Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 6

transaction fees URGENT

usually there are fees is wrong. Correct: Transaction fees may be included with any transfer of bitcoins from one address to another. At the moment, many transactions are typically processed in a way where no fee is expected at all, but for transactions which draw coins from many bitcoin addresses and therefore have a large data size, a small transaction fee is usually expected.

link: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees Davoud Taghawi-Nejad (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.--HowardStrong (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

History

This page could probably use a history section. There is a lot of really good info on Bitcoin's intricate history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerRDavis (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's too young. I'd give it a year or two.--HowardStrong (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Bitcoin in the news"

US hacker group claims to have gotten Romney's tax returns, demands $1 million in Bitcoins to not release them, US pornography mogul Larry Flynt offers $1 million USD to have them given to him.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/larry-flynt-is-offering-one-million-dollars-for-details-of-romneys-tax-returns/

I've never actually added a section so I'm unfamiliar with the process. Dianaramadani (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

BTC controvercies vs BTC Related controversies

Bitcoin controversies would include things like very easy money laundering, untraceability permitting use in black markets, anonymity allowing for tax evasion, etc. Things like hacks and thefts are done by people using Bitcoin, and are not a feature, or side-effect, of Bitcoin itself. Thus that section should be at most "Related controversies and hacks," if not just "Bitcoin in the news (bad press)."

(Dmitry Murashchik (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC))

MTGox?

Hi, I was interested in history of MTGox specifically (does it have something to do with MtG?). Now it redirects here without a single mention of it. What is this? Has it been deleted or never created? It's definitely notable, and it has a background of its own independent of Bitcoin. --Sigmundur (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Toy Money" and other non-Neutral reasons for edits.

This isn't neutral and Bitcoin does meet the definition of a money.--HowardStrong (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Currency Infobox

Central Bank needs to be renamed to Issuer. I don't know how to do this because it's embedded into the infobox.--HowardStrong (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just put "None". It's fine now.--HowardStrong (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is recognized as a currency by a large amount of people.

It should have a filled currency infobox like most currencies do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

YourLordandMaster is acknowledged

Bitcoin is not verified to be a real commodity in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody uses BC as an abbrievation for Bitcoin

Barely anybody. Look at the citations.--HowardStrong (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

BTC has been commonly used in the Bitcoin forums and unofficially adopted by a number of people. As for reliable sources which states the use of "BTC", I would have to say that is convention. It certainly has not been recognized by and standards body or international currency exchange system beyond the few markets that have popped up dealing with Bitcoins directly as a currency. The only source I could even remotely imagine as authoritative is the Bitcoin forums, which doesn't qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with both, it should be BTC not BC. This edit was made by Luke-Jr with message "Correct symbol and abbreviation". He left the "BTC" in the infobox unchanged, so that edit may have been a mistake. In any case, I put "BTC" back into the lead paragraph. Iniviting him to this discussion. -- intgr [talk] 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

BC is the abbreviation for Bitcoin-the-system (which is admittedly only rarely abbreviated at all), and BTC is the standard unit of exchange. I can see how people might confuse the two, but there is a distinction. --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was much of a distinction, especially when abbreviations were being used. I've certainly seen BTC used as shorthand even in casual conversations referring to the software protocol or software itself. That some other conventions may be used at the same time, I don't see how it could be seen as common practice. Certainly I see nothing that could be verifiable and used as a source on Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin.org is in decline.

More users are relying on different services to manage their Bitcoins. It can't be regarded as an official, all-knowing source regarding the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole since most of it has diverged away from it.--HowardStrong (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, it has been left behind by the original developer. Right now Bitcoin is being developed upon second-hand. There is no clear lead in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Innovation and commerce is lead and developed everywhere.--HowardStrong (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

An interesting opinion, but not one I've seen promoted by anyone but you. Have a citation for it? Certainly Bitcoin is more than bitcoin.org, but thats no reason for your edits striking references to it! In particular, there are no other widely deployed full Bitcoin implementations— and Bitcoin.org itself isn't only about the reference implementation. The fact that 'cloud' Bitcoin services are rising in popularity (though I don't think any have reached the popularity of mybitcoin yet) doesn't mean that bitcoin.org is less important.--Gmaxwell (talk)

HowardStrong, please keep in mind that, currently, without Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind, provided by several developers at bitcoin.org, there would be no Bitcoin network. BitcoinJ may be getting there, but as of October 2012, the P2P network requires the hundreds of Bitcoin-Qt and Bitcoind nodes continuosly validating and relaying transactions. As simple as that.

What you are seeing is an increasing number of different services, not provided by bitcoin.org, which are faster, easier to use and more attractive to the average user. But don't ignore the fact that all of them do require the network provided by the Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind nodes to function properly, because their purpose is network stability, not user friendliness.

Finally, I don't personally feel that bitcoin.org strives to promote their specific client. My opinion is bitcoin.org promotes the Bitcoin ecosystem: http://bitcoin.org/clients.html --FrankAndProust (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoind is mentioned throughout the article.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin.org is only one of *many* major Bitcoin websites that use the standard B⃦ symbol. I completely agree that no website is official, but that fact is irrelevant. --Luke-Jr (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, since Satoshi more or less started bitcoin.org and participated on that forum until he dropped out of the universe, that gives the site more "official" recognition than any other site can claim. Since the protocol has been more or less handed off to "the community" rather than being under strict control as it was earlier by Satoshi (who did make arbitrary changes to the protocol that had been accepted by the community without gaining necessarily consensus), it has become much more decentralized. But the "home base" for any discussion about Bitcoin really does revolve around bitcoin.org as a website and the rest are following in its footsteps. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no discussion on bitcoin.org besides among a few developers. A lot of development goes on elsewhere outsides its influence. To say people follow its footsteps is inaccurate. --HowardStrong (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke, cite one Bitcoin site that uses that symbol. Bitcoin.org doesn't.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The thai baht is what is mostly used (Bitbills.org, Bitcoin Charts/Watch/OTC, etc). The symbol you are using is not it.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The B⃦ is used on the front pages for bitcoin.org, Bitcoin Charts, OTC, etc. Bitbills use both B⃦ and the baht - the latter only due to technical problems. --Luke-Jr (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke, not even the latter sites use it. There is no consensus on that Russian symbol. --HowardStrong (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the use of the baht symbol to mean Bitcoin, because of the following:

1. A currency symbol does not exclusively mean a specific currency. The fact that ฿ means baht doesn't make it unavailable for bitcoin, any more than the use of $ for USD doesn't make it unavailable for CAD, or £ for GBP vs CYP etc.
2. I likewise support the use of a B with two strokes, but consider it equivalent and differing only in style, and shouldn't be listed distinctly in the article. Case in point, a dollar sign with two strokes means the same thing as a dollar sign with one. The letter B superimposed with strokes by compounding glyphs looks silly to me. Imagine the article for USD said there was two ways to make a dollar symbol: $ and an S with two strokes, as though they were somehow different. They're not, so it doesn't.
3. Gaining popularity is the B with a horizontal stroke - if there are two symbols to display, it ought to be baht as well as this one.

Casascius♠ (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Consulting the experts on Bitcoin's symbol

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115169.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BitcoinTalk is a forum, not a panel of experts. --Luke-Jr (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Added Bitcoind info to Implementations

In response to Gmaxwell's comment, I've done the following because it is very relevant information.

"Currently, Bitcoind is the only implementation that is capable of fully verifying the Blockchain. It is the still the most widely used implementation."

I'll try to find wikipedia-certified sources for the above but it is common knowledge.

Technically, it is Satoshi's implementation which is shared by both bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt --Luke-Jr (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mining ? Explanation needed.

The article doesn't really explain what exactly "bitcoin mining" is - from the context given, one would assume it's illegal. --Cyberman TM (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's covered under "Initial distribution" - I've expanded the title to make it stand out --Luke-Jr (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Mining is simply the act of finding a nonce (random number) such that the 256 bit hash of a block of transactions is less than another number specified by the "difficulty" setting. This currently takes on the order of 12*10^15 tries to find a solution in 10 minutes. This serves to prevent counterfeiting. The winning miner grants himself a new stake of 50 bitcoins as well as all the individual transaction fees (tips). Cloudswrest (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke-Jr is indeed adding the wrong symbol.

From the forums:

"Yes, I believe there is something wrong in the configuration of the UTF-8 encoding/charset in the users' browser. HowardStrong's proposal looks fine on both my Internet Explorer and Chrome. Luke-Jr's proposal looks OK in my Internet Explorer, but doesn't look right in Chrome.

Luke-Jr, if you go to Tools/Encoding in your Chrome browser while in Wikipedia, you should have the UTF-8 option checked. Is that so?"

--HowardStrong (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there have been many problems with this user before in this article and others.--HowardStrong (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=115169.msg1242220#msg1242220 another report of users not being able to see Luke-Jr's symbol.--HowardStrong (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke-Jr continues to go against consensus in regards to the symbols and abbreviation

Luke-Jr continues to remove the agreed upon abbreviation and symbol that is in the infobox (Thai Baht). --HowardStrong (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What consensus? I see a couple of things wrong with your version, for example Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so this cannot be used as a reference, and order forms aren't really strong sources either, they don't really verify the information. - SudoGhost 21:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there is consensus in regards to the BTC abbreviation; look at the top thread. The proper thing to say is that there is no consensus in regards to the B character he uses for a symbol and there is no verifiable article regarding its use.--HowardStrong (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for what you are changing. Simply stop. Both of you are being disruptive. This has been going on at least three days. Read WP:3RR before you make any more edits to this page. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 22:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance.--HowardStrong (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The only major use of the Thai Baht is an illicit drug site which the mainstream Bitcoin community continually distances itself from. HowardStrong's objection to the standard BTC symbol seems to be on the basis of some browser/font misrendering issues he is having (and others seem to as well); it makes sense to replace the symbol with an image as most Bitcoin websites do, but I'm not sure how to do that on Wikipedia. I propose this addition: , B⃦, and ฿ --Luke-Jr (talk) 5:34 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Feel free to add both then.--HowardStrong (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

One day Bitcoin will have its own code point for the currency symbol, and then how the symbol actually looks will be completely up to the designer of any given font. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as the symbol is already encoded in Unicode (which this current one is), Unicode has a policy of not creating a new codepoint for it - even if there is a new "meaning" for it. It's already up to font designers to make it look good. --Luke-Jr (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This, as you almost certainly know, is completely false, and in fact the opposite is much closer to the truth. Not only does Unicode have combined and non-combined ways to code the same letter (é U+00E9 vs é U+0065 U+0301), it has different code points for letters that under most circumstances look identical (Latin A versus Greek Α versus Cyrillic А). Certainly Unicode didn't shirk having a dollar sign ($) in favor of composing it with the letter S, like S⃒ Casascius♠ (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Those identical/precomposed characters are only encoded for compatibility with other encodings. "graphics such as ligatures, conjunct consonants, minor variant written forms, or abbreviations of longer forms are generally not acceptable as Unicode characters" "In some rare instances, you will find apparently identical characters. In most cases, if not all, this is to maintain compatibility with the original source standards for Unicode: vendor, national, and international character standards in wide usage in 1990. ... There are also particular shapes of characters that are given separate code points in Unicode, such as the shapes of the Arabic character hah listed above. These were also added to Unicode because of pre-existing standards. There are also particular shapes of characters that are given separate code points in Unicode, such as the shapes of the Arabic character hah listed above. These were also added to Unicode because of pre-existing standards." --Luke-Jr (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So what you really mean, then is that Unicode has a policy of not adding new code points, except when (insert long list of exceptions here). Sounds about right. I believe that one day it'll have its own symbol and code point. That's solely my opinion, of course. Edit: Alternatively, they might say "use the baht symbol - the difference between a B with one stroke and a B with two strokes is merely style". See the Wikipedia article Cifrão. Casascius♠ (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed non-citations from the second symbol

There's nothing to them that verifies that symbol as [a] accepted unicode [symbol].--HowardStrong (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Every use of any character does not require a citation of the Unicode standard. You can find that at http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ ; please restore references --Luke-Jr (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As you both know, there are reports on both of you at WP:ANEW and a discussion at WP:ANI. There were reports that you had reached an "agreeement" on the article. However, based on subsequent edits by Howard and the comments in this section, it's not clear to me that you have. You have to figure all this out here before doing anything more to the article. Otherwise, you both may be blocked for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk)00:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Luke's references had absolutely nothing to do with the unicode symbol he used. His chosen symbol was not even typed or mentioned in the references.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. This is an issue of edit-warring; it's not about who's right and who's wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish it was about factual and quality content. Anyways, Luke-Jr do you acknowledge that your symbol, in unicode, was not typed or mentioned in any of your references? Do you acknowledge that the statements in your references were not verified by the citations at all?--HowardStrong (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is in the above section, Luke proposed a very specific addition to the article. You, Howard, agreed to it. Luke implemented it exactly as proposed and agreed to, and then you monkeyed with it. Why? Because you had second thoughts? If so, you should have left Luke's edit alone and come back to the talk page and explained why you agreed but later reconsidered.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I never reconsidered the intention of the proposol. I just didn't look at the citations he was using. I thought I only agreed to the symbol being placed in the infobox. I didn't realize he had made references that blatantly violated Wikipedia's standards.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you should have looked at the citations before agreeing. He couldn't have been more clear. I strongly suggest you self-revert back to Luke's edit and then continue your discussion about the references and anything else still at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither symbol is standard. Howard's is commonly used on The Silk Road and other small sites though.--BitcoinNodeDev (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The B-with-double-vertical-strokes (B⃦) is the standard BTC symbol, including use by all the reference sites I noted, and has been since the icon shipped with Satoshi's original GUI Bitcoin client back in 2009. Whether it's encoded as an image or Unicode is immaterial. The Unicode standard defines that this symbol is represented as U+0042 & U+20E6, though I agree mainstream technical issues in rendering it may justify using an image on Wikipedia instead. --Luke-Jr (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The symbol B⃦ is not used anywhere by anybody except in a few forum postings and here in this talk page. Now, the most prominent bitcoin logo has a few things in common with this composed symbol (when a browser renders it), but that is simply not the same thing, nor does that make it "the standard BTC symbol", any more than Toys R Us reversing the letter R in their logo (to visually invoke the handwriting of children) suddenly makes the Russian letter Я (and its associated code point) become any part of Toys R Us's name. Casascius♠ (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The symbol you are referencing is actually the symbol for the Thai baht, which is a widely used currency symbol (or at least more widely used and referenced with reliable sources than using the same symbol for Bitcoins). This is referenced in the archives of the Bitcoin forums and was acknowledged even before it was widely used. That it was used on the "official" Bitcoin client distributed by Satoshi as well sort of does give it some credibility. That said, due to the nature of Bitcoin and lacking a central authority (especially at this time) any sort of authoritative assigning of symbolism is sort of moot. There are several "mainstream" news articles that show the B with the hash marks as a symbol for the currency though... beyond just this talk page. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The technical issues are more widespread than you think. All I see is a box.--BitcoinNodeDev (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2012

The Mt.Gox Bitcoin exchange rate picture needs to be updated in Reception and concerns. BitcoinNodeDev (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Updated with what? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated to the most recent chart available: http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#tgSzm1g10zm2g25zv--BitcoinNodeDev (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The image on the article is a Wikimedia Commons image that is uploaded/updated by 0x0F (talk · contribs). You might want to ask him/her for an update. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I restructured the article for readability. It's now easier to digest.

I based the structure off the one of Euro which has been rated a "good article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 05:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is being based off standard currency articles.

Look to Euro and US dollar as examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 13:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

BTC meets all the requirements of an ISO Code

All it lacks is recognition. For encyclopedic purposes, it should remain as is since BTC continues to be used as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the only requirement for being an ISO code is to be recognized by ISO; until then, statement that it "meets all the requirements" is factually incorrect. Still, I would support listing 'BTC' as a code - provided that name is used to describe 'BTC', doesn't imply ISO recognition (for instance, we could name it 'unofficial currency code' or something). Ipsign (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Most people and exchanges treat BTC as if it were the Bitcoin ISO code. It's just not recognized by ISO. Will unrecognized do? --HowardStrong (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am really pushing this currency code because it is indeed widely used as if it were the ISO code for Bitcoin. It's encyclopedic and very relevant to anyone who wants to learn about Bitcoins.--HowardStrong (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"As if" - yes, but it is not an ISO code. To make things worse, according to ISO 4217 itself, "BTC" code implies that it belongs to country "BT", which is 'Bhutan'. Therefore, it is within the rights of Bhutan to issue currency with an official ISO "BTC" code whenever Bhutan feels like it, ouch. Bottom line: "BTC" is not an ISO 4217 code, and has very little chances to become one. The most we can do - is to mention BTC as "unofficial currency code" (which BTC is, at least within Bitcoin community - references can be probably found), without reference to ISO (which BTC is not - and no references probably exist for this matter), and maybe to devote separate subsection to explaining the issue about BTC (such section may mention that Bitcoin community de-facto uses BTC "as if" it is an ISO code). Ipsign (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Understood and acknowledged.--HowardStrong (talk) 08:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

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

Floating point operations

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

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

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

Here's another reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forbes uses the term "market cap".[2]. The New York Times quotes Andresen as using it.[3]. So we have reliable sources for that. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Electrum client website has changed, requesting update.

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

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

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

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

Request to add info about alternative Bitcoin formats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove this from the start of the article: "(sign: ฿; abbrv: BTC)". These are completely unofficial, placing them at the head of the article gives the wrong impression. mentioning them as unofficial conventions later on in the article would be OK. --PatrikR (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not remove it because BTC is a common syonym for Bitcoin and people search for it with that currency code. Also, nothing is official for a decentralized currency. We can refer to what is most commonly used for currency signs, though. The thai baht sign should be removed completely since there is nothing citing it. However, the BTC code is used and can be cited by http://mtgox.com and other exchanges and merchants. We just need to change it to (sign: BTC) and cite it later in the article, discussing the code, its use and history.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Illicit use

Please remove the entry "Following the banking blockade instituted against Wikileaks by mainstream payment processors such as Visa, MasterCard and Paypal, the website accepts donations in Bitcoin.[53]", because there is nothing illicit about donating to Wikileaks. Furthermore, the fact that Wikileaks accepts donations in BitCoins is mentioned in "History". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs)

I agree, there's nothing I can find that really supports this being in an "illicit use" section, nor was I able to find anything that said that donating to Wikileaks was illegal. Although there were organizations that appeared to make that claim,[4] that was later shown to not be the case.[5][6] There's no reason to include it in this section, especially when it's already covered elsewhere in the article. - SudoGhost 00:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit for "(sign: ฿; abbrv: BTC)"

BTC is not an abbreviation for Bitcoin but a currency sign used to refer to Bitcoin on the major markets. Thus (sign: ฿; abbrv: BTC) should be changed to (sign: ฿, BTC), respectively.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You've linked to the currency sign article which describes a currency sign as a "graphic symbol" in the first line of the article, the opposite of what you're asserting here. The article also includes a disambiguation template that says "not to be confused with currency code", referring to three-letter codes like USD and EUR. Given that currency code is defined in terms of ISO 4217, which doesn't accommodate "BTC", calling it an abbreviation is probably safe middle ground. Casascius♠ (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Under Concern, start a section on Taxation;

.

I propose to add a section on taxation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support --Hopkinsenior (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Dear Martin, Another John and Hopkinssenior support my proposal to add under Concerns a new section called Taxation. See the AJ's text on 30 October 2012 and H's text on 23 November 2012. There are no negative comments. Please add. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think taxation, at least in the US is a concern. I could link to the relevant IRS publications, but I believe that to be more effort than it's worth in consideration of the reference I've used. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. The article is now updated. I removed the wikilink from "Bitcoin", as it's not necessary on the Bitcoin page itself, but otherwise the section is as specified above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Security

I propose the following to go in the Security section. Please feel free to revise and/or add citations. Presumed non-controversial. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have edited this addition and proposed it be merged with "Theft and fraud". See the previous revision for details.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABitcoin&diff=524471816&oldid=524326431 --Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

*Note: When adding the proposed edit to the article, please subtract one equal sign from each section title. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note: When adding this addition, please delete the "Theft and Fraud" section from the bottom of the article for it has been merged with this one.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo involving a comma.

Change: "It is the most widely used alternative currency,[2], with the total market cap at over 100 million US dollars." to "It is the most widely used alternative currency[2], with the total market cap at over 100 million US dollars."--Hopkinsenior (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly done:. I've fixed it, but I've put the reference after the comma, not before. See MOS:REFPUNC for the guideline on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi Nakamoto deserves a short Wikipedia page; it seems there's not enough info to make a long biography, but there are enough links to make a short article. There has been some discussion on the talk page for Satoshi about whether the page should be kept or not; though there was a strong preference to keep some kind of page, it was removed until recently. I created a short article; please spend a minute on it, and update the links in the Bitcoin article. There was a change by the blocked user Hopkinsenior that I reverted ... because he's blocked, and it didn't seem to make any sense to pay attention to them. Sanpitch (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully Protected lock expiry date needs to be updated.

The page protection is indefinite and it doesn't end on Jan. 13th. It's misleading to some would-be editors. Mrpsystem (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Internal Link "ASIC"

Suggestion: internal link "ASIC" to Application-specific integrated circuit. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the last (two?) sentence(s) in the Privacy section should probably be moved under the Illicit header. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I second this ASIC link request, ASIC is mentioned in articles about Bitcoin, so I came here to see what was meant by ASIC, and it turns out to be a general computing term, not Bitcoin-specific - Lopifalko (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I've implemented the ASIC link. You'll need to be more specific about where you want the "Privacy" section sentences moved to, and you should leave some time for people to comment on your proposed change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Info About Wordpress Allowing Bitcoin Transactions

As described in this Arstechnica article, Wordpress is now accepting payments and optionally issuing refunds in Bitcoin. One researcher stated, "This is a huge boost for Bitcoin—this is the first time that a well-known company is taking Bitcoin" and other experts interviewed had similiar statements. I was going to add a note about this to the 2012 part of the History section, but I can't because the page is protected. I figure I'll put a note about it here and someone can add it when the page gets unprotected. -Thunderforge (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Security

They are various security methods and requirements for the Bitcoin network and storage of the currency.

Bitcoin network

The Bitcoin network applies multiple methods to prevent denial-of-service attacks and compromise. The first line of defense is simple: each Bitcoin node thoroughly validates each incoming transaction message, and refuses to forward it to other nodes if it is not new valid transaction activity. Attempting to verify the digital signatures on a transaction is briefly CPU intensive regardless of whether the transaction is valid. Because of this, Bitcoin nodes are programmed to disconnect from and temporarily ban the IPs of nodes sending too much invalid data.

The minimum transaction fee is hard-coded into Bitcoin nodes and is used to prevent malicious users from flooding the network with valid "penny" transactions. Although in most cases the transaction fee is optional, Bitcoin nodes prevent flooding by requiring a minimum 0.005 BTC fee on transactions which either move small units of funds, or which move the same funds rapidly between accounts in any amount.

Bitcoin storage

In order to mitigate the risk of theft, Bitcoin users have come up with a successful strategy known as "cold storage". Cold storage refers to maintaining a Bitcoin wallet such that it is not connected to the internet, putting it out of reach of hackers. There have been no published security incidents to date involving Bitcoins kept in cold storage. Popular ways to maintain cold storage include:

• Using "paper wallets", where the key material is printed on a piece of paper and secured as a physical object
• Using "physical Bitcoins", which are essentially paper wallets embedded in some sort of collectible physical object
• Saving wallet files on removable media (such as USB flash drives and CD-R) and keeping them offline until needed
• Using a laptop, netbook, or other computer dedicated solely to Bitcoin transactions. Such a computer is connected to the internet for the minimum length of time necessary to perform transactions, or else communicates with the Bitcoin network solely by way of the user transferring files back and forth using removable media (a transaction methodology pioneered by the Armory Bitcoin client). Even when occasionally connected to the internet, a security benefit is realized by the user not using the computer for surfing or downloading, minimizing the opportunity for attackers to locate the machine through network exploration, or to load malware through "drive-by" or other types of downloads.

Cold storage is a popular and recommended best practice for merchants and exchanges holding bitcoins on behalf of other users. A typical implementation of cold storage for an exchange or large merchant is to hold the majority of user deposits in cold storage, and then to hold a small proportion of those deposits in what is termed a "hot wallet" - a wallet that is maintained online in order to immediately service payment and withdrawal needs. If a withdrawal is demanded that exceeds the balance of the hot wallet, the user to receive the withdrawal must wait for the site operator to retrieve coins from cold storage.

Theft

Despite reliable methods of security, negligence in local security and external causes outside of Bitcoin's protocol, have lead to numerous incidents where Bitcoins were stolen, defrauded or lost.

List of Bitcoin thefts and losses

In June 2011, it was widely reported that a user allinvain of the Bitcointalk forums had 25,000 BTC stolen (valued at USD $500,000 at the time) by a hacker who was able to gain access to his computer and transfer them.

On 19 June 2011, a hacker allegedly hacked the Mt.Gox Bitcoin exchange using credentials from a auditor's compromised computer to transfer a large number of Bitcoins to himself and sell them all. Accounts with the equivalent of more than USD 8,750,000 were affected.

In July 2011, The operator of Bitomat, the third largest Bitcoin exchange, announced that he lost access to his wallet.dat file with about 17,000 BitCoins (roughly equivalent to 220,000 USD at that time). He announced that he would sell the service for the missing amount, aiming to use funds from the sale to refund his customers.

In August 2011, MyBitcoin, one of popular Bitcoin transaction processors, declared that it was hacked, which resulted in it being shut down, with paying 49% on customer deposits, leaving more than 78,000 BitCoins (roughly equivalent to 800,000 USD at that time) unaccounted for.

In early August 2012, a lawsuit was filed in San Francisco court against Bitcoinica, claiming about 460,000 USD from the company. Bitcoinica was hacked twice in 2012, which led to allegations of neglecting the safety of customers' money and cheating them out of withdrawal requests.

In late August 2012, Bitcoin Savings and Trust was shut down by the owner, allegedly leaving around $5.6 million in debts; this led to allegations of the operation being a Ponzi scheme. In September 2012, it was reported that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has started an investigation on the case.

In September 2012, Bitfloor Bitcoin exchange also reported being hacked, with 24,000 BitCoins (roughly equivalent to 250,000 USD) stolen. As a result, Bitfloor suspended operations. The same month, Bitfloor resumed operations, with its founder saying that he reported the theft to FBI, and that he is planning to repay the victims, though the time frame for such repayment is unclear.

References

---

• Not done for now: This looks good to me, but as it is a major addition to the article we should wait for a couple of days to give people time to revise it, object to it, or to express their support. If the other editors here agree to add the material, please reactivate the {{Edit protected}} template, and I'll update the article for you. Similarly, if no-one else comments by say, Sunday 25th November, reactivate the edit protected request and I'll add the material for you. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't have to do with the security of the Bitcoin protocol but with the storage of the currency itself. It should be merged with an already existing section for this: "Theft and fraud". The security section should have to do with actual protocol technologies that protect the network and not just local currency storage. I have edited this proposed addition to reflect the necessary merge. To add the previous edit as it stood would lead to a uneccessary rift and duplication of content within the article. --Hopkinsenior (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I would resolve the duplication by taking the duplicated statements out of the Theft and Fraud section. While you and I as Bitcoin experts understand that "security" of the Bitcoin protocol is different from "security" as measured in theft and fraud, the average reader doesn't, and treats them as one and the same. Thus, making the distinction in the "security" section is entirely appropriate. Further, the "theft and fraud" is listed under a section called "Concerns", which is a bit misleading - the fact that Bitcoins can be stolen isn't fundamentally a "concern" about Bitcoin any more than the fact that banks can be robbed is a "concern" about the dollar or euro. Casascius♠ (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree now. This should be in the security section. How is this? We'll just move Theft and Fraud up.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to negligence in system security…' could be confused for negligence in 'the bitcoin system' security. I would propose it be 'Due to negligence in personal system security…', but this seems to leave much to be desired. Perhaps, ' Due to negligence in external system security and other causes outside of the core Bitcoin software,…'? --Smickles86 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Local security?--Hopkinsenior (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, local security :) that seems like a good way to put it. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

This proposal should now reflect consensus.--Hopkinsenior (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not done: I'm now regretting saying "this looks good to me" above, because after taking a closer look at this section, the sourcing is really not up to standard. Bitaddress.org isn't really citing any claim, so there doesn't seem much point in including it; the Bitcoin wiki is both a primary source and user-generated, making it totally unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia; and while the Ars Technica article is a good source, two of the claims that it is supposed to be backing up, e.g. "hot wallets" and "cold storage", do not appear in the article at all. The proposed section doesn't satisfy the verifiability policy, so by default there is no consensus for its inclusion. (See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for the logic behind this.) If you can rewrite the section with inline citations to reliable sources, feel free to ask for its addition again using the {{edit protected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that the conclusions from my master thesis on Bitcoin security could be relevant to this section of the Bitcoin wiki entry--ThePiachu (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We must concede that one's master thesis is not a reliable source for one to be self-including. But much of the text describing the fundamental security concepts of Bitcoin comes straight from Nakamoto's whitepaper (already referenced throughout the article) and the fact that people use paper wallet shouldn't be all that hard to reference. Casascius♠ (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)