Talk:Bitcoin

Floating point operations

I edited the bit about FLOPS. Bitcoin does not use floating point operations, and to put a figure in FLOPS is incorrect. Even the cited "reference" (and I use the term loosely) at [1] states "We make exactly 0 petaFLOPS. Ok, we have to work around it but how? You can't convert integer in flops operations...". This person is correct: Bitcoin is zero petaFLOPS, and integer ops can not be converted into flops. To put a FLOPS value in the Wikipedia article, particularly one cited from an anonymous user on a random bitcoin chat forum, is nonsense. Barry McGuiness (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement. This is only for comparing the amount of work done by Bitcoin to other computing systems which this measurement does well. We are comparing computing power here, not the work generated.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement" - No, it wouldn't. You can't convert between IOPS and FLOPS like that. The FLOPS value has no validity at all. The calculation of the "estimate" in the bitcointalk.org forum chat assumes that there is some kind of equivalency between the IOPS and FLOPS performed by a GPU, but there is no such equivalency. The implication of your measurement is that an increase in the FLOPS processed by an average GPU, say by 20%, would mean that the "estimate" would be also increased by 20%, even if the integer ops (and therefore, bitcoin hashes) remained constant. This is clearly invalid. The FLOPS figure is not even wrong; it doesn't make any sense. It's like trying to say that Lance Armstrong is one of the fastest runners alive, because you can measure his average speed on a bike and convert that to an an equivalent running speed. It just doesn't make any sense. If you want to put a performance estimate, then put the number of hashes per second, or integer ops per second, not flops, because the number of flops performed by bitcoin is zero (a point that, again, the cited bitcointalk.org chat actually states). Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another reference:

“ Thats a gibberish number. It is like saying that one mile per hour is equal to 14.285 pounds (because some car that weighs 2000 lbs can go 140 MPH). There are no floating point operations involved in the calculation of a bitcoin hash. None at all. 0 FLOPS. ”

Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that FLOPS is also a senseless metric. I assume the closest meaningful measure of FLOPS would be the combined (but unused) floating point capabilities of all the GPUs being dedicated to Bitcoin mining at any given time. On the other hand, FPGAs and ASICs configured for Bitcoin mining have an easily calculated metric of FLOPS: zero. So as the hash rate goes onward and upward due to these being used for mining, the real number of FLOPS on the network can be accurately predicted to tend toward zero. Casascius♠ (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So-called "most powerful distributed" yadda yadda

This REALLY needs a reliable source before it can be re-inserted. The note that someone added even helpfully explained "hey this is an estimate and the hashing operation doesn't even do floating point operations"! The "citation" that Folding@Home is the "second biggest" did not at all prove that F@H is the 2nd biggest nor that Buttcoin is the biggest. The other citations were to non-WP:RSes.

Get some reliable media coverage to back up this claim or leave it out. Your Lord and Master (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Namcoins

namecoin is based on the bitcoin technology but there is no reference to it. I'm missing the aspect of the bitcoin technolgy to be something new that wasn't there before and therefore enables not just moneytrading but also building new bitcoin-alike technologies.

in this respect, bitcoin can be seen as a distributed tamperproof logic timestamp server that functions as a key-value store. how could that be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.211.18 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Namecoins aren't notable. They are not being included.--HowardStrong (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability only applies to whether an individual article exists for a given topic, not whether that topic is mentioned in the content of other articles: see WP:NOTABILITY, quote "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.".

But that doesn't even matter, because in this case, notability is already established by the fact that the Namecoin article exists. If you do not think that Namecoin is notable, then you should work to get that article deleted on that basis. Barry McGuiness (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Namecoin is based on Bitcoin technology, it is absolutely relevant to this article and should be included as a brief mention, perhaps in a section about such technologies that are based on or inspirired by Bitcoin. - SudoGhost 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is exchanged throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Russia.

The categories will stay accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)

The categories only include currencies exchanged within a geographically-defined region, not every medium of exchange excepted by anyone within a specific continent. – Zntrip 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a currency that is traded in those areas.--HowardStrong (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not a currency, it is a private scrip. It is not legal tender in any jurisdiction and is not issued by a monetary authority for the purposes of establishing the money supply of an economy. The fact that some individuals accept it for certain transactions is irrelevant. – Zntrip 03:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought currency was any medium of exchange.--HowardStrong (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Zntrip, if this is the edit in question. Bitcoin is not a "Currency of the Americas" or any other area. I have some won around here somewhere, if someone accepts that as currency it doesn't become a "Currency of the Americas". Beinng able to use unrecognized currency in private transactions doesn't mean it belongs in a given category like that. I also don't think it belongs in any of those categories especially when considering the nature of Bitcoin, which removes the need to tie it to any one geopolitical area. - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Scrip requires a peg, for example a merchant saying that they will sell goods at such and such ratio to the scrip, or a fixed exchange ratio to a pre-existing currency. Bitcoin is not pegged to anything, its price freely floats. Therefore Bitcoin is not scrip. Anonymous, 05:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.76 (talk)

• Comment - the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) calls Bitcoin a currency. Genjix (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no doubt that Bitcoin can be a currency/commodity by de facto. But it is not a token that gets passed around. It is quite literally brought into existence by a ledger entry secured by cryptographic hash which proves original ownership of a number value. Subsequent transactions subtract a number value and assign it to another account, again secured by a digital signature authorizing the transaction. Julian Tosh (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2012 (-8)

Most currencies don't use tokens and just adjust numeric values like you describe. In the case of Bitcoin, however, that is NOT accurate: Bitcoin uses "coins" which can be transferred either as a whole or by combining/dividing. There is no notion of accounts in the low level, that is just a high-level abstraction used by wallets. --Luke-Jr (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the three latest comments are relevant to the discussion. We are not discussing if Bitcoint is a currency or not; we are instead discussing if this article belongs in these categories. – Zntrip 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "currency"

I would like to begin a discussion, which has taken place in several other sections, about the use of the world "currency" in this article. As I have previously stated, Bitcoin does not seem to qualify as a "currency". The term is used in economics to denote the medium of exchange that is a jurisdiction's legal tender and part of the money supply of that jurisdiction's economy. I would agree however that the terms "electronic currency" (as well as e-currency, digital currency, etc.) and "alternative currency" could be used on the article, as those terms convey different concepts. – Zntrip 23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like alternative currency or electronic or virtual currency seems to be what most of the sources seem to use, so it would make sense to use the same terminology. - SudoGhost 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was argued very well above that Bitcoin is agreed to be a general currency. Most currency is electronic anyways. 90% of the US dollar is. It's redundant and it implies Bitcoin is somehow lesser because it has no government issuing it. Bitcoin is medium of exchange, period, that is a currency. We are also seeing banknotes going around for Bitcoin, so it's not entirely electronic. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any such comment, but saying that currency is defined as a given definition (which varies, btw), and that you believe Bitcoin meets that definition, and therefore it is a currency, is WP:OR. - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency. Gold is a currency in the same sense.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-02/europe/31272985_1_currency-traders-forex/2

"Bitcoin poses a puzzle for regulators. It does not fit the UK Financial Services Authority's definition of e-money as it is not issued on the receipt of funds, according to an FSA response to a Bitcoin business that requested to be regulated in the UK.

But the creation of Bitcoin could amount to "issuing payment instruments" as long as Bitcoins in fact count as money, which is "if and when they become widely used", the FSA concluded.

A spokeswoman for the German Bundesbank told Reuters it was not classifying Bitcoins as e-currency."--HowardStrong (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a source, where did you get that from? - SudoGhost 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the link above? Of course it's a source.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're not going to indent all of your comment, then no, it's hard to find stuff you link. However, that source doesn't support your claim at all. I'll ask again, do you have a source that support the claim that "the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency"? The only thing that source says is that it "could amount to "issuing payment instruments", not that it does or that this would be considered currency. - SudoGhost 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a pedant. I'll find a primary source of course but my claim was quoted right in the article of a reliable piece of journalism: It's not legally classified as a e-currency by regulators who have bothered to classify it.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to say something "clearly" calls something a currency, don't provide a source that says nothing of the sort, and then claim someone is being pedantic when they point this out, you cannot have it both ways. It's not legally classified as e-currency by the Deutsche Bundesbank, so this somehow means that it's a currency in the UK? I would love an explanation for how you came to this conclusion. - SudoGhost 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency but is being traded like traditional money, what else can it be besides currency? Could it be anything like the original tokens of value that were traded without governments? Weren't those currencies? It's not a matter of precision but logic. Z over here has a firm convictions that only government issued reciepts are considered money but history shows otherwise. And Bitcoin is showing not to exclusively be a e-currency. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Take the first part of your sentence: "it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency" and stop. Clarify that, "It is not being treated as a traditional e-currency by Deutsche Bundesbank". and that's what the source says. The source does not say "but is being traded like traditional money" and to claim that not being e-currency means that it is a currency is a false dichotomy. "What else could it be?" is not how Wikipedia provides information, you need a reliable source supporting your claim. - SudoGhost 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to the coins and Bitcoin dollar bills people are using. I am speaking in general about things that are attributable.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin, which I have stated. 90% of the US dollar and Euro exist electronically. It's an obvious truism for any currency. Should we start calling the US dollar emoney now?--HowardStrong (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

...and you need a source to verify those things. Please provide a source for your claim that "UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency", or anything else you just said. - SudoGhost 00:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment you had a source that verified that "the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin". So what? Even if that were the case (unlikely), that does not somehow mean that Bitcoin is a currency, nor does that mean that "we start calling the US dollar emoney", because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources used to describe the USD does not use this descriptor, so no, we wouldn't. We might mention in the relevant article that it had been referred to as "ecurrency" by a reliable source if prominent enough and relevant enough to the article, but that's it. - SudoGhost 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The only source is an email somebody forwarded to me. I am not going to go through the work of verifying that. What's for certain is that the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above. Additionally, the fact that these coins and bills exist, is testament enough that Bitcoin is not a strict e-money. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20125470-1/are-physical-bitcoins-legal/ That is the principle here: Bitcoin is not solely an e-money. Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That "the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above" does not mean anything. A source saying that Bitcoin isn't something does not in any way come close to verifying that it is something else. The fact that coints and bills exist also do not mean that it is currency. You cannot claim that "Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital." and then also claim that the USD is "ecurrency". Again, you cannot have it both ways. You can argue and speculate and draw whatever conclusions you'd like, but unless you have reliable sources that directly support what you're saying, it doesn't have any bearing on what the article says. - SudoGhost 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if a currency is traded physcally, it is generally a currency. I really don't care about winning arguments: The fact is Bitcoin is also a physical currency and that's attritable. To call physical objects digital and electronic is dead wrong. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A electronic currency is a currency. A banknote is a form of currency. The general term currency applies here.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source that backs up what you're claiming, you can state it all you'd like and draw all the inventive conclusions you'd like, but it doesn't matter, and will not effect how the article is written. - SudoGhost 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a inventive conclusion that Bitcoin banknotes and coins are traded and exist. It's already cited in the article. I can provide more citations. If it's attributable, it's encylopedic. Physical Bitcoins are physical currency.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How does this mean that Bitcoins are not overwhelmingly referred to as electronic/digital currency? It doesn't. The same way the USD having an electronic aspect does not mean it should be referred to as "ecurrency", the inverse is also true here for the same reason: we use what reliable sources use, not what we want the article to say. The article already details the physical notes, so you're arguing for something that's already there. That however, does not change what the WP:LEDE will say. - SudoGhost 00:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article summary covers the topic as a whole, not just one aspect of it. Many sources may say it is a electronic currency but it doesn't cover its physical and overall use. Sources may shape content but they don't shape organization and categorization of the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Bitcoin exists physically has no bearing on whether it is a currency. Many alternative currencies exist physically. – Zntrip 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An alternative currency is a currency. Alternative is just a subjective label.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these coins exist does not mean the lede changes, unless you can provide a single source that says these coins are used with anywhere near the same frequency as the electronic bitcoin, it is grossly WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the physical notes. Not liking what reliable sources use to describe a subject does not mean you can change the meaning, you say "subjective", but it is a qualifier as required by a concise WP:LEDE. - SudoGhost 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we all agree that Bitcoin is an alternative currency. If so, why not just use that in the lead? – Zntrip 01:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the consensus agrees, that can be the title. Alternative is a more useful qualifier than digital which is so plainly obvious.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this proposal an hour. If nobody objects, I'll change it.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the sources in the article use "digital/electronic", and I don't see any that refer to it as an "alternative currency", it doesn't make sense to change the lede sentence in this way. It's fine to expand upon it in the article proper by explaining that it is an "alternative currency" by citing reliable sources, but it's inappropriate to ignore reliable sources and use a descriptor we feel is more appropriate. - SudoGhost 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several sources that refer to Bitcoin as an "alternative currency" (such as Market Watch). We could include them in the article. – Zntrip 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both terms could be incorporated in the lead. Example: "Bitcoin is an electronic alternative currency". – Zntrip 01:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very excessive. It does not read well at all. I take back what I said: Both terms are very obvious. They don't even need to be mentioned. It's really all been about writing and the readability to me, not the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both terms are used but of the two, "digital/electronic" seems to be much more common (even by the Bitcoin creator), and electronic is a more concise definition, since "alternative currency" means many many things, whereas electronic currency has a more narrow definition while lines up with Bitcoin more appropriately (as seen in the Electronic money article itself). - SudoGhost 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Hi, I just thought I'd leave a message here given that I just protected this article from editing (in response to a request at WP:RFPP). I protected the page indefinitely since it seems there have been consistent disputes regarding content and references, I suggest requesting external assistance in resolving the editing conflict, perhaps via WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, WP:Requests for comment, or other dispute resolution options. When an agreement is reached, either request unprotection at WP:RFPP or leave a note on my talk page and I or another administrator will re-enable editing. Let me know if you need assistance with expediting any solutions. · Andonic ^contact 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Under Concern, start a section on Taxation;

.

I propose to add a section on taxation.

See for the source of the discussion. This reference could be used to support the text in the article written as of 29 October 2012.

In September 2012, the Intra-European Organization of Tax Administrations (IOTA), in Tbilisi, Georgia, held a workshop titled "Auditing Individuals and Legal Entities in the Use of e-Money." The workshop was attended by representatives from 23 countries. Jerry Taylor, IOTA's technical taxation expert, said, "There's an awful lot happening on the Internet environment which is fascinating at the moment and introducing new challenges for auditors when it comes to virtual currency." Bitcoin was mentioned during the workshop.

Matthew Elias, founder of the Cryptocurrency Legal Advocacy Group (CLAG) published "Staying Between the Lines: A Survey of U.S. Income Taxation and its Ramifications on Cryptocurrencies", which discusses "the taxability of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin." CLAG "stressed the importance for taxpayers to determine on their own whether taxes are due on a bitcoin-related transaction based on whether one has "experienced a realization event." Such examples are "when a taxpayer has provided a service in exchange for bitcoins, a realization event has probably occurred, and any gain or loss would likely be calculated using fair market values for the service provided."

Peter Vessenes, Bitcoin Foundation's executive director, said, since the foundation is trying to pay for everything in bitcoin, including salaries, "How do we W-2 someone for their bitcoins? Do we mark-to-market every time a transfer happens? Payroll companies cringe." The Bitcoin Foundation hopes "to push for solid guidance about its legal and tax treatment." Patrick Murck, legal counsel for the Bitcoin Foundation, said he would like "to help regulators understand the technology better so they can make better decisions." Murck said, "Bitcoin has the potential to become much more than a niche currency, but it needs the guidance and understanding of regulators." and "The full potential of bitcoin could be realized through clearer guidelines and a better understanding by financial and tax regulators." and "Part of making that happen is to talk to regulators, the IRS, and tax professionals and helping them understand that bitcoin is not this nefarious thing, it's just software, it's a community, and there's nothing inherently nefarious about either of those things."

Please discuss on this article's talk page. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be the first subject under Concerns. Great work.--Another John S (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can this be added as described? A "Taxation" section under "Concerns"? --Bitcoin (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

On October 31, 2012, I did some minor copyedit and fixed some formatting issues. I would be hornored to add it the the main article when protection is removed. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the article link to Matthew Elias since it links to another person that's not him. --Bitcoin (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Is there consensus to add this section to the article? If so, where? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Request disabled due to no response — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation

Please remove the entire "As an investment" section under "Concerns" because it is not cited by a reliable secondary source. The discussion of this edit is as follows.

Please cite the statement under "As an investment" under "Concerns" with these sources:

• The Register: "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. New users acquire the currency by running the software on their computers, and occasionally “striking it lucky” when they discover the number of the next Bitcoin to be issued. Over time, the Bitcoin algorithm is designed to slow down the rate at which new Bitcoins are issued – which means early adopters were able to amass more coins more quickly than today’s user; and, if the network continues to grow, today’s user will amass more of the currency than someone who joins the network two years from now. This gives all current users a vested interest in promoting the system to the next round of participants. The architecture therefore encourages boosterism...[2]
• Reuters: Financial traders have a new toy: Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the Internet.[3]

--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

that says something to the effect of ". This criticism is baseless since Bitcoin does not exhibit any substantial attributes of Ponzi schemes". Unlike Ponzi schemes, buying Bitcoin provides no returns other than price fluctuations. Unlike Ponzi schemes, the people who invented Bitcoin and bought Bitcoin first cannot "run with the investors' money". Unlike Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin does not require a continual stream of investments to maintain its market price or its value. It is important that we do not allow lies to remain unchallenged. --Rudd-O (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it's baseless? - SudoGhost 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do: http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ Rudd-O (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should look at the source for the statement. It's dead. It probably wasn't even reliable.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dead links are still reliable sources, I'm looking at it right now. Nor is it the only ponzi scheme allegation related to Bitcoin (although these make use of Bitcoins, the ponzi scheme isn't inherit in the currency).[4][5] - SudoGhost 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, those sources are an entirely different criticism. If the "ponzi claim" is significant, sure, it can be included. If not: WP:UNDUE. It's still retarded though. It's like saying Apple stock is a ponzi scheme because people buy it in hopes its price increases which is standard investment behavior. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have reliable sources to refute it, awesome. - SudoGhost 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The burden of proof is on whoever included or wants to preserve the statement. We have one small site making this claim. I think we need more. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" -Jimbo Wales, WP:UNDUE --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement is sourced. If you want it removed, you'll need to do better than "I don't like it." - SudoGhost 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to keep the statement, you're going to have to prove it's significant and not WP:FRINGE. In fact, it's not sourced at all. While I think Bitcoin is a farce as much as the next guy, we're building an encyclopedia here.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the multiple sources that have been presented in this discussion, claiming that it's WP:FRINGE is easily refuted. - SudoGhost 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This statement (that some have criticized Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme) should simply be removed. The dead-link source in this case is not reliable, as it provides no evidence or argument to support its title. 72.188.13.165 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the source, see the discussion above, a link is provided. - SudoGhost 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"We can effectively think of “Satoshi Nakamoto” as being on top of a Ponzi scheme. But unlike physical world Ponzi schemes where the creators almost always end up in jail, the creator of bitcoins is anonymous and went out of his way to use anonymous email accounts through TOR networks to anonymously publish a whitepaper on bitcoins. The next wave of speculators who bought early into the bitcoin scheme and/or tried to generate their own bitcoins at a much slower pace (but still much higher than today) were the next tier in the scheme and they can probably walk away with some nice earnings if they pull out before the bubble bursts. At this late stage when the mainstream news is reporting on bitcoins, we have speculators trying to buy in at extremely high valuations hoping to sell to the 'greater fool'." - Conveniently Anonymous, Bitcoins, a Crypto-Geek Ponzi Scheme

That's all that is mentioned: An op-ed editorial and characterization of Bitcoin with no other references. There is not even proof Satoshi Nakamoto cashed in his earnings or has earned anything, period. This is not an encyclopedic reference.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

2 things: 1 - he did not keep a bunch of bitcoins for himself. He released the code and whoever mined them (post genesis block) acquired them. A ponzi implies that the starters have a vested interest in seeing it rise above those that followed. There is no proof (nor any indication) that he is sitting on a bunch of coins. 2 - As mentioned previously, the reason for this label seems to be because its speculatory in nature, not a ponzi. If everything that is speculatory (and rewards early adopters over late adopters) a ponzi? Is the real estate market a ponzi? How about wheat futures? Stocks? The analogy is ridiculous. It's just a form of speculation that the author couldn't understand and therefore seemed to label it a ponzi.Bingersb (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This article can be usefull to understood why Bitcoin can't be a ponzi scheme: http://www.runtogold.com/2012/11/why-bitcoin-is-tangible-digging-into-the-guts-of-bitcoin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostfat (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some people have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is certainly notably incorrect. Even though I don't agree with that conclusion, it is a common perception and deserves to be addressed in the article. I think we should expand the section with the reasoning behind the labeling, and, once the consensus viewpoint has shifted, then so note. Lauciusa (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What fact? Where? There are no other sources that this is a major claim besides a single editorial with no referenced reasoning. Again, if it is a common perception, cite it with a reliable secondary reference.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm as big a Bitcoin fan as anyone, but let's not pretend here. There's a reason why this is a FAQ on the Bitcoin wiki itself : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F. I can dig up a dozen blogs that blithely dismiss Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. It does not benefit the community to pretend that nobody thinks this; instead the idea should be addressed directly. Lauciusa (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Blogs are not a reliable source. I am not a Bitcoin fan -- I sort of think it is funny money. I am just trying to make sure the article follows encyclopedic guidelines. This claim can be included if it has significant secondary coverage. What you're proposing is including original material in an encyclopedia that works off objective, secondary references. This may be a real viewpoint. That's great but we can't include it without proper citation. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources:

• The Register: "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. New users acquire the currency by running the software on their computers, and occasionally “striking it lucky” when they discover the number of the next Bitcoin to be issued. Over time, the Bitcoin algorithm is designed to slow down the rate at which new Bitcoins are issued – which means early adopters were able to amass more coins more quickly than today’s user; and, if the network continues to grow, today’s user will amass more of the currency than someone who joins the network two years from now. This gives all current users a vested interest in promoting the system to the next round of participants. The architecture therefore encourages boosterism...[6]
• Reuters: Financial traders have a new toy: Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the Internet.[7]

The Register article is particularly useful because it explains why Bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The register article gets the definition of ponzi wrong. The first (and probably most important) characteristic of a ponzi scheme (according to Wikipedia) is "Typically extraordinary returns are promised on the investment". Nobody is in a position with Bitcoin to make such promises and I'd like to see a citation where someone credible has done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.72.172 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"Typically" is the important word there, it doesn't mean "A Ponzi scheme always does this, and anything that doesn't isn't a Ponzi scheme". Even if that were the case, however, the source isn't saying "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", it's saying "Bitcoin has been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme". It's not a requirement that it have all the characteristics in order to make that statement true. - SudoGhost 20:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving it as such horribly misleads the reader who thinks they are reading information from an encyclopedia rather then uninformed heresay about what a ponzi scheme might or might not be. The quote should not be stricken, but should instead be amended with correct infromation on what a ponzi scheme is and how bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. To hide this fact is to purposely mislead the reader. Stevenwagner (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no way the article is misleading, it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and that's exactly what reliable sources reflect. It's not going to be amended with "what a ponzi scheme is and how bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme", because reliable sources don't suggest either way, and the article does not either. - SudoGhost 22:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. For an example of a Ponzi scheme promising good, but not extraordinary, returns, see Bernard Madoff. That's part of why Madoff was able to keep it going for so long. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that some find me a "dick", but the statement has plenty of sources that can verify what the article is saying. I appreciate that some people don't want that information in the article, but articles have the good and the bad, we don't remove content just because we feel the bad isn't valid when reliable sources feel otherwise. - SudoGhost 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Not only is the "source" (lol) article misinformed as per http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ but at the same time the wikipedia page presents the accusation without any basis and it's certainly not neutral point of view either, because the true statement that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme (to wit: it's not fraudulent, and it's not an investment except in the vaguest and most watered-down, intentionally obtuse of senses, so it couldn't possibly be "a fraudulent investment operation" to begin with) gets absolutely no face time there. Remind me again: Why do we tolerate slanderous lies on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The blog you're citing is not a reliable source, and has no bearing on how Wikipedia articles are written. If you're still asserting the statement in the article is without basis, I would ask that you please re-read this discussion, because you've missed the multiple reliable sources that say otherwise, and when the only thing you can provide to the contrary is some blog entry that somebody just wrote, it doesn't make for a convincing argument. Your argument that it "couldn't be a ponzi scheme because it doesn't fit your definition of what a ponzi scheme is" would be original research. Find a reliable source that makes the same conclusion, but even then it wouldn't warrant removing the content. The article does not say "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme", it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and there are plenty of sources that back that statement up, so not agreeing with the assessment isn't sufficient to warrant the removal of sourced content from a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The basis for this lie about Bitcoin comes down to this (culled from the "source" LOL): "We can effectively think of “Satoshi Nakamoto” as being on top of a Ponzi scheme.". That's it. That's not an argument (not even an invalid argument)... According to this retarded "reasoning", I could also say: "we can think of Jesus as a white person" and link it to the wikipedia article of Jesus Christ in the Controversy section under a Race Issues header. My point is that this statement in the "source" doesn't mean anything, and it's preposterous that this "source" is being used to provide false support to a lie.

What I want to know is: what are we waiting for to delete or neutralize (with the truth) this slanderous lie about Bitcoin? Simple bureaucracy of providing a source refuting a lie? Just delete the lie! Whether Bitcoin is or isn't a Ponzi scheme isn't an opinion or a matter of popular consensus, but a truth-bearing statement that can be evaluated rationally, and has been evaluated rationally already. As per http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ , Bitcoin clearly shares none of the characteristics that are unique to and essential about Ponzi schemes, so the statement is a lie (whether naive or perfidious), and the criticism ought to be either deleted or amended. Why do we allow silly process and bickering to hold back telling the truth? --Rudd-O (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The "logic" of the Ponzi scheme lie is easily refuted. The lie says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates." Everything after "in that it" is purported to be the reason to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. So, is it cool for me to go to the Apple page and vandalize it by adding "Some criticize Apple stock for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewarded early shareholders through early stock granting and increasing stock prices" and a link to articles supporting these facts? Rudd-O (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your argument is contradicted by multiple reliable sources. What's written in the article is that "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and that's reflected by what reliable sources say, and the source in the article isn't the only source that says this. There is nothing inaccurate in what is written in the article, that some have criticized Bitcoin in this manner is reliably sourced, so it isn't a lie. What a blog says about Ponzi schemes is well and fine, but doesn't affect how articles are written in any way. Blogs are not reliable sources and do not affect an article's content, especially when reliable sources refute the claims in the blog. - SudoGhost 03:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The statement "There is nothing inaccurate in what is written in the article" is incorrect and this has been proven to you using numerous sources, including one from the European Central Bank. The statement "that some have criticized Bitcoin in this manner is reliably sourced" is on its face technically correct (the source does indeed contain that lie), however that is not the point of contention here, the point of contention is that the content of the source is a lie, thus the way that the source is cited misrepresents intersubjectively verifiable material facts and misleads the reader into fearing Bitcoin, and that this lie has been refuted by a source much more reliable than a Register hit piece, namely the European Central Bank report on virtual currencies. I'm honestly pointing this obvious truth which somehow seems to blitz past your head (probably because you don't want to understand) purely out of formality. Your recalcitrantly incompetent behavior here has rightfully angered many people and, personally, it has convinced me that you are an incompetent control freak, thoroughly unsuited to be the editor of this page, who plays the bureaucrat game by choosing to keep a slanderous lie in a Wikipedia article rather than actually help the article convey the truth to Wikipedia users. Rudd-O (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To finalize, I will now exploit your own excuses to ridicule your incompetent behavior. For example, I'll say in this talk page that some have criticized SudoGhost for being an incompetent control freak who by happenstance wrongfully obtained editorial control of Wikipedia, and he misuses this privilege to make Wikipedia a more content-free and less rumor-free encyclopedia; also some have said that his mother is less clean than the legendary prostitute of Babylon. I will now proceed to source this obviously technically correct citation from my blog, which has been used as a reliable source in numerous articles across Wikipedia himself. Presto! Now you can't delete this because you would be contradicting your own shitty rationalization for keeping a lie on the Bitcoin article. Interesting, isn't it? Now, anyone who reads this might be led to believe these false rumors about SudoGhost. Perhaps that is the case, but the rumor stays here because, according to the venal and idiotic criterion of SudoGhost himself, the statement is obviously reliably sourced. Feel free to clean up on the formatting, son of a b*tch (I recall hearing that on Wikipedia), thanks. Rudd-O (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, you're asking to remove reliably sourced content without any explanation as to why it should be removed other than "I don't think it's correct", when reliable sources already show otherwise. You're insisting that a statement that can be verified as true is false, and that's why the change you're looking for is not being implemented. What you're asking violates several of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V), and how you're asking it is violating others (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL). Wikipedia does not remove well sourced content from an article just because there are individuals that do not like what it says, especially when these individuals can provide no reason to remove it other than "It's a lie", something that was proven inaccurate, not by editors, but by reliable sources. I'm sorry you feel that attacking someone's mother is how you achieve things but I can assure you that doesn't cast me in the negative light you think it does, but rather reflects on you and the substance of your position. I know you were trying to make a point with your "reference", but as has been pointed out, blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. There is a difference between a medium with editorial oversight such as The Register saying something, and some individual with his own website saying something. - SudoGhost 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, the rationale for removing the sentence is not "Rudd-O in his personal subjective opinion believes it is incorrect", the rationale is that it *is* incorrect, factually and indisputably so based on the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. The link he's providing you with is not a source, it's a factual argument that explains why the statement is incorrect. You should judge that argument based on its merits, not where it comes from. Reuters and especially the Register publish things which are not factually correct all the time: it's the job of encyclopedia writers to try and separate the right from wrong when it comes to matters of fact. Here's an analogy. Many American Congress-men believe the earth is 6000 years old, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Would you be happy with the Wikipedia entry on the Earth saying "Some sources say that the Earth is 6000 years old" and leave it at that? No, of course not. The fact that some people with a position of respected authority say something doesn't make it true. Mike Hearn (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like what you're seeing and what the article says are two different things, that's the only way I can figure you truly believe that what the article is saying is incorrect. The article does not say Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. So any argument that it isn't a ponzi scheme is missing that very key point. What the article says is that Bitcoin has been criticized for being a ponzi scheme, and that is accurate, and there's nothing you can say that would show otherwise, because reliable sources reflect what the article says. Bitcoin has been criticized for this, you cannot say that this is incorrect, because it has been proved otherwise. It has been criticized enough that the Bitcoin wiki itself makes a point to clarify why it isn't, which wouldn't be necessary if, as you say, what's written in this article is incorrect. It is not the job of editors to separate "right from wrong" when it means ignoring what reliable sources have published. Also, your analogy isn't a good one, because you're comparing scientific dating with religious dating, and Wikipedia reflects both of those positions as appropriate; we don't remove content just because we disagree with it. - SudoGhost 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is also something the individuals over at /r/Bitcoin seem to be confused on as well. The article does not say Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. That it has been criticized for such can be attributed to many reliable sources, and we have a core content policy on Wikipedia that says that if something has been mentioned that much by reliable sources, it generally warrants a mention in an article. If you're going to ask that sourced content be removed from a Wikipedia article, you're going to need a better reason than "sudoghost is a dick" and retorts about my mother. You believe that Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme, and that's fine, you can provide all the personal reasoning in the world why it isn't, but the article does not say that it is a ponzi scheme.- SudoGhost 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the article was not protected, I would happily go ahead and add referenced statements from reliable sources refuting the allegation. However, I can't. Also, the reason people are upset is that the article is ambiguously worded, it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a ponzi scheme". Is English your native language? The most natural way to parse this sentence is as "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and some criticize it for that" which is not true - a better phrasing would be "Some allege that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme". Mike Hearn (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter that it has been refuted, the article does not present it as a fact but reflects that sources have criticized this, it doesn't matter if overenthusiastic individuals think that the criticism isn't valid, it's still criticism and still belongs on the article. Until you stop arguing against things that aren't even in the article you're not going to get anywhere with this, and if the best you can do is insult other editors then you have shown your arguments for what they are. Throwing around insults instead of reason may be fine for /r/Bitcoin, but on Wikipedia not only with that get you blocked from editing, but only serves to discredit you and makes your argument look very weak. Stop arguing that Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme, the article does not say that it is, repeating that same argument is pointless. - SudoGhost 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I have disabled the original editprotected request because I can't see a consensus here. Please continue the discussion as necessary and reactivate if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read through this whole debate and one point that no one seems to really understand how the block reward works, which I think is the fundamental confusion over the whole "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme" thing... Bitcoin was designed from the start to taper off the block reward to effectively zero. If that were all it did, then the Ponzi accusation would hold some credence. However, the entire intent of tapering off the block reward was with the understanding that transaction fees would eventually equal out and eventually surpass the value of the block reward. As such, Bitcoin does not fall into the Ponzi category, as it is self sustaining and those mining later are eligible to receive the same amount (if not more) for mining than early adopters. In the future, it's entirely possible (I won't comment on the likelyhood) that a block reward with transaction fees would be worth more than 50 BTC or even 100 BTC... making those individuals that are mining in 10 years able to earn more per block than those mining in the early days.

This being the case, Bitcoin can not be classified as a Ponzi, since late adopters have just as much possibility of making money as the early adopters when averaged out of over time. This is directly contradictory to the entire Ponzi methodology.

Nitrowolf (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, Bitcoin is not classified as "a Ponzi", and even if the article did classify it as such, your personal analysis does not trump multiple reliable sources. What the article does say is that it has been criticized for being a ponzi scheme, and there are multiple reliable sources that back up this statement; that you don't think it's a ponzi scheme doesn't mean that we remove well sourced criticism notes that others have drawn a different opinion. Nobody likes it when something they are enthusiastic about gets criticized, but we don't remove criticism from articles just because we don't like it when they are criticized, that would run contrary to Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The block reward scheme, whether by coins or transaction fees, has very little to do with the characterisation of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme. The characterisation is due to its similarities to an economic bubble; like the famous Tulip mania, the value of bitcoin increases due to demand, which in turn leads to more demand as investors "buy in" hoping to make a profit. Such bubbles can not be sustained forever and inevitably collapse; from Ponzi scheme:

“ A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, or tulip bulbs) where prices rise because buyers bid more because prices are rising. Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory. As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinsic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme, there is no single person misrepresenting the intrinsic value. ”

The question of whether bitcoin is a bubble or ponzi scheme might revolve around who exactly mined the majority of the bitcoins in the early times, if it was (as seems likely) "Satoshi Nakamoto" and friends, then it certainly *resembles* a Ponzi scheme.

Anyway, that is my hypothesis, and SudoGhost is entirely correct above in stating that Wikipedia is about reliable sources and not personal conjecture. With that in mind, the articles at The Register etc. are all citable, and the forums etc. are not.

"This being the case, Bitcoin can not be classified as a Ponzi" - it does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what reliable, reputable sources have said about this issue. The ECB article quoted does not say that bitcoin is or isn't a Ponzi scheme, but it does say:

“ Another recurrent issue is whether Bitcoin works like a Ponzi scheme or not. Users go into the system by buying Bitcoins against real currencies, but can only leave and retrieve their funds if other users want to buy their Bitcoins, i.e. if new participants want to join the system. For many people, this is characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. ”

That is a very reliable source stating that, for many people, bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. Although they do not outright state that it is a Ponzi scheme, they do state that it is high-risk and vulnerable to collapse if confidence in the system falls:

“ although the current knowledge base does not make it easy to assess whether or not the Bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, it can justifiably be stated that Bitcoin is a high-risk system for its users from a financial perspective, and that it could collapse if people try to get out of the system and are not able to do so because of its illiquidity. ”

Barry McGuiness (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It might be worth quoting the other concerns in the ECB report in the "Concerns" section of the article:

“ Although the theoretical roots of the scheme can be found in the Austrian School of economics, Bitcoin has raised serious concerns among some of today’s Austrian economists. Their criticism covers two general aspects:4 a) Bitcoins have no intrinsic value like gold; they are mere bits stored in a computer; and b) the system fails to satisfy the “Misean Regression Theorem”, which explains that money becomes accepted not because of a government decree or social convention, but because it has its roots in a commodity expressing a certain purchasing power. ”

Barry McGuiness (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we all at least agree that if this section is here to stay, that the sources cited for the claim should be changed to the Reuters and The Register articles cited by Doyouevenlift84 way back in the beginning of this edit request? I fail to see how just that simple change could be controversial. --Maged123 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So if we are looking for a credible source which argues Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, then why has no one mentioned what the ECB say on page 27 of their report titled "Virtual Currency Schemes"? I don't mind that comment being there, as long as it is refuted with facts. A lot of people do in fact believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, it's a very common misconception, so it's not totally nonsensical to include that in the article. However, if we are going to include that in the article, then the article also needs to clearly refute that misconception with the facts of the matter. As it stands now, it's basically saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and that's what people have an issue with. It's not fair or balanced in any way. ECB comments follow.

“ A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity. On the one hand, the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole. Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange. On the contrary, Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin virtual currency project, does not hesitate to say that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky”. In addition, Bitcoin supporters claim that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party. ”

-llCHAOSll- (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion that section should be changed to say something like the following:

Some have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.[46] However, under the definition of a Ponzi scheme, Bitcoin is lacking many of the most important characteristics of a Ponzi scheme and cannot truly be classified as a Ponzi scheme.

The European Central Bank released a report in October of 2012 titled "Virtual Currency Schemes". On page 27 of this report they put forward several reasons why Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme and does not fulfil the definition of a Ponzi scheme. [ECB-SOURCE]

They point out that Bitcoin is decentralized and as such "there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds". They also note that "the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody", a key characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.

-llCHAOSll- (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we just include this chunk of text here?--

"In a whitepaper published by the European Central Bank, the central bank asserted that Bitcoin does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme."

And here's your footnote:

"European Central Bank. Virtual Currency Schemes. European Central Bank, 2012, p. 27. "

Zeno Izen (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

"It is the most widely used alternative currency, with the total money supply valued at over 100 million US dollars."

The edit proposed below can be found in the summary. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to: "It is the most widely used alternative currency, with the total market cap at over 100 million US dollars." The previous phrase is trying to summarize claims later in the article, which is per WP:MOS but it is phrasing it incorrectly and inaccurately. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe "market cap" (Market_capitalization) is the correct term for Bitcoin. It is correct for stocks, obviously, but I can find no reference to the market cap of the Euro or Canadian dollar, for instance. 98.182.19.118 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources use it to describe Bitcoin's usage and its significant enough to cover it in the article. If you can find a source that phrases Bitcoin's usage better, then you use that terminology and source. The Euro and CAD are not the best comparisons for this sort of thing because they do not have a predicatable and limited monetary base. In reality, Bitcoin can be treated like a stock (for better or worse) because its total supply can be measured. In this case, "market cap" is the best term even though this is a new use for it.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Forbes uses the term "market cap".[8]. The New York Times quotes Andresen as using it.[9]. So we have reliable sources for that. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with this proposed change. It shouldn't be controversial to change the article to say how much the money supply is valued in USD. Jtibble (talk) 01:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous partial un-concluded discussion archived at User_talk:Jtibble/Archive_0 —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Electrum client website has changed, requesting update.

According to the announcement topic at BitcoinTalk for the Electrum Client, located here, the Electrum client website is now located at http://electrum.ecdsa.org. Its previous website, http://electrum-desktop.com/, currently listed in the "services" section, is now a redirect to http://electrum.ecdsa.org. The website should be changed. As the above request is simple and is a simple substitution of one website for another, this edit should be classed as uncontroversial.

TLDR: Electrum's client website is now at http://electrum.ecdsa.org. Electrum client's website should be changed in the "Services" section of the article. This edit should be uncontroversial.

Thanks, Haseo9999 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to add info about alternative Bitcoin formats

There has been a lot of work by community members to create alternative Bitcoin containers, from hardware wallets, to physical coins, to bank notes, to checks, and I'd like to create a section detailing those, with images and explanations where appropriate. Please discuss which alternative formats should be features on this Bitcoin page. I've added a blurb to Coin, with an image of the Casascius physical Bitcoin, and I'd like to expand upon that here in the official page, as appropriate. Thanks! Jtibble (talk) 07:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is weusecoins.com listed as "the website" for Bitcoin?

For some reason, in the currency infobox, http://www.weusecoins.com/globe-bitcoin/ is listed as the issuing_authority_website. The link is a WebGL 3D map of the globe, with Bitcoin miners indicated on the globe.

I understand how someone thought it's cute to point to this link, but it's rather useless, specifically to a newcomer to this article. Perhaps the most canonical website that is associated with Bitcoin is http://bitcoin.org, and that should be the value of issuing_authority_website.

The article is protected and so I cannot edit it. Can someone please do so?

Ripper234 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

don't see this as a contentious edit, unless someone else can point out why this link needs to be there. I've added an edit request to the top of the section. - SudoGhost 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)