Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Regarding the Usage section/Scope

I removed the usage section. It is an unsightly bandage that attempts to make up for the shortcomings of the rest of the article. It also borders on WP:NOTHOWTO. Furthermore, I don't see how the variety of ways one might use bitcoins or participate in the Bitcoin network are notable.

You know, we can't include every esoteric aspect of Bitcoin in the article. We ought to have a discussion on defining its scope. KLP (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

User:L3lackEyedAngels a.k.a. KLP, on top of the Usage section you have also removed the Background section. I don't know if it is another of your "collateral damage" as yourself defined your latest revert of the green address concept, which I had to restore it back myself. You also reverted the "real-state metaphor" a couple of days ago which had the intention to bring a less technical explanation to Bitcoin. Wikipedia:STATUSQUO#When_to_revert .

I am happy to discuss the scope of the article. Please start. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The real-estate metaphor had to go for reasons that have already been discussed. I removed the background section because it was redundant. The article already explains that Bitcoin employs proof-of-work and the lead mentions this aspect. Please remove the background section.

As for scope, the article should go no further than describing the main Bitcoin network and blockchain, the main Bitcoin client, and the bitcoin currency. I suppose the article can mention that alternative blockchains and clients exist, but not describe them in detail. The article should mention Bitcoin's creator and I believe that it currently does so adequately. The article should mention exchanges in the currency section, but only to the extend that they've been a part of important events in the currency's history. The article should not include a list of exchanges. The article should not explain things that other articles already do, like public key cryptography, Merkle trees, or proof-of-work. The various ways by which one might manage his addresses isn't important and should not have a place in this article. The article should not delve into the workings of mining and transactions beyond succinct, high-level summaries. How's that for starters? KLP (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on most of the things you have said, so it is good we have a good foundation to build a better article on Bitcoin.

Besides your points, I also believe the following aspects must be well expressed and clear to get the article to the point. We must achieve a natural flow and segment information where necessary:

1) Digital signatures based on public-key cryptography are being used since the 1970s, but before the invention of Bitcoin all transactions had to be checked for double-spending by a central authority, usually banks, and this is why Bitcoin is novel.

2) Bitcoin is non-manipulatable and non-inflatable by governments or central banks. The majority of the miners hashing power (51%) could do so, but their actions would be limited (for example, such miner would not be able to spend Bitcoins that never belonged to him and he wouldn't be able to create more coins than those corresponding to their block). Also, the fact that the Bitcoin white paper expects to be more profitable for miners to play by the rules.

3) Bitcoin is non-confiscatable, especially if your key-pairs or at least your private key are kept secret. That in essence, all your Bitcoins can be stored in your head (brainwallet) and there is no need to have any file or other physical storage to keep your Bitcoins safe.

4) The fact the Bitcoin protocol is already capable of dealing with multisignatures.

5) That anonymity is not a must. The fact that any organization can be more transparent with their donations or expenses than it has ever been before, and that it can be easily verified and checked by external observers (slight improvement of Privacy section).

6) The fact that nothing in Bitcoin is ciphered. Messages are signed to verify ownership but all content is there for everybody to read and analyze (slight improvement of Privacy section).

I look forward to your answer. --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try to respond to your points one at a time:

1) The article should definitely say that any member of the user base can verify the signatures on transactions and that this characteristic makes Bitcoin a distributed, decentralized technology. But calling this characteristic novel or mentioning that it obviates central banks only serves to trump up Bitcoin. This article should stick to explaining what Bitcoin is, not why it's so great. The job of explaining why it's so great belongs to the bitcoin.org and the various fan sites.

2) I think it's safe to mention that attempts at cheating, to double-spend or alter the issuance for example, will fail as long as honest users contribute a majority of computational power to the network. Mentioning that "Bitcoin is non-manipulatable and non-inflatable by governments or central banks" may convey similar information, but it does so with an inappropriate marketing spin.

3) We can explain that the security of one's bitcoins depends on the security of the corresponding private keys. Such security will protect the bitcoins from not only confiscation, but also theft and loss. I'm sure other means exist by which someone might lose access to his bitcoins. Confiscation only refers to one such means, specifically where an authority, like a government, takes a possession from its holder. Therefore, emphasizing that the properties of Bitcoin make bitcoins "non-confiscatable" only serves, once again, to advertise Bitcoin to a particular market. Furthermore, it's an inaccurate claim. One must take significant steps to protect against confiscation. Bitcoin is not non-confiscatable by itself. Therefore, it is sufficient to write something along the lines of, "to protect one's bitcoins from loss, one must secure the corresponding private keys". Then, the client section can briefly mention the security features that the main client offers.

4)Non-notable, esoteric minutia.

5) and 6)Yes, the article should explain that Bitcoin isn't necessarily anonymous and that anyone can read and analyze the blockchain. However, the article shouldn't advertise this as a feature, nor should it advertise or otherwise explain particular solutions such that one might achieve better anonymity in detail.

KLP (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point 1) I definitely believe Bitcoin is novel and that this fact must be addressed. What can it really be more disruptive than the fact that banks, not only central banks, are no longer necessary to trade electronically. How can that not be novel? On the other hand, because Bitcoin can be considered "quasi-commodity money", in theory, there is no need to store it as a deposit in a bank to keep up from inflation. Banks can be out of the picture altogether. And this has been possible because of proof of work to reach consensus on double-spending among peers in a P2P network, that it had never been implemented before. Its repercussions can have deep implications.

On one side, the possibility of trading virtually anonymously. On the other, the possibility of being as transparent as you can be with donations or expenses from your organization, for everybody to view, everywhere in the world.

Do this:

Go to http://blockchain.info , choose an old transaction, click on "View Dendrogram", choose "No Clustering" or "Cluster by address" and see how and where all the money is spent. If all addresses where the money is spent had its owner published (which an organization can make sure it is so, to achieve full transparency) you are having a real audit for all citizens to analyze, with no need of auditors in the traditional sense.

If you want to try it briefly, check this directly. I just took a random transaction as the origin: http://blockchain.info/tree/461469 and double click on the circles.

Regarding point 4), I believe multisignature must be addressed, even though, I agree with you, it must be just superficially. I would just say that multisignature adds extra security for funds because, for example, it would be a must for an attacker to have two private keys, one in a PC, the other one in a mobile to steal the bitcoins. On the other hand, the 2 of 3 multisignature can be used for escrows, even though this has not been yet put into practice as far as I know.

I agree with what you propose on the other 4 points of the 6 I enumerated. Please let me know what you think. --FrankAndProust (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said that Bitcoin wasn't novel. I said that this article isn't the place to gush about how novel it is. Regarding multi-signatures, readers don't need to know about them to have a good understanding of Bitcoin. You're just contributing to the bloat this article suffers from. There's an entire wiki dedicated to Bitcoin where this esoteric stuff belongs. KLP (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not necessarily thrilled about my Usage section (which I composed) being deleted, I feel KLP has a good sense for how this article should read, and how its present form is far from it. I agree with the advice given. Casascius♠ (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being a good sport about it. It's no fun to take the effort to compose something and then have it disappear. Sorry if I took too harsh of a tone in expressing my disapproval of the usage section. I am glad that you could see through it to the point I was making. KLP (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The block chain image

I would like to propose that the block chain image be removed and reworked. I think it is confusing and misleading. When I first learned about Bitcoin in December 2010, it added no value to my understanding of Bitcoin. The problem is that the image as it stands suggests that the block chain is sort of like a tree, and that the orphan blocks have some sort of significance beyond obsolete garbage that are forgotten and never propagated once orphaned. A meaningful image should show the block chain as one continuous line, perhaps showing a small fork (such as one that occurs when two blocks are generated simultaneously), and then how one leg of the fork becomes the winner and the transactions from the loser get moved to the winner as necessary. If the image can't show this, then I'd suggest it simply be removed. Casascius♠ (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that the blocks represented in the various legs still exist, and there is also a competition between various forks for who will become the "winning chain" if they are of even length. In that sense, the image here isn't all that misleading, although the explanation for why it is shown in this way may not be so clear. Admittedly another image could be put in here... but it take a volunteer willing to put that sort of effort into making such an image. Do you want to be that volunteer? --Robert Horning (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the orphaned blocks exist, but only much the same way your deleted files exist on your hard drive for some time. For all intents and purposes, once they have been effectively abandoned by the network, they aren't really there anymore in any useful sense. Having the blocks shown there leads people to wonder, "OK, are my transactions on the main chain or on orphaned blocks? What's the difference?". The current image suggests no competition, it still leads people to believe it's a block tree, and "orphaned block" (having no obvious definition outside the context of Bitcoin) might tend to be understood as "leaf node", especially since the line of black blocks seems to yield to the orphan blocks instead of running straight. If I had the skills to make such images I'd volunteer, though I have gotten a lot accomplished by pointing things out and seeding ideas in the past, and seeing who picks up on them. Casascius♠ (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we even need to explain what happens to blocks that don't make it to the main blockchain? Can't we say that they get ignored and leave it at that? Even if a few users decide no to ignore such a block and therefore fork the blockchain, doesn't that put them out of the official (if that's the right word) Bitcoin network and therefore out of the scope of the article? KLP (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The shorter subchains still are a part of the network until the last node which has a realistic chance of being able to generate a new work unit based upon those other chains has "given up" and switched to a longer chain. The difference is when all of those chains are still in competition with each other. Since this is original research and I don't know if anybody has studied the protocol in this kind of depth I can't say, but you can have some fairly long competing chains. One such situation happened which was documented where a protocol shift occurred which the "new nodes" of Bitcoin were rejecting certain work units but the older nodes (and at the time more plentiful and more CPU power) were building off of an alternate chain rejected by the new version of the software. The alternate chain did persist for awhile until the majority of the clients and the vast majority of the CPU power overtook the alternate chain... ultimately rejected by the network as a whole. Details of this happening can be found in the Bitcoin forums, although I don't think you can get reliable sources beyond that.

One of the reasons I haven't added more details into this article is that I'm too close to the sources and have done too much "original research" on the topic to be objective and be able to provide reliable secondary sources for much of what I'd put in. If you are going to be making changes here, make sure you can find some reliable secondary source to back up your claims. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

While I find the idea of competing blockchains very interesting, I don't see why this article needs to explain them in order to provide a useful understanding of Bitcoin to readers. Wouldn't such an explanation serve to confuse readers more than anything? KLP (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is confusing to keep such concepts out of the description. I agree it not a simple thing to explain, and is a subtle issue so far as how it relates to the Bitcoin network as a whole, but a proper description of Bitcoin should include this verifiable and factual detail of how the process works. I view this as roughly the equivalent of trying to explain a physical phenomena like black holes or perhaps the subtle issues in the rocket equation. One of the things I love about Wikipedia is how it sometimes gets into real technical details of some topics, and I don't think this is something which should be glossed over to the point that technical details of its operation are lost... yet that is precisely what is being suggested here. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it may have a place on Wikipedia, but perhaps under the title of "Nakamoto block chain" or whatever title under which the concept becomes established. The problem the way I see it is you are operating under the pretense that all users of Wikipedia have your perspective and pretending that there is no need to think about the majority of people visiting the article. Someone visiting a rocket science article is already interested in rocket science; someone visiting the Bitcoin article isn't likely there to learn about corner cases of intricate data structures. This topic is too obscure to go in the main Bitcoin article. Putting it there would be like trying to explain the science of a black hole in the article about the Soundgarden song Black Hole Sun instead of a separate article about black holes. Casascius♠ (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not convinced that we need a new article on the Nakamoto/mainstream Bitcoin blockchain yet. At least, I don't think we'll need to make one until another blockchain, or perhaps a group of other ones, becomes sufficiently notable to have its own article. But, I digress. Is it sufficient for us to simply have something like this?: "To prevent the blockchain from occupying too much of a device's storage capacity, the blockchain organizes transaction records with a Merkle tree so that future Bitcoin clients can delete very old blocks from its local copy."

Then again, I'm not sure that it's appropriate to include such a factoid in the first place. Have any good sources made mention of it? KLP (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to suggest that we don't have to dumb down the article for those who may not be familiar with computer technology either or writing to a fourth grade audience. This is an article about a particular computer networking protocol as well as the software package. I'd agree that perhaps the two ideas could be separated, and the line is very much blurred because they are seen as one and the same at the moment even though they aren't. I am describing what are some of the more elaborate details of the networking protocol... which the Bitcoin software itself happens to implement. I also think that there are interested computer scientists going to this article would very much be interested in how the internal details of this networking protocol works just like the Zip (file format) article goes into some pretty low level details on how the zip data file format works. I agree that such details ought to be verifiable, from reliable sources, and NPOV as well as the rest of the Wikipedia policies, but that isn't a reason to throw such details out. If you want a simplified version of the article for general readers and for those having problems reading English in the first place like young children or non-native English speakers, that is what the Simple English version of Wikipedia is about. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Streamlining and otherwise improving the Network section

Folks, have a look at my draft of a revamped network section. I tried to cut back on the technical stuff and improve the flow in the hopes that doing so would help readers more easily achieve a more useful understanding of the Bitcoin network than they would from the section in its current state. Let me know what you think:

//

The Bitcoin network consists of a distributed history of transactions called the blockchain and the nodes that record transactions to it. The transaction information that these nodes record to the blockchain consists of a cryptographic signature that signs over a quantity of bitcoins from at least one address belonging to the sender to at least one address belonging to the recipient. Users employ a client or web service to generate and manage their addresses as well as the sums of bitcoins associated with them.

Bitcoin addresses are the public keys of cryptographic keypairs that take the form of strings of numbers and letters thirty-three characters in length, always beginning with the digit 1 or 3, as in this example: 175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W. When sending bitcoins to another user, the sender's client signs the transaction with his private key and submits it to the network for the nodes to confirm and add to the blockchain. Because of the asymmetric cryptographic method, only the owner's private keys are able to create a valid signature to send coins from their Bitcoin wallet. The private keys cannot be determined from the signature - they are a secret known only to the address owner.

Each of the participating nodes in the Bitcoin network collects all of the unconfirmed transactions it knows of into a file called a block, which also contains a reference to the previous valid block known to that node. It then appends a nonce value to this previous block and computes the SHA-256 cryptographic hash of the block and the appended nonce value. The node repeats this process until it adds a nonce that allows for the generation of a hash with a value lower than a target as specified by Nakamoto's algorithm. Because computers cannot practically reverse the hash function, finding such a nonce requires, on average, a predictable amount of repetitious trial and error. When a node finds such a solution, it announces it to the rest of the network. Peers receiving the new solved block validate it by quickly computing the hash and checking that it really has met the target. These peers then accept the block and add it to their copies of the blockchain. The node that happens to have found the solution also receives an issuance of bitcoins according to a schedule set forth in the algorithm. The official Bitcoin client waits until the network has confirmed six more blocks before allowing users to spend the bitcoins they received in the first one. The algorithm adjusts the target every 2016 blocks to keep the rate of block solutions to an average of one every ten minutes. Users often employ GPUs and specialized hardware to improve their chances of solving a block first and collecting the issuance.

The network never issues more than 50 BTC per block and this amount will decrease over time towards zero, such that no more than 21 million will ever circulate. As this payout decreases, the incentive for users to run block-generating nodes will change to earning transaction fees. Nodes have no obligation to include a given transaction in the block it's trying to solve. To provide incentive for nodes to include their transactions, users may voluntarily include transaction fees with the bitcoins they send. The node that solves the block collects the sum of these fees as well as the scheduled issuance of bitcoins. Nodes typically ignore transactions of very small amounts that do not come with transaction fees. As such, transaction fees help protect nodes from malicious users attempting to overwhelm the network with many small transactions.

// KLP (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC) (edited: KLP (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC))

It reads clear and concise to me. I believe it gives the correct flow to the Bitcoin Network section. How do you propose to deal with the current Network subsections: Addresses, Transactions, Confirmations, Target, Block chain, Difficulty, Transaction fees and Privacy? --FrankAndProust (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted to incorporate them into that body of text, except for the privacy section. The content in the privacy subsection more appropriately belongs in the currency section. I believe that dividing the network section into subsection doesn't serve readers well because everything is so closely related.

Have you had the opportunity to read and digest my most recent responses to our other discussions? KLP (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal regarding the Network section. The text you have attached above would replace all the Network section, except for the Privacy subsection, which would be moved under the Currency section. We can later talk about how to rewrite the Privacy section with the notes we agreed to in our previous posts. I have just answered to one of your earlier comments regarding the Background section. --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Background section

I believe the Background section makes the reader aware of the previous limitations of electronic commerce, and how before Bitcoin was developed, all transactions were required to go through a central authority that had to be trusted. It also separates two critical concepts to understand Bitcoin properly: 1) the fact that digital signatures provide strong control of ownership and 2) the fact that the Bitcoin proof of work, which uses those digital signatures, allows to bypass those restrictions on centralized transaction control.

However, User:L3lackEyedAngels a.k.a. KLP has deleted the Background section once again, and he has copied verbatim the section "Creator" at the bottom of the page and pasted it to the top of the article. I would very much appreciate if readers of this Talk page provide a feedback on the need of the Background section. --FrankAndProust (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

FrankAndProust, a good Bitcoin article will clearly make the points you listed throughout it's body. Adding yet another section to reiterate these points will simply make the article worse. That said, it's rather obvious that you intend to use this article as a platform to promote Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin is cool and novel, but Wikipedia is not the place to exclaim as such. I urge you to refrain from doing so and revert your reversion such that we might get back on track to producing a high quality article. KLP (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that the main purpose of the editors conversation on this Talk page is to achieve a high quality Bitcoin article. I still feel that the Background section is necessary, because it explains the technical limitations of electronic commerce before the arrival of Bitcoin. I propose replacing the following text "Bitcoin solved this limitation with a novel software solution, never implemented before, which uses proof of work in a P2P network to reach consensus between peers" with "Bitcoin solved this limitation with an original solution, which uses proof of work in a P2P network to reach consensus between peers". It is more neutral, but it gets the point across that, in fact, it is novel. Besides that, the citation of the proof of work concept would not get repetitive, since it is not mentioned on your proposal for the Network section.

Finally, I believe it should also be addressed the fact that Bitcoin is still experimental software. It gives the message to the audience to be cautious, precisely because its success depends on still solving several challenges ahead. --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, with some adjustments, we can move the content of your background section to the lead. I would rewrite the lead as such:

//

Bitcoin is a decentralized electronic cash system that uses peer-to-peer networking, digital signatures and cryptographic proof so as to enable users to conduct irreversible transactions without relying on trust. Nodes broadcast transactions to the network, which records them in a public history, called the blockchain, after validating them with a proof-of-work system. Users make transactions with bitcoins, a digital currency that the network issues according to predetermined rules. Bitcoins do not have the backing of and do not represent any government-issued currency.

The Bitcoin network came into existence on 3 January 2009 with the issuance of the first bitcoins. In the same month the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, released the original Bitcoin client as open-source software. Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, electronic commerce systems could not securely operate without relying on a central authority to prevent double-spending. Nakamoto sidestepped this requirement for Bitcoin by employing a proof-of-work approach in a peer-to-peer network to reach consensus between peers on the validity of transactions. Bitcoin is a relatively new project under active development. As such, its developers caution that users should treat it as experimental software.

//

How does that read? KLP (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It reads OK to me. In that case I agree on getting rid of the Background section and pasting your proposal above. I would just change this sentence: "Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, electronic commerce systems could not securely operate without relying on a central authority to prevent invalid transactions." for this one "Prior to the invention of Bitcoin, electronic commerce systems could not securely operate without relying on a central authority to prevent double-spending".

This change is subtle, but the term "double-spending" is central in Nakamoto's white paper, so I believe it should be addressed as such at least once in the article. --FrankAndProust (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is "double-spending" really the most accurate term? I mean, if you can double-spend, why not triple-spend? We don't have to stick closely to Nakamoto's terminology. Furthermore, other means of cheating an electronic commerce system, in the absence of a central authority or a distributed proof-of-work system, surely exist. KLP (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The term double-spending predates Nakamoto, is well-established and clearly understood. Casascius♠ (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have bigger goals for this article, so whatever. I am fine with "double-spending" for now and have edited the above proposal accordingly. Does anyone have any other suggestions regarding the lead? KLP (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to change the lead to what we've come up with above and get rid of the background section. Progress! KLP (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone in the Background Section

The tone of the 'Background' sounds to me to be fairly unencyclopedic and a tad POV. I'd rewrite it myself, but I really do not know enough about Bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWigg (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing this issue above. Feel free to provide some input. KLP (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

reference needed for contrary position on "no centralized issuing authority" claim

"Unlike conventional fiat currency, Bitcoin has no centralized issuing authority" is wrong. Without a centalized issuing authority, there would be much more chaos. (An example of a currency without a centralized issuing authority might be potatoes. Unless one considers sun, water, and soil an issuing authority, ha ) is SN was the centralized issuing authority when he published the scheme and the software; there aren't any good references asserting this point of view though. I think that if you form a rigorous analysis of fiat currencies and their relations to their issuing authorities, it's entirely clear that Bitcoin is centrally issued, all 21MBTC of it. " no conventional centralized issuing authority" would be accurate. 75.87.129.242 (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That would make the artist who designed the 1 USD greenback the issuer of the dollar then, right? How about if those potatoes were derived from some potatoes that were generically engineered by me, would I become the issuer of every potato everyone grew? Casascius♠ (talk) 03:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No and no. The United States Government is the issuer of the dollar, and potatoes are not definitionally limited in quantity. 75.87.129.242 (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you read "potato" as code for "ounce of pot" my 9 march comment will make more sense, as pot is an exchange medium in actual use with no central issuing authority. But many central suppression authorities keeping its value up, but that's a whole nother kettle of blue crabs. 75.87.129.242 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing such things. Yes, I have an opinion on this, but unless you are talking about how this "fact" should or should not be worked into this article and how parts need to be rewritten based upon reliable sources and a neutral point of view, such discussions really don't belong here. I certainly see no reason to remove the statement that Bitcoin has no centralized issuing authority as reliable secondary sources are asserting that "fact" very clearly and generally isn't in dispute with any other reliable source. It is an interesting idea to argue that the founder of Bitcoin is a "central issuing authority", but in the context of content in this article it is meaningless to assert one way or another... and disputing such a claim is original research. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

not Satoshi himself, but the group who currently keep the gears turning, who are far from watchmaker gods as evidenced by their incident response log. As BTC matures and the confederation of entities bothering to process the whole flow becomes a minority of wallet holders (that is, when more BTC holders use an intermediary service rather than interacting directly with the block chain infrastructure themselves) the people making up that group will become the central authority, in a tiered system with the maintenance coders at the top. I would like to see a rigorous operational definition of what a "central issuing authority" is. OTOH, I now see I have been ignoring the middle word in central issuing authority; in that I may mine BTC without explicit blessing from the cabal in much the same way that I may grow a potato plant in my garden (without explicit blessing from Swift's ghost) there is no issuing authority. A non-cyber analogue might be some kind of wampum that takes a full afternoon to carve and polish, but anyone who cares to craft one may and it will be accepted at the intertribal marketplace without fear of punishment for forgery. That wouldn't have a central issuing authority, just like gold dust found in streams doesn't. Thank you 75.87.129.242 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No. because there are only going to be 21M BTC ever. That makes them centrally issued. The scheme of disbursing those 21M via the mining game is brilliant, but SN issued 21M of them, all in reserve, and created the mining game to disburse them, much as central fiat banks disburse through the fractional reserve lending game. Central issuing authority. 75.87.129.242 (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

All speculation along this line of thought is original research, and personal opinion. It isn't verifiable nor supported by reliable sources. Also look at the primary source guidelines for article creation, where pulling up things like the incident report log or even the block chain explorer should be used with extreme caution and care. Do not continue this thread unless you can find something which can be added to this article fitting these guidelines, and note that information not conforming to these guidelines will be deleted... if not by me then by somebody else. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"used with extreme caution and care" should be reserved for things like dynamite and wood chippers. This is Wikipedia we're talking about. Good faith is good enough and let editors tweak it if they feel a need. Cloudswrest (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How are bitcoins created? What is mining?

Where do they come from? Why are they worth anything? Why would anyone want one? How are they ultimately "redeemed"? What value do they represent?

You could probably shove the talk about the technology way down in the table of contents. Until the article gives boldface up-front clues to answers to questions like the above, most people are not going to take it seriously. Nobody should have to wade through a lot of text to try to find answers to this kind of question. I gather that bitcoins are created by something called mining. But the article doesn't even have a heading by that name. It looks suspicious. Please focus on the basic economic ideas. Thank you.CountMacula (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

there are, by definition, 21 million bitcoins. they are disbursed by mining, much as the finite amount of gold in them thar hills is excavated for human use. Mining does not create them, rather, it awards them according to a schedule (which might be changed by a near-consensus of the maintenance cabal at some point in the future, but this original researcher expects that not to happen.) They can't be redeemed for anything any more than one can eat gold . 75.87.129.242 (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Still, your answers are cryptic. Since my OP, I found an article at Wired that somebody here mentioned, and it seems very informative. But some of the questions I asked need to be answered prominently in the Wikipedia article. It looks like the article neglects the economic and commmon-sense considerations in favor of technical elements of the implementation--shows the trees, hides the forest, lacks a serious attempt at an overview or synopsis.CountMacula (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

the article is on Bitcoin, not on general issues. I believe WP adequately (excellently, even) covers the general issues. Should the article lead with something like Bitcoin is an Alternative currency? Does it not have that currently? Hmm, I see it doesn't. The first link out is to Electronic money itself a non-friendly technical reference. Proposal: link to Alternative currency also, in the lede. 75.87.129.242 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask about "general issues". I asked for an intelligible basic description of how Bitcoin works in common terms.CountMacula (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd addressed all five of the questions, as most of them have the same answers as any other alternative currency proposal. Here we go again in a formal way:

• Where do they come from? All twenty-one million of them were declared by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009. Since then, they have been released on a schedule, approximately fifty every ten minutes.
• Why are they worth anything? Because there exist people who desire them, because they are scarce.
• Why would anyone want one? Because there exist people who desire them, because they are scarce.
• How are they ultimately "redeemed"? They are used to purchase listing of data in the block chain as a "transaction fee." Currently this is not necessary but ultimately there will be a transition from mining reward to transaction-fee based block chain extension motivation. They can also be taken out of circulation when the private key owning a receiving address is lost.
• What value do they represent? Owning bitcoins represents token solidarity with the vision of the nonforgable public record (the block chain) becoming somehow useful in the future

essentially the same -- they are worth what the people who hold them think they are worth is the operational definition of value, isn't it? -- as any other alternative currency, but with specific twists of the bitcoin scheme. I'd like to see some kind of alternative currency template or grid or standard look and feel for pages about alternative currencies, that all pages about alternative currencies (or mainstream currencies, for that matter) could ahdere to; maybe your five questions would be part of that template 75.87.130.113 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The bitcoin protocol, which is the accepted consensus among all bitcoin users and implemented in the client software, recongizes the privilege and obligation of the winning miner to send the generation transaction for the block, to the bitcoin address of his choosing (and incorporated in the winning hash). This is recorded for all eternity in the block chain ledger. Cloudswrest (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It really helps to look at the output of Block Explorer (in "External Links" of the main article). See the following screen capture. Notice the first listed transaction is a generations transaction of 50 new bitcoins, plus transactions fees from all the other transactions, assigned to the bitcoin address of the successful miner. This block, with this generation transaction, is published by the miner who first finds a successful nonce, by trial and error, such that the hash (in this case) has 13 leading hex zeros.

Cloudswrest (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that this table somehow gives an insight into the nature of mining or Bitcoin or is otherwise useful in explaining Bitcoin to the layman, by all means put it in the article.CountMacula (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

links to talk archive pages?

Looking at the page history I see that there is regular shifting of talk threads to an archive space. Perhaps links to these archive pages could be provided here, to prevent issues that have been discussed reappearing? 75.87.130.113 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's easy to miss, but there is a link to the archives tucked into the middle of the box at the top of the page. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Extralegal uses section

I do not believe that this section is required, and puts undue weight on these users of bitcoin. Do we have a reference that suggests that are important enough in the "story of bitcoin" that taking them out would be a mistake? Do we, for example, know what percentage of the revenue comes from Silkroad? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not especially attached to this section. Covert mining isn't noteworthy, and LuzSec, Silkroad, and botnets have their own articles already. KLP (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New approach for Privacy subsection

I would like your feedback regarding my proposal for the Privacy subsection. As agreed before in the Talk page, this subsection would be placed under the Currency section. I have not added references yet.

//

Bitcoin transactions are digitally signed to verify ownership and guarantee non-repudiation. These data are broadcast to the entire network and eventually stored in the blockchain. Because there is nothing encrypted in the core Bitcoin protocol and all transactions are inherently public, their content can be read and analyzed by any external observer. This feature contrasts with the traditional banking model, where transactions are hidden from public scrutiny.

Because access to all Bitcoin financial status is granted unrestrictedly for everybody to watch, each and every activity of any address in the Bitcoin network can be easily traced. In fact, several websites currently provide aggregates of all variables in the Bitcoin economy, such as number of bitcoins in circulation, number of transactions per hour and total transaction fees. Some websites also supply all the information necessary to trace each and every transaction through time. Dendrograms provide the usual graphical representation for limited scale audits.

The points explained above allow the Bitcoin user to be free to operate with the degree of privacy he considers appropriate at any point in time, including trading either anonymously or with total transparency. If he wants to trade anonymously he will never make public he is the owner of any of his several Bitcoin addresses. On the other hand, individuals and especially organizations that want to be accountable with their funds and donations, would have to make public the association between their own real-life identity and their Bitcoin addresses. Besides, to stretch transparency to their payments, the real-life identities and the Bitcoin addresses of all the final recipients of his expenses should also be published. In this last case, there would be no need of auditors in the traditional sense of the word to evaluate the nature of outlays. This task can be performed by any citizen simply by analyzing the blockchain, Bicoin addresses and their respective identities.

Because all transactions are tied automatically to a Bitcoin address but not to your real-life identity, some people prefer to classify Bitcoin as pseudonymous. Unlike anonymity, pseudonymity has the potential to gain reputation over time.

Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and concluded that "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement, is pretty damned dumb". He also said "We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin... the only way bitcoins are gonna be successful is working with regulation and with the government".

As an example, if Alice sends 123.45 BTC to Bob, the network creates a public record that allows anyone to see that 123.45 has been sent from one address to another. However, unless Alice or Bob make their ownership of these addresses publicly known, it is difficult for anyone else to connect the transaction with them. However, if someone connects an address to a user at any point they could follow back a series of transactions as each participant likely knows who paid them and may disclose that information on request or under duress.

// --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Added a few references to the article above. --FrankAndProust (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take, as derived from your proposal:

//

The Bitcoin network publicly records all valid transactions to the blockchain. Therefore, anyone can easily monitor the activity of any Bitcoin address. However, Bitcoin addresses aren't necessarily linked to the real-life identities of their owners. As such, some people prefer to classify Bitcoin as pseudonymous. For example, if Alice sends 123.45 BTC to Bob, the blockchain will come to show that 123.45 had been sent from one address to another. However, unless Alice or Bob make their ownership of these addresses publicly known, it is difficult for anyone else to connect the transaction with them. Of course, if an investigator determines the identity of someone else who sent or received bitcoins to or from an address belonging to Alice or Bob, he might convince that other person to divulge information that could identify Alice or Bob. Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and concluded that "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement, is pretty damned dumb". He also said "We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin... the only way bitcoins are gonna be successful is working with regulation and with the government".

Conversely, some organizations and individuals might intentionally associate their identities with their addresses for the sake of transparency and accountability.

// KLP (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than mention dendrograms in the text, perhaps we can find one with the correct licensing and include it as a picture in this section. KLP (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I just sent an e-mail to the address listed on Blockchain.info asking if he would make his site's charts available under a license that's compatible with the Wikimedia Commons. Hopefully he will respond positively. KLP (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposal as derived from yours. Look forward to your answer.

//

The inherent open nature of all Bitcoin transactions contrasts with the traditional banking privacy model, where transactions are hidden from public scrutiny. Because the network publicly records all valid transactions and there is nothing encrypted in the core Bitcoin protocol, anyone can easily monitor the activity of any Bitcoin address. However, Bitcoin addresses aren't necessarily linked to the real-life identities of their owners. As such, some people classify Bitcoin as pseudonymous. Users can also achieve a pretty good level of anonymity if some precautions are taken, such as using a different Bitcoin address for each transaction. Unlike anonymity, pseudonymity has the potential to gain reputation over time.

For example, if Alice sends 123.45 BTC to Bob, the blockchain will come to show that 123.45 had been sent from one address to another. However, unless Alice or Bob make their ownership of these addresses publicly known, it is difficult for anyone else to connect the transaction with them. Of course, if an investigator determines the identity of someone else who sent or received bitcoins to or from an address belonging to Alice or Bob, he might convince that other person to divulge information that could identify Alice or Bob. Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and concluded that "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement, is pretty damned dumb". He also said "We are working with the government to make sure indeed the long arm of the government can reach Bitcoin... the only way bitcoins are gonna be successful is working with regulation and with the government".

Conversely, some organizations and individuals might intentionally associate their identities with their addresses for the sake of transparency and accountability. In this last case, there would be no need of auditors in the traditional sense of the word to evaluate the nature of expenses. This task can be performed by any citizen by simply analyzing the blockchain, Bitcoin addresses and their respective real-life identities.

// --FrankAndProust (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

When you expound on the openness of transactions over the Bitcoin network and contrast with the traditional banking model, you make the section read like a brochure. Your latest proposal doesn't appear to include additional appropriate information as compared to mine. Rather, it only appears to attempt to make Bitcoin appeal more to readers, which isn't our goal. KLP (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparing the visibility of transactions in Bitcoin against traditional banking has nothing to do with brochures. There is no advertising, it is neutral and it just states a fact. And it is suitable it is asserted as such, firstly because the banking model is all-pervasive and it is an intrinsic part of the current monetary system, and secondly because it helps the reader to understand what new features Bitcoin brings to the table. It is up to the reader to decide if he considers that feature as an advantage or an inconvenience .

Frankly, informal quotes such as "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin ... is pretty damned dumb" look much more like a brochure to me. --FrankAndProust (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant facts are that transactions conducted over the Bitcoin network get publicly recorded, that personal identities aren't automatically associated with Bitcoin addresses, and that certain means exist by which one might determine the identity of an address's owner. How the traditional banking sector conducts transactions is irrelevant and comparing the two serves no purpose other than to suggest to the reader that Bitcoin is better or, as you put it "helps the reader to understand what new features Bitcoin brings to the table". That's a sales pitch and it's inappropriate. All this section has to do is explain the facts I mentioned. It can do so satisfactorily with the Alice and Bob example and the quote from the developer assessing the privacy that users can expect (although I don't think we need the second quote from him regarding government collaboration. It would probably serve the article well to reduce the Garzik's input to something like the following: "Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and advised against 'attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement'.". This version eliminates his colorful but unhelpful language and keeps his input on topic). I am not sure that we even need to mention the transparency aspect.

Also, providing instruction as to how users might achieve better privacy with Bitcoin, as you attempted with "Users can also achieve a pretty good level of anonymity if some precautions are taken, such as using a different Bitcoin address for each transaction" probably violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Readers can turn to plenty of resources external to the Wikipedia for such advice. KLP (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stating how Bitcoin compares to the banking system is essential for the Privacy section. Doing so is not a random or capricious exercise. It pertains to the very core of the Bitcoin protocol. As the main article expounds, before Bitcoin it was not possible to securely operate without relying on a central authority. So the centralized vs distributed dichotomy naturally permeates every description of Bitcoin. Artificially avoiding this fact will do no favor to readers.

Therefore, not only is it relevant to address the difference in transaction visibility, but definitely proper, even if done in a discreet way, as it is the case in the proposed text. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You've already given away your intentions. Please stop so we can move on. KLP (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

We are working to resolve a dispute. I will carry on trying to reach consensus. You can stop if you want.

Bitcoin-Qt, the reference client for Bitcoin, uses different Bitcoin addresses for each transaction. Stating this fact and its relationship with anonymity has nothing to do with WP:NOTGUIDE. Asserting so has no similarity with an instruction manual or a textbook because there is no step-by-step enumeration or how-to leaning and it is also intended to inform rather than instruct. Citing Tor, an integral part of many clients, or any other anonymization service currently in use would not be a violation of that policy either.

I have removed Jeff Garzik's quote about regulation and government as per KLP suggestion. I understand Jeff Garzik's position reflects the Bitcoin-Qt stand and, as such, it carries great weight. However, it must not be overlooked the majority of mining power can make changes to the protocol too.

Here is the modified proposal for the Privacy section. It takes into account the feedback and suggestions for the last five days.

//

The inherent open nature of all Bitcoin transactions contrasts with the traditional banking privacy model, where transactions are hidden from public scrutiny. Because the network publicly records all valid transactions and there is nothing encrypted in the core Bitcoin protocol, anyone can easily monitor the activity of any Bitcoin address. However, Bitcoin addresses aren't necessarily linked to the real-life identities of their owners. As such, some people classify Bitcoin as pseudonymous. A number of Bitcoin clients use different addresses for each transaction to provide with an extra level of anonymity. Unlike anonymity, pseudonymity has the potential to gain reputation over time.

For example, if Alice sends 123.45 BTC to Bob, the blockchain will come to show that 123.45 had been sent from one address to another. However, unless Alice or Bob make their ownership of these addresses publicly known, it is difficult for anyone else to connect the transaction with them. Of course, if an investigator determines the identity of someone else who sent or received bitcoins to or from an address belonging to Alice or Bob, he might convince that other person to divulge information that could identify Alice or Bob. Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and advised against "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement".

Conversely, some organizations and individuals might intentionally associate their identities with their addresses for the sake of transparency and accountability. In this last case, there would be no need of auditors in the traditional sense of the word to evaluate the nature of expenses. This task can be performed by any citizen by simply analyzing the blockchain, Bitcoin addresses and their respective real-life identities.

// --FrankAndProust (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a fairly significant issue with that last paragraph, as it is completely unsourced, and even as a theoretical situation is faulty. The most that would imply is that any "citizen" can analyze that particular address, and the transactions associated with it, nothing more. How does this translate to the lack of need for an auditor? This would neither show the nature of the expenses or the second party to the transactions, nor would it verify that these were the sole transactions, only that they were transactions made by the given address. - SudoGhost 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that it is possible to track the real trace of money if certain steps are taken. If an individual or organization wants to be transparent with his expenses, first he should map his real-life identity to one or several Bitcoin addresses, and second he should only trade with individuals or organizations that do the same, i.e. they pursue the same policy of transparency.

The nature of expenses can be addressed in a very limited way by the real-life identity of the destination address, probably enough for most citizens but not for a full audit. I do believe this maximum level of accountability will happen some time in the future, be it in Bitcoin contracts or in combination with Open Transactions or similar products, but as you correctly pointed out, it is not yet there.

So, taking your input into account, I propose to leave the last paragraph this way: "Conversely, some organizations and individuals might intentionally associate their identities with their addresses for the sake of transparency and accountability". Do you think it is appropriate? --FrankAndProust (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced theories about what organizations and individuals might do is original research, and is not allowed. Also, that still doesn't fix the issue that even with that wording, it's a paper thin "transparency and accountability", as all it does it track that address, if an individual didn't want something shown though this address and wanted to avoid "transparency and accountability", they'd use another address, simple as that. This makes it worthless for the sake of transparency and accountability. - SudoGhost 23:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say looks reasonable to me. What do you think about removing the last paragraph of the proposal altogether and keeping the rest? --FrankAndProust (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Doing so would essentially bring us back to my last proposal, adapted as follows:

// The Bitcoin network publicly records all valid transactions to the blockchain. Therefore, anyone can easily monitor the activity of any Bitcoin address. However, Bitcoin addresses aren't necessarily linked to the real-life identities of their owners. For example, if Alice sends 123.45 BTC to Bob, the blockchain will come to show only that 123.45 had been sent from one address to another. Unless Alice or Bob make their ownership of these addresses publicly known, it is difficult for anyone else to connect the transaction with them. Of course, if an investigator determines the identity of someone else who sent or received bitcoins to or from an address belonging to Alice or Bob, he might convince that person to divulge information that could identify Alice or Bob. Jeff Garzik, one of the Bitcoin developers, explained as much in an interview and advised against "attempting major illicit transactions with bitcoin, given existing statistical analysis techniques deployed in the field by law enforcement" //

I also removed the unsourced pseudoanonymous bit. KLP (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The resolution to this dispute is clear: stop trying to write a sales pitch; stop trying to sell the "new features Bitcoin brings to the table" to the readers; stop trying to sell Bitcoin as an improvement over the status quo.

Noteworthy client features belong in the clients section. That doesn't mean the particular feature you described is noteworthy though. KLP (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)