVOICE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove Not from peer reviewed source and not WP:SIGNIFICANT207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
• Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited 90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The CNBC citation you added cites the White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Retain, and coverage of the topic should be expanded in the body because of its importance. One paragraph tucked away in the Mining section is not adequate for this facet with an article of its own. It will be easier to incorporate it into the lead when it is addressed properly in the body. 3df (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove. Per my discussion comment. Get a proper RS, see what they say, then reform. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove from lead for MOS:LEADREL, but retain in article. The source seems strong enough for inclusion (per A455bcd9's discussion comment) to establish that such estimates exist, but does not establish that this estimate is a central fact about Bitcoin worthy of inclusion in the lead.Carleas (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove from the lead but can include in the article if reliable sources are cited. NihonGoBashi (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove as per Antoine in the Discussion section (though I don't think it's a RS due to the lack of peer review). - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

XBT lol?

absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.

googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.

no one calls BTC XBT

whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.

141.151.92.241 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code. Vgbyp (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

NYSE ETF rigged

Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any? Vgbyp (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Spergerrand" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spergerrand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Spergerrand until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

Please remove this sentence:

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

and replace it with this one:

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

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

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

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