Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed merge with Digital currency

Substantially duplicative content: The article content of digital currency seems to be more-or-less a slightly smaller duplicate of cryptocurrency. Even if digital currency turned out to be a separate subject, its current article content is still a large bulk of duplication that should be in either one article or the other. (Ripple (payment protocol) is mentioned, but it also appears in the cryptocurrency article and is also covered separately in electronic money instead.) Closeapple (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that most of the "real" currency today is in the form of bits, "digital currency" is a misnomer as it actually refers to cryptocurrency. This article should be merged into cryptocurrency or just be deleted. 93.172.134.112 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do-Not suggest systemic changes such as this without doing alot of research, In this case you clearly have not done that.

Digital currencies are a very large, very important and very different thing to cryptocurrencies, they in no way necessary overlap and there is absolutely no reason to merge their two wiki pages, nor will there EVER be a good reason to delete the digital currency page.

Digital currencies include anything from the 'gold' in world of warcraft to american dollars and are defined simply as "any form of currency system implemented digitally". Cryptocurrencys on the other-hand are cryptographic messaging systems which use irreversibility in mathematics to implement a distributed verifiable (usually digital) currency... Just because something is a Digital currency certainly does not mean it is a Cryptocurrency.

Any similarity which exists between them in your head is meaningless and trivial, they are not to be merged.

And finally; @Closeapple your response is so wrong that i actually feel sick, bitcoin is the NAME of an advanced and specific cryptocurrency it's not the term we use to refer to all coins which are implemented using binary digits, it's certainly not a misnomer ! and at Wikipedia; ridiculously ideas like that are best left inside your head.

Electronic money is another thing again, please just don't post about crypto-anything until you fully understand Public-key_cryptography because you'll just embarrass yourself.

Finally; i intend to remove the 'merge suggestion' within a week unless someone comes up with a reason for merging the pages which is both logically valid and technically grounded.

27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 (talk)

N Opposed. I feel the topics are better treated as two articles. A proper treatment of cryptocurrency, and even this article's half-baked current coverage of the topic, includes signficant detail (history, technical underpinnings, weaknesses, etc.) that are irrelevant to non-cryptocurrency digital currencies, and merging Cryptocurrency into Digital currency would imbalance/dwarf the coverage of the topic of digital currency. Merging Digital currency into Cryptocurrency would simply be wrong, since many digital currencies are not cryptocurrencies. I disagree with 93.172.134.112 reasoning for deletion, i.e. "digital currency" should be deleted because it's a misnomer. (Whether it is a misnomer is a matter of opinion; it's in widespread usage the way the article is using it.) Agyle (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose Although currently the largest and most talked-about digital currency is a cryptocurrency, this might change. As has been already brought up, digital currencies is a larger category, which also includes centrally-backed online currencies like Liberty Dollars and credits like in-game money and Microsoft Points and Amazon Coin. Cryptocurrency is a very specific type of digital currency, and due to the complexity of the topic it is best treated in an article of its own. --hydrox (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose Keep both articles. Improve Digital Currency. Have a short sub section on crypto on the Digital Currency article - link to this as the main article. Add section on Digital Currency article about how some traditional physical currencies have become partly/mainly digital (since the 70s?).Jonpatterns (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently my merger request has been misinterpreted. To be clear: My proposal was to remove the more-or-less duplicate content from Digital currency because it was already in, and about, Cryptocurrency. It is not a request to terminate the Cryptocurrency article.

• The problem is that most of the content in the article Digital currency was actually duplicate content of Cryptocurrency and was actually about cryptocurrency, not digital currency in general.
• Therefore, I nominated Digital currency's content to be merged into Cryptocurrency; not because they are the same topic or even should be the same article, but because the existing content of the Digital currency was really about Cryptocurrency, and there was substantially nothing left in the Digital currency article other than that.
• The "clever" merger function in Twinkle gadget, which I used for this nomination, seems to have posted this talk section with the misleading title "Proposed merge with Digital currency". The cut-paste duplication in Digital currency is what I am proposing be merged (or simply removed since it's pretty much already in Cryptocurrency).
• As for 180.216.42.3: I have no idea what that anonymous IP is thinking. He seems to be speculating in his own head and then blaming me for the thoughts. I know that something being digital currency does not mean it's cryptocurrency; it's previous editors of the Digital currency article who didn't seem to understand it, not me, which is why I was proposing the content merger. I didn't respond to anything until now, didn't mention Bitcoin, certainly didn't confuse the name "Bitcoin" for all digital currencies, and didn't embarrass myself by claiming that someone that had already had PKI encryption and signing keys 15+ years ago doesn't understand public-key crypto.

The Digital currency article, if it remains, needs to be about digital currency in general, not just a repeat of the cryptocurrency subtopic. Almost every source reference in the Digital currency article says "Bitcoin" in the title. That's a bad sign. --Closeapple (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What you're proposing is effectively like a deletion of Digital currency. One of the steps WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, which I think should be followed for this situation, is "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Two things I think everyone can agree on is (1) the Digital currency article is bad, and (2) it can be improved. I think that's another reason to oppose the merger. Agyle (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After web-searching a bit I notice many sites using Digital Currency synonymously with Cryptocurrency and even Bitcoin.

I've found a page called Electronic money. This also potentially has an overlap with Digital Currency.

Question, where does computer game money fit in, for example the Cubit of chesscube?Jonpatterns (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Game money is almost always owned by the game's developer/publisher, as in, the player doesn't own any virtual currency in it, even if they spend real money to acquire it. So it doesn't fall under any money or currency definition. That's probably the main point -- the person actually owns the crypto or digital currencies they have. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No content merger is required !, if there is problems with the digital currency article; then just go fix it, leave this page alone!... there is absolutely no logical connection between Crypto and Digital currencys, they should not be merged to any extent.

If CloseApple is having a problem with the digital currency article, i suggest CloseApple goes and fixs it... and i strongly suggest he leaves the Cryptocurrency article ( a highly complex programming subject about which he clearly knows nothing ) alone.

( obviously the merge has not been deleted yet as discussion continues; however there is an overwhelming 'Nay' rough consensus emerging so unless relevant new information is brought to the discussion i intend to remove the merger request in 3 days (17/3/2014).

I know that no-one has directly suggested Bitcoins are a bad or limited example, however to be clear All Cyptocurrencies are DIRECTLY based upon the group sourced protocol Bitcoin, which is also by far the most well documented CC-protocol; and the fundamental crypto-scripting feature of Bitcoin is what every other coin builds it's unique features upon ( including highly complex coins - like the decentralized DNS namecoin )

203.59.228.97 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose As there are many more types of digital currencies than cryptocurrencies, I oppose merging this to cryptocurrency. The opposite is an entirely different question on which I have no opinion. --Chealer (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - looks like most people oppose the merge. Maybe we should remove tag, someone has already removed the merge tag from Digital currency.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm also fine with removing the {{mergefrom}} template now that most of the content in Digital currency is not just copy-paste duplication; any remaining issues can be dealt with on the Digital currency article/talk page now. That Digital currency article still needs source references that aren't from the all-digital-currency-is-like-Bitcoin point of view, though. (And I still have no idea why those last couple of anonymous IPs went berzerk about "touching" the Cryptocurrency article. This discussion is on Talk:Cryptocurrency because merger discussions often go on the destination article that has the {{mergefrom}} template, rather than the article with the {{mergeto}} template. I don't know how many times I'd have to repeat that I didn't think anything would change on the Cryptocurrency article, since the original Digital currency article was just a copy-paste of part of Cryptocurrency. But I think most people know that.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue to attention. The Digital currency article is heading in the right direction now. Another question occurs though, do we need a Digital currency and Electronic money articles. Agyle done some research, see Talk:Electronic_money#Difference between Electronic money and Digital currency Jonpatterns (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The First cryptocurrency?

Sorry if this isn't the correct course of action - this is my first activity contributing to Wikipedia.

I'd like to dispute the claim of Bitcoin being the first cryptocurrency. It's widely cited the Bitcoin shares similarities in terms of features to David Chaum's eCash, or DigiCash. That was a currency that made heavy use of cryptography and blind signatures to provide anonymous transactions, outlined as early as the end of the 80's and implemented over the 90's. However, it had a centralised issuer, but still allowed an offline mode. I would class this as at least partially distributed.

I don't doubt Bitcoin is the first fully distributed cryptocurrency.

I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum.

Thanks

Again, apologies if this is the wrong approach.

ItsDom (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite what the name suggests (a currency using cryptography), a cryptocurrency needs to meet other criteria such as decentralized issuing, and acting as an alternative currency. Were Ecash and DigiCash currencies of their own, or did they simply help anonymise transactions in currencies such as $ and £?

Also, Wikipedia isn't really built off of original research, it generally relies on the sources linked in the article (to stop people adding unsourced and possibly incorrect information). In this case the sources generally seem to indicate that Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency.

However, I do agree with this statement "I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum." (I'll try to add some information to the article about this when I get a chance, but feel free to add information in the meantime).Cliff12345 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to the formal definition of cryptocurrency - I don't think there is one. So how do we go about forming one? As a PhD researcher in the field of cryptocurrencies, I'd like to reiterate that personally, I don't think a cryptocurrency has to be distributed. By that logic, PPcoin isn't a cryptocurrency because it uses centralised checkpointing. As well as that, some of the other PoS coins have centralised initial distribution, yet these are still cryptocurrencies. I describe such systems as partially distributed cryptocurrencies, similar to Chaum's (as it offers and offline mode) as opposed to a fully distributed cryptocurrency like Bitcoin.

Regarding sources, Andy Greenbergs book "This Machine Kills Secrets..." describes Chaums work as a cryptocurrency.

digiCash and eCash could probably be also described as electronic cash. The original paper by Chaum describes a system that can use any denomination. He uses the term "coin" regularly. Whether eCash was used to anonymise transaction in other currencies was entirely up to the issuer (described as the "bank" in his paper.) Technically, Chaums solution offers very VERY similar features to Bitcoin - the fact that it may have only been used at a rate of 1 coin = 1 USD is irrelevant in respects to if it's a cryptocurrency or not. E.g. I could fork Bitcoin, modify it so that I distribute the coins (e.g. all coinbase tx go to my address and I redistribute,) call them ItsDomCoins and say 1IDC = 1USD. I think that the majority of informed people would still says ItsDomCoin is a cryptocurrency, just not a fully distributed cryptocurrency.ItsDom (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note the distinction between digital currency and cryptocurrency. I would have preferred there to be only one page at this time, but the vote was otherwise. I think that there are a lot of issues with regards the terminology. These things shall all fall into place eventually, but at present... **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not answering my issues. You said above "In this case the sources generally seem to indicate that Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency." Yet the only source provided for the definition (which is what I'm contesting) is a link to a magazine article. Nowhere in that article does it give a definition of cryptocurrencies. That's like reading an article about a border collie that describes it as black and white and then saying a dog is only a dog if it's black and white. When you look at more widely circulated definitions of a cryptocurrency, Chaum's definitely falls within the definition.

I present to you 1 definition of cryptocurrency with another example reference to it:

"Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that is based on cryptography. Cryptocurrency uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit. Public and private keys are often used to transfer the currency from one person to another."

I present to you a reference to a book in which David Chaums eCash is referred to as a cryptocurrency (digiCash fits in with the above definition also)

Furthermore, I get the feeling that you may not have actually looked at the sources you're defending that backup the definition of cryptocurrency provided on the wikipage at the moment:

What is currently there as a definition is problematic because the references to back it up are misquoted, misleading and misrepresented:

1. Reference [1] doesn't at all claim to be presenting or defining a cryptocurrency

- Even if it were, it doesn't at all mention the definition on here that has been "extrapolated" from it.

- In fact, the only thing that resembles a definition in that article is "a cryptographically secure and anonymous currency that doesn't take a cut from transactions (like, say, Amazon's virtual currency) and remains independent of any single, central authority."

2.Reference [2] provided to supplement the definition of cryptocurrency, again, doesn't even mention the word cryptocurrency in it.

3.Reference [3] doesn't provide a definition of a cryptocurrency, in fact, it just links to another page for a definition, which provides the following definition:

"Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that is based on cryptography. Cryptocurrency uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit. Public and private keys are often used to transfer the currency from one person to another."

4.Reference [4] provided to supplement the definition again, mentions the phrase "crypto currency" once, and that's in the title. Then it goes on to talk about Bitcoin.

5.Reference [5] doesn't provide anything that even remotely resembles a definition of a cryptocurrency.

Many of the sources used in this page are talking about Bitcoin, but are being used as though they're talking about cryptocurrencies. You're using features of a single instance to define characteristics of an entire class (like a dog must be black and white because collies are.)

So I ask again, can we please put a more valid, accepted, referenced and generally accurate definition about cryptocurrencies, not a definition that's merely an individuals interpretation of several articles on the subject of Bitcoin.ItsDom (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no official definition of cryptocurrencies (dictionary definition), or authority to define it, so it makes sense to define the word based upon how it is generally used and explained. If we search the term cryptocurrency on the internet, we see that almost every time the term is mentioned, it is either referring to bitcoin (for example: this, though they also seem to imply that cryptocurrencies are peer-to-peer), to bitcoin based currencies such as litecoin (for example: [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0 this] or this), or to properties that only currencies such as bitcoin/litecoin have. Although most of the pages don't explicitly define the term (a few do, which I will discuss below), or actually say that DigiCash is not a cryptocurrency, they talk about the topic as if bitcoin based currencies are the only cryptocurrencies, and they discuss properties that only bitcoin based currencies have (decentralization). Though the word cryptocurrency may have previously included others such as DigiCash, it now seems to almost exclusively refer to bitcoin based currencies (perhaps due to the recent rise in value of bitcoin).

Taking a definition you posted as an example:

However, because it is not tied to any country, its value cannot be affected by a central bank.,

Bitcoin and litecoin would meet this requirement, but ItsDomCoins or DigiCash wouldn't, as firstly, by being tied to the USD, they are tied to the United States, and secondly, if ItsDomCoins (IDC) were traded at 1 IDC to 1 USD, then printing of large amounts of USD by the central bank would affect the value of IDC. If we look at the second explanation on that page (though it is not meant to be a formal definition), cryptocurrency is described as an attempt to bring back a decentralized currency. I wouldn't consider DigiCash to be decentralized if it relies on a central authority at any point, because although in some cases is can be used without a central authority, we could say the same about banknotes (but USD is clearly not decentralized). It is also stated that a crytocurrency is not affected by a central bank.

Reference 1 (page 2) is another example, as it notes that many think that:

the key point of cryptocurrencies—nobody is in control and they are completely decentralized

Again, supporting the point that cryptocurrencies must be decentralized, and so ruling out DigiCash. Although this source doesn't actually claim this directly (indeed it doesn't have any special authority to do so), it is noting that a substantial number of people consider this to be the key feature.

The sources above and in the article also indicate that cryptocurrencies rely on cryptography to a certain extent, to it seems sensible for the article to mention cryptography and decentralization as the defining features. I suspect this is the best that we can do (base the wikipedia definition off of the common usage of the word and a few websites' definitions of the term), as there aren't really any special sources which could provide a precise definition.

Because no other currencies before bitcoin meet this definition, it follows that bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency.

The later references (such as references 4 and 5) in the article are not there to define the term, they are there to note that cryptocurrencies generally have no inflation. I think you're right about references 2 and 3 though (something such as the technopedia definition or reference 1 seems like a far better choice). I think the references used to be more appropriate for the text (albeit not perfect), but the text was since edited, without the references being corrected (if you agree with my explanation, then I will try to update the references to better justify the text). Cliff12345 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The methodology you suggest (searching for cryptocurrency and see that most reference Bitcoin) I feel is flawed. There was a time that when if one searched for "tablet" 95% of results would be about the iPad, yet the first accepted mentions and references of early tablets on the wiki page is actually other companies (Microsoft, Nokia.) If you ask most people what the first tablet computer was, they'll say the iPad, same way if asked most people what the first cryptocurrency was, they'll say Bitcoin. That's because most people don't know about what was before Bitcoin or the iPad.

I suspect a lot of people do not know about Chaums work. And the most common mention of the word cryptocurrency with Bitcoin seems to be by the mainstream media, which aren't exactly renowned for fact checking;)

As I suggested, Chaums eCash needs a central point of control for checking signatures, but this can be done in a decentralized offline mode. A lot of the PoS cryptocurrency systems require initial distribution of shares which happens in a centralised manner. PPCoin admits on it's own website that it is not currently fully decentralised, yet that is still classed by many as a cryptocurrency.

I'll agree to keep going down the route of the current definition. However, personally, I believe a more suitable definition would be more along the lines of "A system of exchanging value, the core functionality of which relies on cryptographic algorithms (or exchange of cryptographic keys/signatures) to offer security (particularly against double spending), privacy and typically some level of decentralisation." This definition would encompass Chaums work, and Bitcoin, and PPCoin.

I believe that if a country forked the Bitcoin code and adopted it as their state currency yet gave themselves the ability to determine coin production rate, people would still consider it a cryptocurrency. All the altcoins are is basically where someone has done that (forked the code, a centralized person has determined the new production rate, and then released the new code.)

Perhaps maybe some distinction of the technical definition/connotations and the idealogical definition/connotations is needed as I think that maybe partially where or why we're disagreeing.(ItsDom (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

The difference between your iPad example and the cryptocurrency example is that the meaning of the word "tablet" hasn't really changed due to the iPad (the word has simply become more popular), hence calling the iPad the first tablet is clearly wrong. On the other hand, the usage of the word "cryptocurrency" appears to have shifted from not necessarily being decentralized, to necessarily being decentralized.

My point about the decentralized offline mode is that a currency would need to be decentralized in both production and transactions to be considered decentralized. For example, the US dollar is centralized in terms of production, so I would consider it centralized as a whole, even though it has a decentralized mode for transactions (federal reserve notes). I see what you're saying about PPCoin, it's on the borderline between centralized and decentralized. I suppose the difference with PPCoin (I haven't done much reading on PPCoin, so I'm not aware of all the details) is that it's not really dependent on these checkpoints any more (they're only kept to avoid forking of the block chain while the currency is new), they could be removed with little effect on the currency.

If a country created their own Bitcoin style currency, I wouldn't consider it decentralized if they controlled coin production rate. The altcoins were, in a sense, centralized before being released, but once released, their creators have no control over coin production, hence the altcoins are now decentralized (whereas the countries would maintain control after release).

Maybe we could mention in the article that "cryptocurrency" originally referred to something similar to Chaum's work, but that recently the media seems to have taken the word to mean Bitcoin/Bitcoin copy. Cliff12345 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sitting on the "doesn't need to be decentralised" side of the fence. The defining feature of a cryptocurrency is that value is transferred through the signing of an address with a private key, reassigning value to another users public key. But I've created another discussion topic for "Defining Cryptocurrencies" VinceSamios (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've worked in digital cash for about 20 years; it's clear that digital bearer token money (i.e. Chaumian blinded money) could be used to represent arbitrary assets. There is a difference between distributed and centralized systems, and right now the only really viable distributed model is blockchain based, but the distinction shouldn't be "cryptocurrency vs. non-cryptocurrency", but "blockchain-based cryptocurrency vs. blinded token cryptocurrency". They're both distinct from account-based money.

There are ways in which blinded money is actually *more* cryptocurrency than blockchain money -- by eliminating the historical record of linkability inherent in the blockchain or account-based systems, blinded tokens are inherently fungible, which supports negotiability and finality.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this article; move it en-masse to "blockchain currency" or merge with bitcoin and then redirect cryptocurrency to digital cash? Ryan (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As an expert on cryptography and specifically the underlying systems employed by Bitcoin; i can say without a doubt that no concurrency ever existed before Bitcoin. simple as that, basic digital currencies like Ecash were certainly not cryptocurrencys!

The very first use of the underlying cryptographic messaging system was by the British military, the first use of that system as a form of currency was bitcoin.

Do your research on how Bitcoins protocol actually works and you'll never feel the need to contest this fact again. 27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 (talk)

The meaning of Digital in reference to cryptography.

Recent disagreement has arisen regarding the use of the term digital in the definition of the term cryptocurrency. This talk section has been created for us to discuss our perspectives and argue our points before re-adding the term so as to avoid public misconception and to minimize redundant and potentially incorrect article page edits.

My perspective is that Cryptocurrency, like it's parent fields cryptography and currency, has no innate connection and can exist entirely separate to digital signal processing.

Basic cryptography ( which is the key component of Cryptocurrency ) has existed far longer than the word digital, the concepts invoked by cryptography make complete and useful sense even within noisy or analogous implementations.

I believe the cause of this misnomer arose because of the avid connection between popular cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and popular modern electronic computing devices; which are by no means the only possible type of computing devices.

Cryptocurrency specifications can provably be implemented entirely within the minds of a group of humans, Cryptocurrencies are certainly not based upon digital currencies and i am yet to find or hear any argument which could prove that Cryptocurrencys cannot exist without digital-signal-processing which is all that is meant by the term digital.

Feel free to discuss, but please do-not include the term digital into the main article without providing strong supporting evidence that it needs to be there. encyclopedias are supposed to be minimal and concise, they are not the place for unintelligent hearsay.

Thank you, 180.216.52.21 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to cryptocurrencies as a type of digital currency. You could certainly do everything by hand, but that's not the canonical meaning of the term. You're creating your own theoretical definitions based on what you think the terms should mean, rather than the meanings used and defined in reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with you, also note that all the currently implemented cryptocurrencies are also digital currencies. It can also be argued that the majority percentage of 'conventional' currencies are also digital.

At the moment the article hardly mentions the word digital, so presumably there is no disagreement at the present time.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed coins without article

NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, do not include it in this article's table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG).

Dreamcoin

DRM

—

2014

Carsen Klock

Yes

~0.2

8.41%

~1.85

X11

Yes

Yes

Pelecoin

PLC

—

2014

—

Yes

—

—

—

—

—

—

Nrjcoin

NRC

₦

2014

Makoto Harada

Yes

—

50.55%

~101.10 of ~200

scrypt

Yes

No

Groestlcoin

GRS

—

2014

gruve_p (pseudonym)

Yes

~0.2

44.76%

~47 of 105

Groestl

Yes

Yes

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pelecoin123456: see above, Wikipedia mostly avoids having articles written by people with direct involvement.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Format issues and Dogecoin

• Whomever wrote parts of this didn't use markup. I'm taking the WP URLs out of references, replacing with wikilinks. Also, I'm creating an "External sources" section, which is where Coinwiki belongs.

• Is there a Dogecoin Foundation? It is mentioned in the article. If so, ref source please?

Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Table too wide

table is too wide on 14" monitor, maybe vertical text images would be beneficial? See, Help:Table#Vertically_oriented_column_headers. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I shortened the width of the code, symbol, and founder columns a bit. Personally I'd suggest removing some of the columns of subjective information, unless someone wants to clarify precisely what they mean or how the values are determined. "Active", market cap, % release, and coins released all seem like good candidates. Coinmarketcap is a particularly non-transparent source (anonymously run, with no explanation of its values), susceptible to mistakes and fraud from multiple sources, and able to perpetrate fraud on its own. If you compare the April values cited in this article with the live site, Ripple's "available supply" dropped from 100 billion to 7.8 billion coins in circulation, dropping its market cap from $637 million to $36 million, and Auroracoin went form having 10.7 million coins released to 1.5 million, dropping its market cap from $11 million to $0.3 million. As far as I know, nothing changed about the actual number of coins released by those sites, just coinmarketcap's figures changed. At least with Bitcoin quotes using CoinDesk's Bitcoin Price Index or the Winklevoss twins' Winkdex, they explain their methods, and values can be verified against the exchanges they use, but currencies that trade less frequently can be more susceptible to certain types of fraud, and coinmarketcap is completely opaque. Agyle (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on market cap being removed. In one way it can give an indication of how much of a coin has grown. Maybe a more static value like average market cap for 2013 would be adequate - using information from the better sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

definition of cryptocurrency

A sourced definition of cryptocurrency has always been lacking on this page, and should be its own subsection. It would allow distinction from other similar terms ( digital currency, virtual currency).--Wuerzele (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not notable criteria

I've been trying to add a coin to the list of cryptocurrencies, which although may not be well known (the point of this coin is far more stealth than Bitcoin offers) it is well known within it's circles having more users of the coin and a higher market cap than the majority of the coins on that list. I was going to revert it's removal until I read the criteria that it must have a wikipedia page. How can whether or not something has a wikipedia article be determined as an object of note? I realise you're wikipedia users and will be rightly proud of your website. However this notability test seems to contradict wikipedia referencing rules that wikipedia cannot be used as a source of reference. I am happy to create a wikipedia page for the currency but I find wikipedia ignoring something as not worth mentioning because no one made an article, a little big headed. 194.138.39.53 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for selecting what coins mentioned appears very very random, I can imagine people were trying to squeeze in their coins through out, resulting in such a mess. However, shouldn't it be common sense that a Cryptocoin should be 'at least' 1yr old ? Coins like Aurora, Maza, Vertcoin are all unworthly mentions, made to 'wow' people for a quick 'get rich' schemes. I work in coinbase for the last 18 months, and to be honest, except Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin. All the rest are considered Minor, where you then have Feathercoin, Primecoin, Peercoin, Worldcoin and Ybcoin that is actually developed by respectable people who show their faces. Mastercoin is fine to mention, given it is different, similar to Ripple, but again, no one talks about Mastercoin or Ripple at all either, almost embarassing to see it on this list. WinterstormRage (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to do this properly, let's try to come up with some criteria under which a coin can be added. I propose the following rules:

Universal:

1. at least one year old (briefly grandfathering in Doge)
2. uses some sort of blockchain technology

Major:

1. at least 2k transactions per day
2. at least 7k active addresses
3. accepted on 2/3 of major exchanges

Minor:

1. at least 500 transactions per day
2. at least 2k active addresses
3. accepted on at least 3 exchanges

Now, I fully expect this to be amended and modified. These are arbitrary rules, and they use possibly fallible third party resources. But, as an initial draft, what do you think?

ThePenultimateOne (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There already are criteria in effect, and they are easier to follow than your newly proposed set. Therefore, I oppose the change. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What are these criteria? ThePenultimateOne (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing from the section (it is commented and invisible, but visible when editing):

"NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, do not include it in this table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG), please ask in Talk:Cryptocurrency; most cryptocurrency articles are deleted after a week or two discussion process. NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS - READ BEFORE ADDING TO TABLE" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but is being on Wikipedia really a good way to judge if something is notable? I would argue that user-base is a much better data point to use. 66.249.83.218 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are what Wikipedia uses. If wanting to remain consistent, it is best to use the criteria in this case as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Defining "Notable Cryptocurrencies"

We need to define this category as a few people have been adding coins presumably in an effort to manipulate the market.

The definition needs to be: Cryptocurrencies that coin a complex novel aspect (unique, new, different).

• Bitcoin is novel because it was the first
• Litecoin is novel because it uses Scrypt
• Namecoin is novel because it is designed as a peer to peer DNS system
• Peercoin is novel because it introduced Proof of Stake
• Dogecoin is... arguably novel... because it was based on a meme...

I'm questioning whether or not Dogecoin should be in the list, but even myself as a major anti-scamcoin advocate, I have to give Dogecoin the credit for its (absurd) ingenuity in branding.

VinceSamios (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple has been added - I'm inclined to suggest it may be notable enough to retain. VinceSamios (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple isnt a traditional cryptocurrency. And dogecoin wasnt the first coin made for a meme. It should be removed. NataliWinehouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple is a cryptocurrency, even if it doesn't follow the Bitcoin model.VinceSamios (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that whatever the definition of a "notable cryptocurrency" is, in each case it needs to be demonstrated using verifiable, reliable sources. The *coin project pages do not count as such. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://coinmarketcap.com/ isn't a good source for inclusion. As for sites that only focus on altcoins, nothing has emerged as reputable yet. A reputable newspaper or magazine works. Anything in http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513661/bitcoin-isnt-the-only-cryptocurrency-in-town/ is good for inclusion. PCWorld has an article on an alternative coin, but unfortunately why should something that dumb be included in this article (consensus might help with this). There was a reputable source here before, I don't know where it went, also there is a new york times article about altcoins. A coin doesn't have to have its own page to be included, it just needs mention once in a reputable source (to have its own page it needs more reputable sources). - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just mentioned, but covered in some detail. A passing mention is not enough to claim any kind of notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Passing mention in a reputable source is usually enough for inclusion, but it'd be best that accepted list items be somewhere in between using passing mention and detailed mention. Notability is for a topic to have its own page. We shouldn't have a page for every currency listed; this is where the list gives relief. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable means (to me) either having a significant position in the market - something top 10 market cap (for how long, I think VertCoin made top 10 for a day within weeks of launch, and is back at top 20 now), OR technically or historically interesting. Just appearing in the press might not be enough to make a currency notable. However, a wider list is probably of value, maybe as a sub-page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.238.193 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with market size being one of the potential defintions of notability. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with alot of things mentioned here, i also feel that NXT should be included on this list as this coin was a the first significant crypto that wasn't simply another "altcoin", NXT is probably also noteworthy of its own article also, which i will look at creating sometime soon.Nzoomed (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Illegal in Iceland - really true?

"Cryptocurrencies are legal in all countries except Iceland, due primarily to Iceland's freeze on foreign exchange". I know what the source, a major Icelandic newspaper, says "illegal". Their quote from the central bank possibly really means that. It is about the capital controls and that Bitcoin is not an exception (a product). I just wander if you only use Bitcoin domestically does that work? [I know about Auroracoin that supposedly an answer to Bitcoin illegal.]

Bitcoin is mined in Iceland in big data centers so I take illegal with a grain of salt. comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have got some source for the statement, it may be a reasonable information to add, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ripple

People keep removing references to Ripple (payment protocol) from the page, claiming that for whatever reason it does not fit into their personal definition of cryptocurrency. Wikipedia is about sources, however, and they more or less consistently describe Ripple (XRP, really) as a cryptocurrency. If you disagree and can justify your position, please discuss it here before editing.

Then there is the matter of the table of notable cryptocurrencies. The current choice of fields pretty much defines "cryptocurrency" as "bitcoin clone", since many of the fields do not make any sense in any other context. This seems rather inappropriate. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The '% change' field should also be removed from the table. Wikipedia is not set up to provide up-to-date stock/financial information, and any such claims without real time data are misleading/unencyclopedic. The source for these valuations is also of somewhat dubious reliability.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Smite-meister, looking at the Ripple (payment protocol) and Cryptocurrency articles at the moment, I don't see any reliable sources supporting that, so it seems to be fair game to be challenged or removed. Ripple seems like a cryptocurrency to me, but I'm unable to find much RS support for that. I found no academic journals, and only one academic book that uses three terms ripple, xrp and cyptocurrency (unfortunately of unknown context), which is not unexpected given how recently the topic has arisen. Two NY Times articles, this and this, mention cryptocurrencies and mention Ripple, but discuss other currencies as well, and don't make an explicit connection. An article on seattlepi.com does say it's a cryptocurrency, and that seems like at least a medium-quality source, in the absence of other sources to the contrary. Can you cite any other reliable sources?

• Vega, Danny (4 December 2013). "Ripple's Big Move: Mining Cryptocurrency with a Purpose". Seattlepi.com. Hearst Seattle Media, LLC, a division of The Hearst Corporation.

–Agyle (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few:

• http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/what-comes-after-bitcoin-future-of-cryptocurrency-61660/
• http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513606/big-name-investors-back-effort-to-build-a-better-bitcoin/ (just a content tag, but still)

Additionally googling "ripple cryptocurrency" yields loads of borderline sources like tech blogs and opinion pieces like the seattlepi.com one you linked, originally from here I think. Since we are not trying to establish notability here, just solve a nomenclature issue, one reliable source ought to cut it. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Though note that the technologyreview.com article does't use the word “cryptocurrency”; it's only used as a "tag" for search purposes. The psmag.com cite doesn't make the link in a concise way, but it does talk about XRT and other currencies over several paragraphs, then refer to them as cryptocurrencies. It also makes the point (as do other sources) that the term "Ripple" refers both to a system used to trade different currencies (sometimes referred to as the Ripple network or "ecosystem"), and to a currency itself (also called XRT); that could be why someone challenged its inclusion in the article in the first place. Given that the term itself is ambiguous, the ambiguity and intended meaning should be covered in the article. A couple other notes on covering Ripple, especially if the coverage is going to be in that table: the founder was previously listed as Ripple Labs; there are three individuals generally credited as founders, Larsen, McCaleb, and I don't know the third...and there's also the founder of its much earlier precursor, RipplePay, who has also been referred to as Ripple's founder. The Ripple/XRT currency is from the more recent incarnation of Ripple, so RipplePay can be pretty well ignored, but it should at least be clarified, since different reliable sources refer to different individuals as founders of Ripple. DogeCoin, for all its absurdity, is a much simpler currency to cover encyclopedically...4 days from inception to release. :-) ––Agyle (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple has radically changed their protocol between versions. Version 0.1 was very far away from being a cryptocurrency. There was nothing resembling a distributed blockchain for starters. But version 0.6 seems to have all the essential features found in other cryptocurrencies, especially a distributed blockchain and distributed consensus versus double-spending. So the question to be answered from reliable sources isn't whether Ripple is a cryptocurrency, but in what ways is it one and when did it become one. Mercury's Stepson (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If decentralization is a criteria for being a cryptocurrency, Ripple definitely does not meet it. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - Getting Rid of the Chart.

Hey folks. I think the chart needs to go, or at least be split into a semi-protected list with only the most recognizable coins (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc) being shown here. It seems that everybody is recently been trying to put his/her own altcoin on the chart as a means of obscure promotion (some of these coins' notability are being put into question this very second as I write this.)

What does everyone think? Citation Needed | Talk 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose. It might happen once every couple weeks, and it's easy enough to revert an edit, explain why, and direct to Talk. Compared to truly controversial topics, this is negligible. ;-) Even if it were a daily occurrence, it shouldn't be removed simply because it requires added edit scrutiny, though in that case edit protection might be warranted. Agyle (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• B Comment - The list is useful, so shouldn't be removed altogether. Maybe it could go on a separate page. Overall I think a consistent notability standard needs to be written specifically for cryptocurrencies. That will make it much quicker to judge new entries both to the list on for articles. It would also give editors adding these something to work to. The standard notability guidelines aren't a good match, there could be millions of dollars of a currency in existence but no mention in mainstream media and little background info. A standard could be the currency achieving a certain market cap over a number of months. To that end these sites could be useful: https://coinmarketcap.com/ http://cryptmarketcap.com/ Jonpatterns (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Marketcap was proposed in an earlier discussion. Personally I'm against it. It's too easy to manipulate the market cap and trading volumes in an unregulated, non-transparent environment. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• B Comment - An unregistered editor is trying to add Virtual Coin. It could be useful to put a banner above the table - stating coin must be notable with a link to an agreed standard for Cryptocurrency notatability.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just added a note in comments above the table, visible only to editors, which may reduce the addition of cryptocurrencies without Wikipedia articles. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The chart is a poor representation of cryptocurrency in Wiki standard. except Bitcoin and maybe Litecoin, the rest shouldn't have a page. at all. Want to know how to judge? Go ask a 100 person on the street, if 1 knows about that coin, let it stay. I will wager none by bitcoin will stay. WinterstormRage (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia judged notability by asking 100 people on the street what they've heard of, there wouldn't be very many articles... Greenman (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

that was an example not to be taken literally. If you wish to force your opinion in, please do so with facts. For now I assume your WP:AGF, though you appears to need to be updated a little bit more. Please take no offense, I am just trying to say it as it is. You force added back example 'Mazacoin', can you 'please' go and see if exchanges even consider it a currency? that currency has no hashrate, no volume, no edits, it is good as 'dead'. Same with your other undo. I appreciate you 'suspecting I am a newbie', though it really looks like you are the one that needs to read up? I will like to talk more if you wish. Please refrain in changing my edits until you get your facts right please, you are doing wikipedia a disfavor. If you really want to undo my change, go right ahead, just saying then the article is then Wrong and misleading, cause of your 'experienced editting'. I will love to discuss your points if you have any though, I don't run around calling people 'new', I discuss, come to a conclusion and fix, something I 'thought' wikipedia is about. WinterstormRage (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Addition of BlackCoin

I suggest adding BlackCoin to the list here. It's had its own article since July, and was the first purely POS coin, which I think alone makes it sufficiently notable. It's currently 15th in the list according to market cap (about $2.2 million) and is accepted on 15 exchanges (Aurocoin, listed here, is accepted on 7). Are there any objections? Greenman (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to wait, there is a problem with notability as an inspection of the article reveals. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No notability concerns listed on the article or here, so will go ahead and add BlackCoin. Greenman (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I read and removed it. Totally not notable. Was clearly marketing heist to add it here. WinterstormRage (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

As an editor with a grand total of 13 edits, all related to cryptocurrency (I've been editing for almost as many years and have made more edits today alone), please read WP:AGF before accusing me or other editors of a 'marketing heist' :).Greenman (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I will assume your WP:AGF though your years of experience seems to do nothing for wiki. For example, vertcoin is not even scrypt-based and you added back in. Ie, your editting has made the article 'incorrect'. another example, Auroracoin is 'trival and a well known marketing heist', if your years of editting will mean that you do some fact checks, that be great. I will gladly love to be proven wrong should you given valid checks, please note the crypto world is constantly changing, what 'appears' right like auroracoin is now proven trival, maybe you shouldn't edit crypto related material if you refuse to be updated? Or Let another senior editor be a judge? thanks. If a few of the senior editors all want to run Wikipedia as a misleading article, then I will respect that call. As unfortunate as it may be. As for your Blackcoin 'first purely POS coin', well, you are incorrect. NXT is the first POS only coin. Blackcoin is POW swap-POS, I am well aware of the launch and mining process, are you? they launched with POW and people were mining it crazy, (some pre-mined), then after a period they turned to POS (whitecoin did the same.) Further, there are many exchanges in the market run by '1 person', like ccex.io, or the now proven 'run by a crook' moolah. So your point about 'counting exchanges'... maybe you should start with seeing if the exchange is 'legit', cause that's like counting blogs as news if you dont. You are free to disagree, but I believe my points are very strong and valid. I apologize if you think I meant by 'you putting here as a marketing heist', what I mean was 'many of the info was marketting heist, and it appears to have caught some people believing misleading info, including you', as even you thought Blackcoin is the first Pure POS coin, when it totally isn't. hopefully that makes our relation better.WinterstormRage (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide [[reliable sources for your statements rather than helpful opinions on what I should or shouldn't know. I'm not sure that saying I "refuse to be updated", or claiming on other pages that I want to "sabotage wiki rules" is WP:AGF, but thanks anyway :) Greenman (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually think you just violated 3RR. I will give you a warning before reporting. You are now adding coins like 'titcoin' to the cryptotemplate, I have no idea what you are trying to do, but please stop and help keep wikipedia a place with correct info. WinterstormRage (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

List of cryptocurrencies proposal

Actually, two proposals. First, that all cryptocurrencies with articles be included in the list. Lists are essentially navigation features, and most lists of this nature across Wikipedia include all entries that have an article. There would then be no need to debate notability in multiple locations (template, here and on the actual article). It also makes spotting non-notable articles easier, and as soon as any articles are chanllenged and deleted, the redlinks can be removed. The second proposal is that the list be moved into a separate article, such as happens elsewhere, for example with Content management system and List of content management systems. Greenman (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Agreed on both. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Disagreed. for example, I see in the page ot BlackCoin all the references are non-notable and blogs, (press releases disguises) as I have already listed out on the page. Though it seems wiki-rules doesn't really care about accuracy of references. Then Coins like 'titcoin' has a page, that's joke, coins like coinye has forked and disfunct, having all these in cryptocurrency page is as bad as making this page completely worthless. There needs to be a better way to sort out what's 'notable' vs what's 'marginally criminal get rich fast scheme coins'. WinterstormRage (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Agreeing again with User Greenman who has removed the deletion banner on BlackCoin. It's true most of those altcoins will be outdated at the end of the year. But they must imho stay for historical purposes. Wikipedia is the right place to keep those joke-coins. It could be sabotaging too if one delete Tulipomania. ONaNcle (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will go ahead and implement this. Greenman (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "altcoin"

Suggestion from someone with less knowledge on cryptocurrencies: given that "altcoin" redirects to this page, perhaps there should be a definition here? Samirluther (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jonpatterns (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

publicity section

I copy edited teh section in December and an IP address first time contributing to this page reverted it today stating I added grammatical errors and the rearrangement of sentences was unnecessary, i.e. did not improve readability). I t is correct that I did forget to insert an 'and' where there is a period.

as it stands now though, it's unencyclopedic language with its own errors. the link is dead and I am not sure that the 2 separate sentences are correct.I wont revert/editwar. someone else please heck on this.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Cryptocurrency Tumbler

Not notable by itself. A method of cryptocurrency technics Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Still working on it, hope to talk about Dark wallet's native implementation compare / contrast in there Deku-shrub (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

suspended support - in its current form I would support merge. However, I'm happy to let Deku-shrub work a bit longer on the article. Adding references to Cryptocurrency Tumbler in reliable sources WP:RS would help support separate article. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

disagree - I'm done for now, I think it warrant's its own article Deku-shrub (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Being bold and closing this. Removed the merge discussion tag from article and added Cryptocurrency tumbler to the See also list. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 10:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency task force Invitation to all

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

DogeVault compromise?

I see Gravatar mentioning DogeVault at http://en.gravatar.com/support/profile-crypto-currency/ but going to https://www.dogevault.com/ I read:

DogeVault.com

Announcement

We regret to announce that on the 11th of May, attackers compromised the Doge Vault online wallet service resulting in wallet funds being stolen.

After salvaging our wallet we have ascertained that around 280 million Dogecoins were taken in the attack, out of a total balance of 400 million kept in our hot wallet. 120 million Dogecoins have been since recovered and transferred to an address under our control.

It is believed the attacker gained access to the node on which Doge Vault’s virtual machines were stored, providing them with full access to our systems. It is likely our database was also exposed containing user account information; passwords were stored using a strong one-way hashing algorithm.

All private keys for addresses are presumed compromised, please do not transfer any funds to Doge Vault addresses.

Doge Vault. Posted 15/05/2014

Isn't this incident worth mentioning? Searching for DogeVault in this article I find nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.47.76 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Rainbow Table/Security Concerns

Is it just me or are we now paying someone for the privilege of building them their very own rainbow table? xerxesbeat (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Crypto asset

Crypto asset is an ill-referenced article that appears to be speculative original research. It's been tagged for multiple problems for about a year now and isn't getting any better. In usage that I can find, the term "crypto asset" describes cryptocurrencies. I can see a hypothetical use for a separate term (things that aren't currencies per se but are on a blockchain as a unique object), but (1) the real-world usage doesn't seem to match that (2) the current article certainly doesn't substantiate that. So I suggest that article's properly-cited content be merged into this one and crypto asset redirected to cryptocurrency. Any objections? - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues with this proposal:

• We need neither speculations nor WP:original research in this article.
• 'In usage that I can find, the term "crypto asset" describes cryptocurrencies.' - did you find any reliable source stating that? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I can find nothing stating it's anything else. It's barely an RS-used term; the uses mentioned on the obvious search are mostly cryptocurrencies, with non-currency uses being hypothetical - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Merged. There was literally one reference using the term "crypto asset" (and that was actually talking about cryptocurrency), so I've noted that here. We can split the article out again if third-party RSes show up - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only source you cite in your edit does not claim that "crypto-assets" are cryptocurrencies. It claims that crypto-assets are unique campaign tokens created in systems like Nxt. Since this is the only source you found, the term does not look notable enough to be included. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. I suggest keeping the redirect here though - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

SEC accusations and WP:BLPCRIME

There have been a few reversions in the article regarding some SEC accusations against an individual. Since the individual appears to be low-profile and no conviction is mentioned, WP:BLPCRIME applies. I'll attempt a BLP-compliant edit that keeps most of the content without naming the individual. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of online articles on this person including the Wall Street Journal spanning over a 2 year period. He was a public figure and the CEO of a $20 million cryptocurrency company. His name should be shown. Cryptofanz (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Being a CEO of a (tiny) company and being mentioned in articles doesn't make someone a public figure. Have you read through WP:BLP? If so, can you explain (in the context of our requirement to edit information about living people conservatively and with greatest care) why it is necessary to mention this person, by name, in our article about cryptocurrency in general? VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cryptocurrency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PjkkIDkx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.cryptographyengineering.com%2F2013%2F04%2Fzerocoin-making-bitcoin-anonymous.html to http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/04/zerocoin-making-bitcoin-anonymous.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)