Ladislav Mecir (talk | contribs) →Upper case Bitcoin.: agreement |
TheMagikCow (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA|18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)|topic=Computing and engineering|page=2}} |
|||
{{GA nominee|23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)|nominator=[[User:Yoshi24517|<span style="color:lightgreen;font-family:arnprior">Yoshi24517</span>]][[User talk:Yoshi24517|<sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]] <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:black;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub>|page=2|subtopic=Computing and engineering|status=onhold|note=}} |
|||
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
{{Skiptotoctalk}} |
||
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Cryptography|class= |
{{WikiProject Cryptography|class=GA |importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Economics|class= |
{{WikiProject Economics|class=GA |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Finance|class= |
{{WikiProject Finance|class=GA |importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Free Software|class= |
{{WikiProject Free Software|class=GA |importance=High |computing-importance=low |software-importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Internet|class= |
{{WikiProject Internet|class=GA |importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Law|class= |
{{WikiProject Law|class=GA|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Numismatics|class= |
{{WikiProject Numismatics|class=GA |importance=Low|cryptocurrency=Yes|cryptocurrency-importance=top}} |
||
{{WikiProject Open|class= |
{{WikiProject Open|class=GA|importance=low}} |
||
{{incu-grad}} |
{{incu-grad}} |
||
}} |
}} |
Revision as of 18:44, 4 April 2015
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merged articles
|
---|
This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
RfC : Is my presentation of the quoted source more relevant to the Ponzi scheme dispute section?
The Ponzi scheme dispute section currently contains this:
(Oppose) "In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
I would like to change it to this:
(Support) "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, differentiated bitcoin from a ponzi scheme by stating that, "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud"."
Rationale for change: This law professor's opinion that bitcoin as a whole is a "collective delusion" is irrelevant and extremely distracting to the section topic which is listing views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Support for the reasons stated in rationale for change. The original presentation of the source is two statements joined by a semicolon, and the ommission of the later statement, being irrelevant to the topic, would not change the author's stance on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme, and as such is not a violation of wikipedia policy. His other irrelevant opinions, like many opinions, are simply not included, and therefore cannot be misrepresented.96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. Given that Posner's entire point about bitcoin is that it is 'a collective delusion', it would be intentionally misleading to omit half of the sentence being quoted, and accordingly a violation of Wikipedia policy. And since an RfC cannot overrule policy, there is nothing to debate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed edit would create a NPOV problem by eliminating half of the cited statement. It is in opposition to wikipedia policy and therefore should not, and can not happen. AlbinoFerret 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed edit would change semantics IMO. The statements separated by semicolon need to stay together.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why do the statements separated by a colon need to stay together? In combination its merely a non-sequitur. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Question: - I'm not seeing a rationale given for the change. You asked if it's better, but I have to ask, why do you think the change is an improvement? I'm not really seeing a reason to support the change, but then again I don't see the reasoning behind the RfC; maybe including a rationale stating why you think it should be changed would make it more clear. - Aoidh (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I put my reasons in the first "Support" post to try to not detract from the question itself. Perhaps I should change that though. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I mean you haven't explained how it's irrelevant to the topic. The quote is saying "it's not A because it's B", changing it to "it's not A" and leaving out the conclusion seems like cherry-picking with no benefit in doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- The quote is more like, in a discussion on whether or not something is A "It's not A because Z, but it's still B" when the author presents no reason to believe that if it were infact B, that would have any affect at all on whether it is A. B isn't presented as a reason that it's not A, it's just presented as a random off topic insult of the subject matter. Its a classic non-sequitur. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I mean you haven't explained how it's irrelevant to the topic. The quote is saying "it's not A because it's B", changing it to "it's not A" and leaving out the conclusion seems like cherry-picking with no benefit in doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I put my reasons in the first "Support" post to try to not detract from the question itself. Perhaps I should change that though. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed edit does not accurately depict the opinion of the source and therefore introduces a NPOV problem. 2605:A000:160A:C016:BCD8:B279:FAA8:A49C (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Question: How does removing opinions that do not relate to the topic innacurrately depict them? The point of the edit is to remove the opinions and not depict them at all because they're irrelevant. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it wouldn't be relevant if he said his later opinion somewhere else, but selectively quoting (even if only the relevant parts, like in this case, although I'd say the latter part is somewhat relevant) is taking it out of context and inappropriate. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC, then I will not be able
- Every quote is selective and lacks full context unless you quote the full source. If the regular editors here think the authors POV about bitcoin as a whole is beneficial to the Ponzi scheme dispute section, I will not be able to convince them otherwise.96.38.120.194 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Posner's opinion in the 'Ponzi scheme dispute' is that bitcoin resembles a Ponzi scheme, but isn't one because everyone is deluding themselves. That is his opinion on the subject, and accordingly that is what we must say. Claiming that he simply asserts that it isn't a Ponzi scheme is outright dishonest, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Every quote is selective and lacks full context unless you quote the full source. If the regular editors here think the authors POV about bitcoin as a whole is beneficial to the Ponzi scheme dispute section, I will not be able to convince them otherwise.96.38.120.194 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it wouldn't be relevant if he said his later opinion somewhere else, but selectively quoting (even if only the relevant parts, like in this case, although I'd say the latter part is somewhat relevant) is taking it out of context and inappropriate. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC, then I will not be able
- Question: How does removing opinions that do not relate to the topic innacurrately depict them? The point of the edit is to remove the opinions and not depict them at all because they're irrelevant. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - The conclusion of a quoted passage is anything but irrelevant, as it explains the author's reasoning behind why it isn't a ponzi scheme. Is it because of this that cherry picking the quote to remove the conclusion simply because the conclusion isn't the most favorable conclusion would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hurt the context of the sentence. I'm not sure how the IP editor came to the conclusion that the text is "non-sequitur", but the IP editor seems to be alone in that opinion, and when reading the source itself, I cannot disagree more with the IP editor's conclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - it would disort the intent of the line to cut it, though it's a Slate opinion piece so you could delete the 'law professor' part as confusing to that. The whole line puts light on 'Ponzi' being jokingly or informally used negative rather than a literal and legal charge. Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose I entirely understand and semi agree with what the original poster has said. However the way they rephrase the quote makes it seem like cherry picking and slightly biased. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Chopping that statement up and reproducing only the first half seems to me a clear case of selective quoting verging on quote mining. Because it reads like an endorsement, it is a misrepresentation of Posner's actual position. If the full statement is regarded as unsuitable for citing in this argument, it shouldn't be used at all rather than whittled into a shape that fits with a specific side of the issue. Elmidae (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not for Wikipedia or it's editors to decide if part of a selected quote is irrelevant or not, it's for the reader to decide, who must be given all the information to do so. Wikipedia must remain neutral at its core but cannot do so if it partially censors a quote to change the context because it's relevance is in dispute. I see no irrelevance in any part of the quote, - Posner is saying what he thinks it is not (a Ponzi scheme), then saying what he thinks it is ( collective delusion). It's not a random opinion thrown in out of nowhere, it is relevant. Leonardo da VinciTalk 01:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Curiously, almost every opinion above reads the quote as: It's not A because B., while it actually is: It's not A because R, it seems more like B. I think that the author is striving for accuracy: he is sure It's not A because R, that is also directly related to his qualification. In the it seems more like B part he expresses uncertainty and does not give any reason why; it is also unrelated to his qualification. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- It shows that the ambiguity of the quote is an issue, making a partial extract of it even more problematical, particularly since the title of the source says "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". It would make the author contradict himself with the proposed extracted quote. The value of the quote is in demonstrating in the section how problematical it is to establish whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme, therefore it is "disputed", as per section title. Leonardo da VinciTalk 11:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that the title of the article contradicts the finding by professor Pozner, which leads me to a conclusion that it was not professor Pozner who wrote the title of his article. As for "demonstrating how problematical it is to establish whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme", that is also rather incompatible with what professor Pozner wrote. He made it clear that he was sure about that part of his conclusion. But, nevermind, I think that the reader has got enough informations to make sense of the claims, although I, personally, am not interested in what seems to professor Pozner outside of his knowledge and qualification. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- It shows that the ambiguity of the quote is an issue, making a partial extract of it even more problematical, particularly since the title of the source says "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". It would make the author contradict himself with the proposed extracted quote. The value of the quote is in demonstrating in the section how problematical it is to establish whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme, therefore it is "disputed", as per section title. Leonardo da VinciTalk 11:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per the Oppose !votes above. Excluding half of the sentence changes its meaning and is not NPOV. The person being quoted is defining what a bitcoin is (a "collective delusion") in that second half of a sentence, which is different than just defining what a bitcoin is not (a "ponzi scheme"). If were to say, "Botany is not the study of elephants: it is the study of plants," and only the first part of that sentence were quoted, the meaning is different than if the whole sentence was quoted. It is true that botanists do not study elephants, but that is not the entire truth, and it does not accurately describe my statement. Ca2james (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Calling this an NPOV issue is an overreach. NPOV means the article as a whole needs to neutrally covers all of the significant views. That said, cutting his comment in half significantly distorts his intended meaning and we we should set a high standard for ourselves to avoid that. Perhaps we can scrap that source entirely and find someone else making the point? Alsee (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Legal status of bitcoin
Discussion
The discussed section contained the text: "It is illegal in at least nine countries: Bangladesh,[242] Bolivia,[243] Ecuador,[244] Iceland,[245] Inḋdonesia,[246] Kyrgyzstan,[247] Russia,[245] Thailand,[248] and Vietnam.[249]"
Having spotted that the "at least nine" text was not supported by any reliable source, I deleted it, below are the reasons why the deletion was necessary. I do not doubt that Fleetham can count, but the findings below prove that he did make serious errors when adding claims, influencing also the correctness of his count:
- The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Iceland cited the "Bitcoin: Market, economics and regulation" source [245]. The cited source contains an information that "Foreign exchange activities with bitcoin [are] illegal." That, however, is a different claim than "Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland". The confusion of legality of foreign exchange activities with the legality of bitcoin results in a serious misinformation, justifying the warning that the claim that "Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland" is not present in the cited source.
- The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Indonesia is based on the warning of the Bank Indonesia, which claimed that bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". The warning, however, does not claim bitcoin illegal, it just correctly claims that bitcoin was not enacted as a legal tender. The confusion of "bitcoin is not a legal medium of exchange" with "bitcoin is illegal" results in a serious misinformation, justifying the tag I used to warn the reader that the claim is not present in the cited source.
- The warning of the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic also does not contain the claim that "bitcoin is illegal in the Kyrgyz republic", which also justifies the use of the tag warning the reader that the claim cannot be found in the cited source.
- The claim that "bitcoin is illegal in Thailand" also contradicts the cited source, which states: "businesses that have licenses have continued operating bitcoin exchanges in Thailand." This also justifies the tag warning the reader that the claim that "bitcoin is illegal in Thailand" actually is not supported by the cited source.
After I marked the unsupported claims, Fleetham deleted all tags I added stating: 'Removed failed verification tags as sources clearly state things like "making purchases with Bitcoin is illegal in country"' This is not what sources state, as I summed up above. Thus, instead of trying to discuss in here, Fleetham once again chose edit-warring as the method and deleted all the well-justified tags as demonstrated above. (Note that when I mark a claim as unsupported by the cited source, the onus is on Fleetham to prove the claim is correct, which is what he refused to do.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am not a legal expert, but trying to put too much detail in the legal section will be difficult since only actual court cases in each jurisdiction will decide whether bitcoin is illegal in that jurisdiction or not. For example: it is stated above: "The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Indonesia is based on the warning of the Bank Indonesia, which claimed that bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". Thus, bitcoin is legal as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange. You can thus legally mine it and legally buy it outside Indonesia and hoard it in the country. It is legal, as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange. Similarly, intricate and complicated legal arguments can most probably be made for all statements regarding the legality of bitcoin in each jurisdiction in the world. This article is clearly not the space to get bogged down in these legal matters. Perhaps this should be stated as a preamble to this section. Obviously referencing newspaper articles about the legality or not of bitcoin in a country may be encyclopedic, but may be far from correct in terms of the actual legal status in a jurisdiction. Most probably not many court cases regarding this matter have been decided by now. The correct way would be to only allow references to court cases deciding these legal matters in each jurisdiction. Kraainem (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No Kraainem, I disagree with you arguing "complicated legal arguments most probably can be made". No it is actually not complicated and lets cut to the chase: Stick with the case, that Ladislav is making. He is correct: this is sloppy and generalizing referencing, all too well known to us. Thanks for staying with it, Ladislav. You have my support.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Kraainem: 'bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". Thus, bitcoin is legal as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange.' - Not being a "legal medium of exchange" means that the law does not require anybody to accept it as a medium of exchange. The interpretation that it is illegal to use it as a medium of exchange is mistaken. Please consult the legal tender article. Note also, that it is not my onus to convince anybody that my interpretation is correct, it is the onus of the editor adding the claims to the article to demonstrate that his interpretation is correct, which he refused to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir, your interpretation of the above term is a perfect example of what I stated previously about only a decided court case can be referenced regarding the interpretation of legal terms: I do not agree with your interpretation: thus, only an Indonesian court can decide the matter at hand - in the Indonesian case. Even a specific law is not the final say: only the interpretation of the courts of the stated law is the final say. Thus only decided court cases can be referenced. I agree with Chillum that it is better to avoid using the term "illegal" altogether. Kraainem (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Kraainem: this is where we can easily agree, although I do not intend to go as far as stating that the term "illegal" should be avoided. I merely state that the formulation used in the article is not supported by reliable sources, and should be changed to not misinterpret the known facts.
- @Ladislav Mecir: So, to rebut one by one:
- For Iceland, how about this quote from CNN Money, "That makes lots of governments wary of Bitcoin. But only two have made it illegal: Iceland and Vietnam"? I'm sure a note about the particulars--like the fact you can't buy or sell bitcoins in Iceland--is necessary, but there's plenty of sources that make similar "bitcoin is illegal in Iceland" statements.
- For Indonesia, I think you're mistaken here. Their central bank did not simply say that bitcoin is not legal tender, but instead states that using bitcoins to pay for something is illegal. Maybe that's a fine point, but the distinction is real. This is clear from the following quote from Yahoo! News Singapore:"Bank Indonesia’s Director of Communication Peter Jacobs said that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies do not make a legal medium of exchange in Indonesia." The term used is not "legal tender" but "medium of exchange." Something is legal tender if a private party is obligated to accept it as a payment, and something is a medium of exchange if a person can accept it as payment if he or she wants to. If you're unwilling to accept that this is true, here's another source that states, "Still, Bank Indonesia’s initial stance made public in January still stands, which states Bitcoin is is an illegal and unsupported exchange method. Bank deputy governor Ronald Waas said in January that Bitcoin violates three Indonesian laws..." .
- For Kyrgyzstan, you may be right. While the source does state, "...the use of “virtual currency”, bitcoins, in particular, as a means of payment in the Kyrgyz Republic will be a violation of the law of our state," it does go on to say that the "National Bank notes that “virtual currency” is not governed by the laws of the Kyrgyz Republic."
- For Thailand, your claim seems logically flawed. Simply because businesses get business licenses does not mean "bitcoin is legal" especially in the face of statements strictly to the opposite: "the Bank of Thailand ruled the bitcoin illegal on July 29, 2013".
- Fleetham (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps instead of trying to figure out what illegal means in each country we could use a more general statement like "Bitcoin is under some form of restriction in at least..." and thus skip the term illegal altogether. Chillum 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum, that is a good idea. Kraainem (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it seems clear from the discussion that the sources actually do not fail verification as no one has brought up subsequent protestations after my clarification. I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags soon. Fleetham (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, no. The discussion made it clear that everybody except for you is disagreeing with the current formulation. If you remove the tags, you will do it without any consensus from this discussion, while it was your onus to obtain such a consensus to remove the tags I inserted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Fleetham: "But only two have made it illegal: Iceland and Vietnam." While this looks like confirming that bitcoin is illegal in Iceland, it, in fact, directly contradicts the sentence you wrote in the article, which listed and counted nine countries. It also contradicts the legal status in Iceland: Iceland banned foreign exchange activities. Does that mean that US dollar is illegal in Iceland? No, even though the ban on foreign exchange activities is in effect for US dollars as well! Also note that I am not pushing my interpretation to the article, I merely state that the formulation you use is not supported by a reliable source.
- For Indonesia, 'The term used is not "legal tender" but "medium of exchange."' - wrong citation, the term used in the warning is "legal medium of exchange", and it is not my onus to prove any interpretation, since it is not me who is trying to push an interpretation to the article. I insist that the current formulation is not supported by the source that is currently cited.
- For Thailand, you are misinterpreting what the cited source states. The cited source is commendably neutral (which is a good and respectable practice we should learn from) stating that while news reports state that bitcoin is illegal, the decision upon which they base their claims is just preliminary and specific to a particular application, and that other businesses continue using their licenses in agreement with the local law. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- For Iceland, the source was written at a time when only Vietnam and Iceland had banned bitcoin. This doesn't mean that CNN Money is wrong when it says "But only two [governments] have made it illegal: Iceland and Vietnam".
- For Indonesia, I actually have no idea what your objection is. Perhaps you or someone else can clarify?
- @Fleetham: "Perhaps you or someone else can clarify?" - it is not necessary at all. As I said, it is your onus to try to obtain the consensus with the action you are proposing, and, as I see it, nobody did express such a consensus yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
For Germany, the statement "A German court found bitcoin to be a unit of account.[34]:10" is not backed by the source.--Andreas Linder (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, the claim is backed by the source, just read the "Germany" section at page 10 of the source, as indicated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong. I did read the source. It does not contain the word "court". --Andreas Linder (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Corrected. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong. I did read the source. It does not contain the word "court". --Andreas Linder (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
List of votes
To make it absolutely certain, here is a list of votes related to Fleetham's proposal to remove the tags and keep the sentence as is:
- Oppose. The claim does not reflect the cited sources correctly. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. Kyrgyzstan is flat out wrong, Iceland and Thailand is dubious. Reducing bitcoin's status in Indonesia to 'illegal' is not accurate. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose While the use of the word "votes" isnt the best, this needs to be commented on. WP:VER is all that really needs to be pointed out, and is non negotiable. When sources dont back up the claims, they need to be tagged, if not outright removed. The tags should stay until the situation is fixed. The claims defiantly need to be edited, new sources used that support the claims, or claims and references removed. AlbinoFerret 14:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Claims are sloppily generalized, so improperly referenced, as I stated yesterday.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Abstain Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I guess the problem is either the word "illegal" is easily misunderstood to mean "holding bitcoins is illegal" or the fact that bitcoin is illegal for different reasons in different places makes it confusing. I'm sure clarifying that in Iceland buying bitcoins is illegal whereas in someplace else buying a service or good with bitcoins is what's illegal will quickly override any qualms, and this won't need to go to an RfC or the NPOV dispute noticeboard. Fleetham (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- this perfectly illustrates that legal status ain't the same as regulation... and who said on this page this was the same?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) again?
- @Fleetham: "I'm sure clarifying that in Iceland buying bitcoins is illegal" - It is known that "Foreign exchange activities with bitcoin [are] illegal.", but that is still not the same as "buying bitcoins is illegal". The claims should be correct, and not distorted using original thoughts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland. See: "It aims to triple this by the end of the year, which, together with other Iceland-based mining firms DigitalBTC and Cloudhashing, will push the country's total bitcoin output up to around $8m per month." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- If Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland, how could someone be setting up Bitcoin mines in Iceland? Furthermore, the article does not contain the words "legal" or "illegal" anywhere in the text. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Mrcatzilla good thinking. read this-Jose Pagliery (2 April 2014). "Where is Bitcoin legal?". Money Cable News Network. Time Warner. Retrieved 9 December 2014. its only the INCOMING bitcoin they regulated. I once had assembled 2 good refs on Iceland, but cannnot find them anymore now or in teh last 1-2 months edits. they didnt survive these edit wars. the above ref was deleted by Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Mrcatzilla (talk), since this is a legal matter, I think it is a good idea if you discuss this with a lawyer. I am just the Devil's advocate. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- If Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland, how could someone be setting up Bitcoin mines in Iceland? Furthermore, the article does not contain the words "legal" or "illegal" anywhere in the text. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah. Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland. See: "It aims to triple this by the end of the year, which, together with other Iceland-based mining firms DigitalBTC and Cloudhashing, will push the country's total bitcoin output up to around $8m per month." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like WP:SNOW. But the tagged claims should be sourced soon or removed. AlbinoFerret 13:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hyperlinks in the ledger
This has been touched on before in the above discussion, but there is nothing in the article text. We have RS coverage that there are hyperlinks to porn and to child porn in the ledger: e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/ (best article for content with clear explanation) , http://www.dailydot.com/business/bitcoin-child-porn-transaction-code/ , https://medium.com/message/when-anyone-can-end-up-being-a-child-pornographer-38438a95f2a0 , "The Digital Currency Challenge: Shaping Online Payment Systems Through U.S. Financial Regulations" by Philip Mullan (Palgrave Macmillan, 31 Jan 2014). This is a topic which has attracted considerable debate and a fair share of sensationalism and misunderstanding, so it would be useful to have some Wikipedia coverage of it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that it is reasonably well sourced, and has weight for at least a sentence or two. Perhaps it should have been moved instead of removed as the section above suggests a better place for it. AlbinoFerret 13:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. (And I'm not just saying that as we're both cute furry animals: bondegezou, ferret.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Would someone like to add some text? I can, but I suspect others here are better informed! Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is it not possible to remove the child porn links from the Bitcoin block chain - what a disgrace for Bitcoin? Crime I can understand, but child pornography is impossible to accept as normal for Bitcoin. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is not possible to remove *anything at all* from the block chain, ever. Understanding this is fundamental to understanding Bitcoin. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is it not possible to remove the child porn links from the Bitcoin block chain - what a disgrace for Bitcoin? Crime I can understand, but child pornography is impossible to accept as normal for Bitcoin. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Would someone like to add some text? I can, but I suspect others here are better informed! Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. (And I'm not just saying that as we're both cute furry animals: bondegezou, ferret.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This article does not reflect the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin and bitcoin.
Items that are not covered in this article:
1. The decrease in the total market value of bitcoin as a result of the persistent bear market in the bitcoin price since Dec 2013. A semi-log graph would be the best solution.
2. The major development of the block chain being the star of Bitcoin´s innovation. There are many major developments in this regard that are currently not reflected in the article.
3. The many other free peer-to-peer payment platforms eroding the relevance of bitcoin but not of Bitcoin (the block chain or public ledger). Examples that I am not really familiar with: Apple Pay, peer-to-peer payments in Facebook, etc. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
"Various items have been embedded exclusively in the Bitcoin block chain"
To avoid an edit war, can someone please explain what 'exclusively' is supposed to mean here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- In this instance it means that "no other known block chain in the world has links to child pornography: only the Bitcoin block chain has links to child pornography." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- And why is that relevant? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- In this instance it means that "no other known block chain in the world has links to child pornography: only the Bitcoin block chain has links to child pornography." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Bitcoin. It's not about other block chain systems. So, Kraaniem, I don't see what your concern is. The text wasn't saying anything about other block chains. Moreover, we don't have any reliable source citations to make claims about other block chains, as to whether they do or do not contain anything, so we shouldn't be trying to comment on them. This article is about Bitcoin and let's stick to that topic. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You are 100% against pointing out to readers of WP that the Bitcoin block chain is the only block chain that promotes child pornography directly with links: that is disgusting! What is wrong with highlighting that the Bitcoin block chain appears to be the only block chain directly promoting child pornography from its origins? What is so wrong with that? [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) It is completely unacceptable to make such comments about other editors, Kraainem. I have reported the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kraainem_and_Bitcoin. Bondegezou (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Kraainem, could you please link to specific transactions that contain these links so that I can invalidate your claim by duplicating them in other blockchains to resolve this dispute once and for all? Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Last sentence in lede
"Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers." What does that even mean? Bitcoin does not have customers. Bitcoin cannot provide "financial services". A transaction ledger does not "provide" anything, it merely exists. Can we rephrase this somehow? Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I rephrased the sentence to honour your reservation and reflect the source more closely. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- As for your "cannot provide 'financial services'" - I respect that as your opinion, however, the source is reliable and mentions "legitimate financial services" explicitly, and it would not be reasonable to remove the information just because your opinion is different. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- (please note that this is not about your opinion, but about presenting the opinion of officials to the Wikipedia readers) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it is a fact that Bitcoin itself does not have agency, which I believe is necessary to be able to "provide" anything. That's all. Am I mistaken? Mrcatzilla (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The information is reliable, and it says what the officials believe (The Wall Street Journal is not the only source for this, in case you do not know already). If the information was stating what you believe, then you would be right. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you are interested in the truth, there is an unanimous agreement between sources that bitcoin is a payment system. You may not be aware what a payment system is: it is a service providing the functionality for monetary exchange. The users pay for the service with transaction fees and miner rewards. Your "does not have agency" note shows you are doing your original research, but that is not the source Wikipedia is meant to present to the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it is a fact that Bitcoin itself does not have agency, which I believe is necessary to be able to "provide" anything. That's all. Am I mistaken? Mrcatzilla (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- In general, is Wikipedia supposed to reflect the truth as close as possible, or just the opinion of mainstream media regardless of how factually correct that opinion is? In this case, I have encountered people calling Bitcoin the first Decentralized Autonomous Corporation, so my claim that it does not have agency is somewhat questionable. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Upper case Bitcoin.
Note 7: "There is no uniform convention for bitcoin capitalization. Some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network and bitcoin, lowercase, to refer to the unit of account.[16] The WSJ[17] and The Chronicle of Higher Education[18] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. This article follows the latter convention."
I was going to add the WSJ and/or other source before I saw it here. Note only after my edit at [Cryptocurrency] I saw the "Chronicle of Higher Education[18] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases [..] This article follows the latter convention."
There are however exceptions: "this is accomplished with a provisional Bitcoin URI scheme" and "Bitcoin Core" (this would be an exception to the ruleexception).
The former could be fixed, or this article changed like I did the other.. Maybe that is not advised. Before people go ahead and revert my edit (most of it), is this for sure the better standard? comp.arch (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bitcoin Core is not an exception, it is a name of a program. It is like Windows with capital W, which is a name of an operating system. Regarding Bitcoin URI - I am not sure whether it is a name of the scheme, and should be capitalized, or not.
- Regarding your "Is this the better standard?" question: there was a dispute related to capitalization, and the majority voted (in fact, the vote was unanimous at the time) for lowercase bitcoin. You can find the dispute and the reasons why it is better in the archive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see you reverted at the other page. Strictly speaking, consensus here does not apply there.. but I'll act as if it does for consistency (I just didn't know). Agree with "Bitcoin Core", but seems "bitcoin URI scheme" would be according to consensus here. comp.arch (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with bitcoin URI scheme, but I am not an expert. You should edit it if you think it will be correct that way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)