Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Notability of Cryptocurrencies: Informal RFC

I have seen and participated in many AFDs recently about cryptocurrencies (CC), most of which are non-notable by way of failing the GNG. I don't think CC need to have their own notablity guidelines, as we have the GNG (all hail) and TOOSOON, which allows to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC. Should there be a mass purging of the less notable currencies and they instead be listed on List of Cryptocurrencies in a separate section for TOOSOONs which pass WP:V? Pinging editors who have worked in this area: @Prince of Thieves, DGG, Mark the train, Retimuko, Greenman, Widefox, Hrodvarssen, Jytdog, Winged Blades of Godric, Power~enwiki, Deathlibrarian, K.e.coffman, Vermont, Velella, Alfie, Sphilbrick, and John M Baker: I will also leave notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force and WP:FINANCE. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Ps. if anyone considers the editor selection too narrow, canvassing, or otherwise improper, feel free to convert to an actual RfC, I don't mind.

re-ping: Hrodvarsson L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @L3X1: Mind reader! Check out what I was working on earlier, with a similar idea... User:Prince of Thieves/sandbox/Bitcoins. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note, in my view WP:CORP, (in particular the new version that will soon be introduced) is a more relevant specific guideline for these than the WP:GNG, in almost all cases these are commercial or commercially backed, marketed as a product or otherwise compatible with WP:CORP. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading through CORP, and wasn't sure if it was the most useful policy because these currencies kind of blur the line between thing and company. It will help authors looking to create articles on cryptocurrencies by allowing them to make sure the sourcing is proper. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel as a general rule any CC that has had an "initial coin offering" is definitely commercial, and since no-one is likely to argue the notably of Bitcoin or Ether (Ethereum?), that's most of them. Also as I understand it the new guidelines (which are based on current consensus) make less distinction between commercial organisations and commercial "things". Prince of Thieves (talk)

• There is almost always nothing to say about them except directory information: their size and who runs them. The sources are almost always promotional, not independent, or indiscriminate from publication whose purpose is to list them all. Dealing with the qualifications for sources for notability required by the GNG is in any borderline case to some extent subjective, and can be argued in either direction. But for those who like the GNG, it haas a provision that where there's nothing much to say, articles can be merged even if they are technically notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, with ICO being the new IPO, my opinion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qtum, in agreement with Prince of Thieves. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest setting the bar at fulfilling not one, but several of the N standards - say all of:

1. WP:CORP (WP:CORPDEPTH)
2. WP:NPRODUCT
3. N for technology (so depth of coverage of the tech)

With over a thousand coins already, it may be helpful to additionally deal with this specific case of systemic bias WP:RECENTISM by tackling the incentive head-on - something like requiring:

4. WP:SPINOUT from parent articles e.g. List of cryptocurrencies via AfC.

This weeks announcement of a ban on ICO, exchange, cryptocurrency adverts on Google, FB etc indicates a broad promotionalism problem that we may need to specifically address ourselves before investing wasting more volunteer time in the vain of WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would support deleting most of them but not sure a mass purge is the way to go about it. The normal AfD process for each seems fine, with the possibility of SALTing those which are very likely P&D scams. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since there is no deadline, I am perfectly happy to do my list over time individually. But prompt attention to new articles is important, and Bankex was a good example of how companies closely related to this industry are as common and promotional as the crypto-currencies themselves, even if they never released a "coin". Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I view them all as promotional and non-notable. And ICOs are likely criminal, as IPOs that are just declaring themselves exempt from regulation with no legally coherent reason. This should become clear within the next month. With Facebook and now Google refusing to accept cryptocurrency and ICO adverts, some real regulation coming (as stated by the SEC, CFTC and European regulators), and more and more experts saying "this is just a bubble" the cryptocurrencies are all likely to crash, and we are doing our readers a great diservice but suggesting that there may be something real about them. Get rid of them all asap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Smallbones, agreed on the ICO are unregulated and dangerously useless. The problem is that "digital coins" don't really have a jurisdiction. In case of getting funded, a Corporation in the United States for example, can sell stock without having to do an IPO only to accredited investors, certain conditions being met, one of which is having make no public announcements of the stock offering, among others only selling stocks to people who can afford to gamble with large sums of money - the State having jurisdiction and the Corporations Code to enforce, this is a completely legitimate way to find financing. "Digital coins" are not financial assets that can't be made compliant to anything since there is no jurisdiction, nor is there a code that governs issuance of such “coins.” I am not an expert on regulations, but certainly "digital coins" are not being sold as securities, otherwise this would be clearly illegal, at least in the United States. ICO's resemble MMM Ponzi scheme taking place in 1994, with promised returns of up to 3,000%. Back then the Mavrodi brothers called it "voucher investments." I think ICO's are still notable, specifically, due to an enormous amounts of cash being funneled into them, same as MMM is notable for causing million people to lose their savings back in the 90’s. Its caveat emptor at this point, but that doesn't by itself, warrant a non-notable status of information, this content just doesn't belong in this particular Article. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Actually ICOs are regulated in the US if they are being sold to US investors and they are selling securities. The head of the SEC has something akin to "Every ICO I've seen is a security offering" Should I dig up the quote? It's pretty obvious that they are securities if they are being sold or exchanged for bitcoin, etc. and promise something in return. I think the smoke and mirrors campaign says that ICOs specifically say that the tokens aren't worth anything. But if they are selling something that is worthless - you've got plain old garden variety fraud. Wanna buy a bridge? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Smallbones, recently the CFTC had argued to treat Bitcoin as a commodity, placing it into category of an economic good; a very bad joke on their end to place Bitcoin and precious metals into the same category. You most likely are referencing this link (https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11) that basically states that for ICO's "the answers will differ depending on many factors." The fact is neither "coins" nor ICO's have ever been registered with the SEC in the United States, I am guessing the same goes for other jurisdictions with whatever agency controls securities in other countries. "Coins" do not have a clearly defined ledger among other requirements for an asset, unlike stocks and bonds, essentially, a back-door into issuing unregulated securities to gambling masses. As much as the regulators trying to fix it, it is incredibly late in the game, most of the money from ICO's and Bitcoin is unlikely to be recovered on an aggregate scale. This fact alone doesn't stop ICO's from being notable, having to be notable doesn't require to produce a public benefit. Instead of a bridge, maybe CFTC will reclassify steel from an Eiffel tower as a commodity, it seems all we need to do is to start offering it as some "coin" somewhere. Cheers! --Litesand (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Presumed non-notable -- barring meeting WP:NCORP, I don't see these articles as viable. WP:NOTSPAM also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Most of them are anyways non-notable, and I see loads of them are being nominated at AfD. Henceforth, a criteria satisfying not one but several factors for notability as said by Widefox would be helpful. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would advise against making a special criterion. There will always be arguments at AfD that the general criterion over-rides it. The way we have Special notability guidelines is confusing, because some are limits on what is otherwise acceptable, and some are extensions, and people can try to use them in both ways. It will probably be better simply to apply the substantial & independent qualifications of the GNG in a strict manner, and making use of our current definition of interviews with the founder as primary sources for the purposes of notability.

But in any case, they ned to be nominated separately. Some are going to be more notable than others, and multiple nominations with dozens of articles are sometimes closed as relist independently if even one of them seems to be better sourced. (At any rate, that's what I personally usually argue for) I have a further recommendation, based on years of refining my strategy: go slowly, perhaps 2 a day, and start with the weakest. Anything more gets the attention of extreme inclusionists. As for timing, the way to go is to start right now. The current mood at AfD will support deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG, the existing guidelines are sufficient to deal with these articles. I also agree that doing them all individually is sensible. I am doing a few each day from my list. I don't think anything will be assisted my dumping a hundred articles onto AfD all at once. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• This article is focused on the general cryptocurrency concept, legal factors, financial implications and technical issues. The discussion shouldn't have "to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC," but instead, to focus on the concept itself. There is already a list of "notable" cryptocurrencies, exchanges etc. listed elsewhere on wiki, whoever moderates that, let them discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litesand (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. In fact, at the AfDs being more strict about primary sources and independence goes a long way. Widefox; talk 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also, if anyoen is interested in following crypto-related AFD, watchlisting the Finance Delsort list will help. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

149.152.191.2 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Causing a rise in GPU prices ===

The sudden increase in cryptocurrency mining increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 2002. Popular favorites of cryptocurrency miners such as Nvidia’s GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 graphics cards, as well as AMD’s RX 570 and RX 580 GPUs, doubled if not tripled in price – or were out of stock completely. A GTX 1070 Ti which was released at a price of $450 sold for as much as $1100. Another popular card GTX 1060's 6 GB model was released at an MSRP of $250, sold for almost $500. RX 570 and RX 580 cards from AMD were out of stock for almost a year. Miners regularly buy up the entire stock of new GPU's as soon as they are available, further driving prices up. This has caused, in general, a disliking towards cryptocurrency miners by PC gamers and tech enthusiasts.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You only reposted existing text from the article with no additions or deletions. Based on the material you have given me, I cannot ascertain what edits you wish to have made. Altamel (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Volatility

There are numerous cryptocurrencies currently the most important in circulation are for Litecoin at 5.5 billion dollars, Ripple at 9.7 billon dollars, Ethereum at 44.3 billion dollars, and the most significant Bitcoins at 185.5 billion. Overall these represent the majority of cryptocurrency market which signify 73% of the total cryptocurrency market value.The intrinsic volatility of cryptocurrency has have tremendous swings in value which change yearly, monthly, and even daily. The main drivers of volatility specifically include a sudden increase in the “buzz” surrounding a cryptocurrency could be understood as a signal of increasing volatility . The high volatility most frequently coincides with high volume and price drops. If market participants are risk-averse, given the same expected mean returns, they would be less willing to hold the cryptocurrency if future volatility increases, which would drive prices down and affect returns negatively . This effect would become evident shortly after the surge in “buzz.” or popularity. Gibro2118 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

section 8.1 : Causing a rise in GPU prices It mentionne increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 1992. the reference [96] it dated january 2018 and make no mention of 1992.

One could argue modern gpu did not exist in 1992. 160.109.104.44 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Found that Reference Number 110 is not opening up, showing up 404 error, I had similar content to my blog, maybe this can help it to complete the need in that space & users can get the all the reference from Wikipedia site.

https://www.brokefuturist.com/blogs/news/4-trend-bitcoin-ethereum-mass-market/ 122.163.29.244 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: You are corrrect in that the source for that information failed WP:V and has apparently been removed from Inc.'s website. No captures appear available in archive sites. We generally do not accept blogs as reliable sources so I have removed the assertion completely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversial

Note that this section was never a Request for Comment, and it has not been closed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It has not been closed by an admin and it would be better for people to see the discussion at WP:AN than to deny the obvious - that cryptocurrencies are controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have noted this content is back in the article. I will delete it. I think if you wish to dispute the RfC there must be some sort of venue for that. I will assume the RfC is valid. Feel free to file at AN if you think this is wrong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One editor does not think that cryptocurrency is controversial and has removed the word and supporting text twice. I'd responded to his templating me on my talk page with the following.

controversial

adjective /ˌkɑn·trəˈvɜr·ʃəl, -ˈvɜr·si·əl/

causing or likely to cause disagreement

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/controversial

If you don't think cryptocurrencies are controversial, you haven't been following the many disagreements that they are causing. see e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree
  • The dictionary definition of controversial does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The Facebook is not an independent reliable source and does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The Fortune article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The NY Times article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The CNBC article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The American Banker article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also note that per WP:LEAD 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' That is why I disagree with your edit adding

  On January 30, 2018 Facebook banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies as well as for initial coin offering and binary options.

  to the lead section. It is not a summary, nor it introduces cryptocurrency as the subject of the article. That is why it does not belong to the lead section, which should be reverted to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Let us not try to pick this apart with Wikilawyering. Cryptocurrencies are obviously controversial in that they are causing many controversies. Facebook was not cited as as a source, but obviously they know what they are writing about when they explain their own policies. Roughly, that policy is that ads for cryptocurrencies, ICOs and binary options won't be accepted because many of these advertisers are not acting in good faith. The cited sources are the Financial Times and Bloomberg - you can't get better sources than that in business and financial areas. They were asked to do this by the FBI and Canadian regulators and I can source that as well.

Somehow, I think you are asking for a direct quote from such a source saying "cryptocurrencies are controversial". Quotes like that are *not* required by our policies, only that the the sources support the wording. Nobody reading the sources I provided can come away thinking that cryptocurrencies they are anything other than controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency itself cannot be described as controversial. This is like saying automobiles are controversial because they facilitate armed robberies. I suggest removing this word and elaborating elsewhere in the article. Fanta206 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, please read the definition above. What you are saying is that the Chevrolet Corvair (Unsafe at Any Speed) or the exploding Ford Pinto cannot be described as "controversial cars" because of some grammatical rule that you just invented from whole cloth. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are describing Cryptocurrency as controversial which as you quite rightly point out is defined as "causing or likely to cause disagreement". Yet, I can only assume you're alluding to either the Bitcoin protocol scaling debate, or the legislation debate. In any case, this is merely two areas of the whole ecosystem. You cannot describe it as controversial as a result of the scaling debate as it applies only to Bitcoin, not cryptocurrency as a whole, and you cannot describe it as controversial as a result of legislators concerns, as there is not widespread debate surrounding this yet; most of the citations I can find seem to in fact suggest widespread acceptance of legislation. If you are alluding to something else, please cite it. Fanta206 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See the 25 or so references in our article Cryptocurrency bubble and the 700,000 pages given in a Google search of "Cryptocurrency bubble". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

* Google search results are not useful as an encyclopedic argument, sorry.

* Articles claiming that there is a cryptocurrency bubble do not make cryptocurrency a "controversial asset", similarly as articles claiming that there is a real estate bubble do not make real estate a "controversial asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How about the reference you just added? See

• Rushe, Dominic (25 March 2014). "Bitcoin to be treated as property instead of currency by IRS". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 February 2018. in the lede.

I do think you are tending toward a violation of WP:OWN on this article. What kind of references are needed to include the fact that Facebook has banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies? Why aren't the Financial Times and Bloomberg L.P. good enough? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of assuming bad faith, you should consider inserting the information into the article body. This particular news may have some place there, but surely not in the lead section as explained in WP:LEAD. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, with an adjustment
  • Smallbones, thank you for proposing to edit claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset." It is obviously has the correct spirit, but please allow me to explain the reason for resistance from other users on this issue. Your focus with this change is on the word "controversial." You will have a very hard time finding legitimate sources and publications that can argue for cryptocurrency being "controversial" because concept of "controversial" is subjective, it is, in fact, an opinion. What is not an opinion, and is a fact, is that cryptocurrency is not digital asset at all. An example of a digital asset is a Pixar Studios movie "Finding Nemo" - it has an inherit value associated with work, jurisdiction that defends its value and a license holder that owns right to it. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is an equivalent of property, a DVD copy of that movie on your shelf at best. What you are focusing on is that that it is inappropriate to call that DVD copy of "Finding Nemo" an asset and it should be referred to as a "controversial digital asset." I submit to for your consideration that it was never an asset in the first place, moreover, it will never become an asset since no jurisdiction is able to defend it beyond its status for property. The suggestion I can make for you is to revise your change to "cryptocurrency is a digital property" and support that statement with any number of legitimate sources, US-IRS being major. Thanks, and please keep me posted!--Litesand (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree re: WP:WEIGHT. I suppose they are controversial, at least there is a lot of edits. However, I believe that the controversial text in the lede is a WP:WEIGHT issue and should probably instead be explored in a dedicated section instead. It would be like saying "Donald Trump is a controversial president" in the lede. The statement certainly would be true, but I dont think it would belong in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree for reasons pointed out by Jtbob. The first sentence of any article needs to be a crisp, concise definition. It's not the place for commentary. The controversy should be in a dedicated section and maybe at the end of the lede ("Crytocurrency has been critized...") but not right at the start. Look at our articles on fiat money, demurrage, the Austrian School, the Tobin tax, the gold standard, planned economy, capitalism, quantitative easing, or technical analysis: not one of them has a lede that denounces the subject as controversial even though all of them undeniably are. I share Smallbones' unhappiness about the fanboy nature of most of our cryptocurrency articles and I'd be very happy to help fix the problem, but passive-aggressive jabs in intro sentences are not how you go about that. How about we get together and write a useful, informative Criticism section instead? Kramler (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  I agree Kramler. Earlier there was interest by some editors to input a lot of content on the Bitcoin article and we created a couple of sub-articles to try to be a home for it, as bitcoin apparently suffers from WP:TOOBIG. The articles we created one survived (Cryptocurrency bubble, originally called Bitcoin bubble if I recall) and the other on Ponzi didn't pass AfD. The ponzi one that didn't pass AfD mabye the content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article. Thought this might be useful as maybe it could instead offer some Cryptocurrency ponzi content, rather than just Bitcoin ponzi content. Thought this might be useful here in creating an overall criticisms of cryptocurrency section, or even article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the links; I will look at them in a bit. I have a few bookmarks to articles that could maybe serve as a starting point for broader criticism. Bubbles and scams are not the only reason people mistrust cryptocoins after all. Some points that have been made, off the top of my head: the inherently deflationary nature; the fact that proof of work is really just proof of spending power; the way popular coins all seem to fall victim to mining cartels sooner or later; the quantum computing canary thing; the built-in tendency towards crippling transaction costs; the strong historical and philosophical link to certain ideologies that many people find very unpleasant. Right now this article addresses none of these issues. I'll rifle through my bookmarks and I'll post some URLs here in the morning and then everybody can add/comment/draft/dismiss at their convenience. Kramler (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  One more thing, I'd like to politely suggest a two-step process. Let's talk about the issues as such in round 1 and then worry about what particular sources to cite for each point we want to put in the article in round 2. Any serious discussion will inevitably involve a few tabloid articles, political manifestos, personal opinion pieces, and other things that are not exactly WP:RS and if we start with the rules lawyering too early we're never going to get anywhere. Every point and counterpoint should be evaluated on its merits and not on how vulnerable its physical location on the Internet is to the various and sundry verbal cudgels in the WP:FUCKYOU namespace. Kramler (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Another popular Bitcoin criticsm I see on wikipedia is also electrical usage (energy consumption). I'll ping Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) he might have some input on this as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Good thinking! I'll create a new section because this one is already getting unwieldy. Kramler (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some things that a "Controversy" section might want to discuss

Idea: I'm splitting this into by-topic subsections. Let's discuss each of the controversies that the article could be talking about separately. Things should be more readable that way. Feel free to add additional subsections if you come up with additional topics. Kramler (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Purpose

Crypto doesn't really seem to solve anything that needs solving. Some detractors say that it fundamentally can't; they basically assert crypto combines the disadvantages of government-issued fiat with the disadvantages of commodity money like gold, without having any of the benefits of either. Examples:

• Kai Stinchcombe, 2017: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
• Inside Story, 2017: Bitcoin's Zero-Sum Game
• Technology Review, 2018: Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy
• Vox, 2018: Why Bitcoin is bullshit, explained by an expert

Ideology

"Like all currency systems, Bitcoin comes with an implicit political agenda attached."[6]

Satoshi had an explicit Libertarian agenda. Many notable crypto advocates are techno-Libertarians. Many say they believe in the Austrian School and like bitcoin because they want to remove the banker's ability to manipulate the money supply. The crypto movement also has close ties to the neoreactionary movement and the alt-right in general and has been attacked on these grounds in the past. Notable actors in the Silicon Valley venture capital scene have espoused philosophies that mash crypto together with seasteading, the redpill movement, HBD, transhumanism, Moldbug's Dark Englightenment, the works. No matter which side you are on in these debates, the article is deficient if it simply does not mention them. Some examples:

• Paul Krugman in the NY Times, 2013: Bitcoin is evil
• The Baffler, 2014: Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich
• Mother Jones, 2015: Bitcoin's Problem with Women
• Shuja Haider in Viewpoint Magazine, 2017: The Darkness at the End of the Tunnel: Artificial Intelligence and Neoreaction

---

• Jacobin, 2018: The Dumb Money Mentions the techno-libertarians, the fractional reserve banking thing, "old tropes of right-wing money crankery" TOWT7
• Jacobin, 2017: What's behind Bitcoin mania? Also mentions the political baggage TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Dark markets

Related to the above, the only groups and causes that routinely use crypto coins as an actual medium of exchange are unpopular with most people: darknet markets for drugs and assassinations, Neonazi groups cut off by Paypal and the banks, money launderers, ransomware operators. This too has prompted attacks, not just on the individuals in question but also on crypto as such. Examples:

• Forbes, 2013: Meet The 'Assassination Market' Creator Who's Crowdfunding Murder With Bitcoins
• Salon, 2014: Game over: How libertarians lost the battle for Bitcoin’s soul
• The Root, 2017: Bitcoin and Why White Supremacists Love It, Explained
• The Hill, 2017: Alt-right utilizes bitcoin after crackdown on hate speech
• Great Wall of Numbers, 2017: Eight Things Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts Probably Won’t Tell You]
• Washington Post, 2017: Bitcoin’s boom is a boon for extremist groups
• Business Insider, 2018: How neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists profit from bitcoin
• The Independent, 2018: Bitcoin has gifted huge windfalls to the alt-right, proving the benefits of cryptocurrencies are often dangers too
• The Gerard book
• NY Post, 2018: Feds eye major regulations on cryptocurrency

Macroeconomic impact

Since there is a definitive fixed maximum number of bitcoins that can exist, bitcoin is intrinsically deflationary, according to mainstream economic theory. Adoption of bitcoin as the primary currency in some market would (definitely) cause a deflationary spiral in the short run and (probably) monetary balkanization in the long run. Examples:

• Charles Stross, 2013: Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire
• Technology Review, 2018: Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy

Sociological aspects and impact on specific groups

Crypto advocates seem to believe that crypto is the cure for all manner of social ills, but for the time bing, bitcoin has had exactly zero effect on either inequality or the ability of certain social group to extract rents from others. Proof of work is essentially just proof of spending power. The people who can mine lots of coins are the people who have lots of money. Any crypto coin is also inherently similar to a Ponzi scheme in that early adopters win disproportionate rewards and the late adopters are always taken advantage of to some degree. More generally, with no regulation and no other mechanisms to protect the unsophisticated and the gullible, crypto is practically guaranteed to move wealth from less privileged people to more privileged ones. We may already be seeing signs of this. Naive crypto investors are getting into trouble due to surprise tax bills or due to the beginning crackdown on market manipulation. The actual criminals will have taken appropriate precautionary measures; the honest joes are getting fucked. Examples:

• Güring and Grigg, 2011: Bitcoin & Gresham's Law - the economic inevitability of Collapse
• Phil Greenspun, 2017: Bitcoin as Ponzi scheme
• David Gerard, 2017: Why you can’t cash out
• Bloomberg, 2018: The Crypto Hedge-Fund Bubble Is Starting to Deflate
• Quartz, 2018: Crypto traders may not care about market manipulation, but governments do
• The Guardian, 2018: Investors in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies face hefty tax bills
• Recode, 2018: Bitcoin is the greatest scam in history

---

• What's behind Bitcoin mania? Talks about the "thefts, frauds and hackings" and compares the mania to the Dutch tulip frenzy and the South Sea bubble TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• CNBC, 2018: Those Lambos parked at the bitcoin conference are just a promotion − scam scam scam
• Bloomberg, 2018: At NYC’s Big Crypto Conference, the Lamborghinis Are Rented and Protests Are Staged − fake fake fake scam scam scam scam
• BBC, 2017: Magical Money - the ICO crypto-currency boom − "trouble is there is both a startling level of fraud and a high failure rate"

Gender

One particularly interesting aspect of how crypto redistributes from the havenots to the haves is the gender imbalance in crypto. So far, the early adopters reaping the huge payouts have invariably been dudes. Even today, the crypto world is dominated by techbros and quite a few of them seem to be flamboyant douchebags openly hostile to female participation. It appears possible that widespread crypto adoption would set back gender equality by quite a few years. On the other hand, some detractors say that the gender imbalance simply means that crypto ultimately cannot succeed. You can't win as a currency if you don't attract the people who buy most of the groceries, most of the clothes, most of the overpriced lifestyle coffee, three out of four books, and all the Hulu subscriptions. Examples:

• Motherboard, 2013: Bitcoin Needs Women
• Arianna Simpson, 2014: This is What it’s Like to Be a Woman at a Bitcoin Meetup
• Mother Jones, 2015: Bitcoin's Problem with Women

Nobody has ever stopped women from entering the crypto space and there is literally zero hostility towards women in this space. If you're upset that women choose not to get involved, then take that up with women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.221.50 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Environmental impact

As another consequence of the whole proof-of-work thing, bitcoin is a grotesquely inefficient way to convert one type of purely abstract capital (fiat money) into another form of purely abstract capital (crypto money). You have to spend enormous amounts of electricity on the currency conversion. The ecological impact could be noticeable. Ecological impact aside, note that we gave up the gold standard in part because it is stupid and inefficient to dig gold out of holes in the ground (mines) only in order to put them into other holes in the ground (vaults). When it comes to currencies and what backs them, energy expenditure matters. Examples:

• Pando, 2013: Bitcoin has a dark side: its carbon footprint
• Guardian, 2017: Bitcoin’s energy usage is huge – we can't afford to ignore it
• Ars Technica, 2017: Bitcoin’s insane energy consumption, explained
• BBC, 2017: Bitcoin: Does it really use more electricity than Ireland?
• Wired, 2017: How much energy does bitcoin mining really use? It's complicated
• Power Compare, 2017: Bitcoin Mining Now Consuming More Electricity Than 159 Countries Including Ireland & Most Countries In Africa
• The Balance, 2018: How Much Power It Takes to Create a Bitcoin
• Vox, 2018: Why Bitcoin is bullshit, explained by an expert

---

• Jacobin, 2018: What's behind Bitcoin mania? Talks about the power consumption among other things TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Usability

One of the main selling points of bitcoin was supposed to be that all transactions are final. No chargebacks for any reason, under any circumstances, at all, ever. It turns out that it kind of sucks for all transactions to be final. Users send money to non-existing addresses; users lose access to their money through losing passwords; users lose access to their money through bugs; buyers are hesitant to wire money to merchants if they have no established recourse should the seller fail to deliver. Examples:

• Guardian, 2017: '$300m in cryptocurrency' accidentally lost forever due to bug -- note the answer to this problem was doing exactly what crypto advocates said could never happen; they rolled back the ledger just like a bank would have done
• Great Wall of Numbers, 2017: Eight Things Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts Probably Won’t Tell You
• Kai Stinchcombe, 2017: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
• Kai Stinchcombe, 2018: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

---

• Jacobin, 2018 The Dumb Money "a disruptive technology that mainly disrupsts its own users", "the Bitcoin failure graveyard" TOWT7 (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Wired, 2018: When the Blockchain Skeptic Walked into the Lion's Den

Debate away.

Ponzi Scheme Concerns

lot of content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article

Cryptocurrency Bubble

can consider to wikilink to main article here Cryptocurrency bubble and maybe add one sentence summary

Advertising bans

Cryptocurrencies advertisements are controversial and have are banned on Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing Snapchat, LinkedIn and MailChimp. Chinese internet platforms Baidu, Tencent, and Weibo have also prohibited bitcoin advertisements. The Japanese platform Line and the Russian platform Yandex have similar prohibitions.

Unregulated trading

Trading in bitcoin is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for possible price manipulation.

DISCUSSION

• I have added a couple of sections above (ponzi and bubble). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I added links to some of the sections that were already there ^^ TOWT7 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these! Ponzi and bubble definitely need to be mentioned. The links look very interesting! Where would we best start compiling a draft? Here on the talk page? On a separate page in the Draft namespace? In somebody's User space? Kramler (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: looping you into this discussion here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So seriously, where do we draft this thing? My sandbox? Kramler (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your sandbox is ok with me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

United Precious Metals Association and Quintric

This supposedly gold-backed cryptocurrency may be worth mentioning, if reliable sources can be found: https://www.upma.org/upgrade-to-quintric Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

There is a misspelling in source no 3.: Currently is stated

Schuettel, Patrick (2017). The Concise Fintech Compendium...

which is WRONG.

CORRECT it should be

Schueffel, Patrick (2017). The Concise Fintech Compendium...

Please be so kind and correct that.

Unfortunately even scientific texts have already used this wrong citation. Hegfrler (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal (June 29, 2018)

The following is a continued discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.

The existing statement reads:

As of May 2018, over 1,800 cryptocurrency specifications existed. Within a cryptocurrency system, the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: who use their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.

The new proposed statement, in accordance with sources:

As of June 2018, over 1,800 cryptocurrency specifications exist; some are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within proof-of-work cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme. However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50 percent can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Collusion among minders increases the risk that a few miners could band together to execute a so-called 51-percent attack where miners would control enough of the transactions to dictate changes in the development of the blockchain to suit their preferences. Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized, As of January 2018, almost 80 percent of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools. Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Because, As of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.

Reason for the adjustment: the existing paragraph implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger and miners have an infinite ability to maintain the ledger in a form of a “mutually distrustful” group. The existing paragraph is grossly inaccurate due to omission of a number of limiting factors built into the system. First, it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining the value of the mining reward delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. Second, it also refers to a “community of mutually distrustful parties” that maintain “safety, integrity and balance of ledgers” without mentioning a possibility of collusion (pool mining) by miners that can effectively seize control and remove “mutually distrustful” relationships within the group.

Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @C.Fred: @Laurencedeclan: @NeilN:

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Litesand: I assume you pinged me because I warned you about edit warring. I won't be acting as an editor in this area so will not comment on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

First blockchain luxembourg is not an RS. This is just a blockexplorer and if you are seeking to write some position based upon it, your conclusion based on what you see in the blockexplorer is WP:OR. To me this reads like an effort to push some kind of WP:POV, and while I am not sure what the POV is, but it doesn't look neutral. Suggest trying to make changes more incrementally. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Investopedia

@Retimuko: Is Investopedia not a reliable source, its content is controlled by an editorial team? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be another encyclopedia (at least the page you cited), but with an unknown process and not citing any sources. But even if they did cite sources, it seems to be a tertiary source, and therefore should be used carefully, sparingly and, perhaps, should better be avoided altogether. Justifying things in one encyclopedia by citing another seems to be fundamentally wrong. In particular, it is not like a publication in a reputable magazine with a date and an author, and the contents that will never change except some rare and separately published corrections. Instead, it can, as any encyclopedic article, change at any moment, and, in this case, without notifications and history. Are you aware of any existing consensus regarding using Investopedia as a source? Retimuko (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of consensus on either citing Investopedia or citing encyclopaedia's in general. The temporal changes are avoided by quoting access time (and perhaps backing up on the Wayback Machine). Academic papers partly built on citing other sources. The crucial thing to me is whether there as been a reasonable editorial process, which in the case of Investopedia seems to happen. For reference there is a WikiProject dedicated to importing information from Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911 ed) which is now public domain. Perhaps it is a WP:Teahouse issue. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Complete list of all Crypto coins

Hello All. Can we launch a list of all the crypto coins ? There are thousands so it will be a bit list. Will such a list be of value ? I will launch the list if anyone wants it Regards S H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbert~enwikibooks (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not the place for a list of all cryptocurrencies. There's already List of Cryptocurrencies, but these only contain notable entries. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Greenman (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

controversial

@Smallbones: you are continuing to attempt to insert your WP:FRINGE POV that cryptocurrency is controversial into various ledes of articles, an obvious WP:WEIGHT issue. Here [7] and [8] you did it again. Please seek consensus before continuing along with this line of editing that overweights this content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Please change:

Additionally, cryptocurrency can be permanently lost from local storage due to malware or data loss. This can also happen through the destruction of the physical media, effectively removing lost cryptocurrencies forever from their markets.[91]

To this: Additionally, cryptocurrency private keys can be permanently lost from local storage due to malware, data loss or the destruction of the physical media. This prevents the cryptocurrency from being spent/used, resulting in its effective removal from the markets.[91]

Reason: It’s under the category of ‘reception’ and is not applicable. More importantly it has been written in a way that implies that cryptocurrency ‘lives’ on local storage or physical media (akin to coins in a wallet). This is misleading and conveys the completely incorrect idea to the reader. 167.179.170.225 (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source on IOTA being first non-Blockchain based Cryptocurrency

The current sources for IOTA being the first non-Blockchain based currency are questionable (i.e. their own whitepaper and their own blog). I'm yet to find anything outside a tangle explorer, but Byteball was launched in 2016 and IOTA wasn't until sometime in 2017 which suggests that Byteball actually came first. Should we remove this claim?Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the claim is not reliable, then we should. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I removed it. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This kind of promotion based claim (my chain is bigger, better, first, etc) needs to have top shelf sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

paid articles

I know this is well known by many editors here including David Gerard (talk · contribs) and jytdog (talk · contribs) but I thought I might highlight it.

A cryptocurrency data company showed Reuters an email it had received from an individual offering an article on business website Forbes.com for $2,500. The post, which would feature a company's name and website, could be delivered in six to eight weeks, the email promised. The email included a coupon for a $500 discount.[9]

Note the end of the Reuters article mentions paid Forbes contributor articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018

Please change "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way"^[28], under the BlockChain section, to be paraphrased as followed:

A blockchain is a digital record of ledgers that document the transactions between two parties as a means to regulate and preserve administrative control.^[28] Serrano9 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The proposed paraphrase is not grammatically correct, and it would change the meaning of the sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

The following can be added after ref [17] " In February 2016, the notion of a Regulated and Sovereign Backed Cryptocurrency (RSBC) was discussed. Subsequently NationCoin as a concept was envisaged and protocols for its development were outlined. " Pulakeshi610 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Might just be me, but I do not personally see the notability of this. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

​ Not done: This edit would violate the undue weight policy. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Combining the second sentence versions in the Cryptocurrency article

(@Dr-Bracket, Jtbobwaysf, and MER-C: I've moved this here from my talk page. Jtbobwaysf's reversion is clearly disruptive. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

I see the little reverts going on at the Cryptocurrency article, where you wrote 'They are prone to fraud and have operated under a "veneer of legitimacy"' and @Jtbobwaysf: reverted it back to "Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems". I think they are both very critical talking points, and one shouldn't replace the other. Do you think we should instead replace the sentence with "Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems, however they are prone to fraud and have operated under a "veneer of legitimacy."? Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything, just added one referenced sentence. Combining two very different sentences doesn't make mush sense to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes I just had a look, and it seems things were just rearranged. That said, and correct me if I'm wrong, until someone can actually prove that the fraudulent nature of cryptocurrency is a larger area of focus than the decentralization, I don't think that sentence should come first. It certainly makes sense to me, at least, to include the decentralization aspect in the initial paragraph. Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The essence of any security or financial instrument is that somebody pays cash upfront and somebody else gives them a promise to pay them back following the contract terms. Even a small possibility of fraud goes right to the essence and poisons it. "Can the issuer be trusted?" is the central question. An automotive analogy would be "Does the car have an engine and wheels?" If it doesn't, don't mess with it if you want an automobile.

Decentralization is a total side issue. Something like "Are the tailfins pointy enough?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Attacking the other editors doesn't improve the content.

@Jtbobwaysf: please sign your posts, and please do not accuse me of attacking other editors. Were you writing about the above comment? Where is the supposed attack? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smallbones: what does the text of the wsj source say? I dont have a wsj subscription. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear - you reverted my edit saying "Undid revision 879329183 by Smallbones (talk) this nonsense is either synth or OR. this "subset of a subset," do you have a source for this?" without bothering to look at the reference given at the end of the sentence and then accused me of "synth or OR. this "subset of a subset,"". This follows your accusation of sockpuppeting at WP:AN [10], (while linking to WP:DUCK).

Have you tried the library? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I didnt say I didnt look at the source. The source says “The SEC helped to get rid of the veneer of legitimacy.” Sounds promotional and repurposed to mean something else. What is this subset of subset? Is this in the source, or your OR?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I don't have a subscription either but searching the article in a search engine and clicking that link or clicking a link from a social media post (WSJ tweet) allows you to see it sometimes. Џ 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Џ: thank you, this worked. Initially it didn't but then I opened in a chrome incognito tab, and then it did work to open it through twitter. Appreciate the tip. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Soapboxing by Smallbones

@Smallbones: I create another POV section for you here just like Talk:Bitcoin#Soapboxing_by_Smallbones. Here [11] & [12] to start off with. We will see if more continues over time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding Section on Cryptojacking

Hi Everyone,

    I'd like to add a paragraph addressing cryptojacking (illicit cryptocurrency mining) within the Legality section of this article.  Any concerns or suggestions, just let me know!13theguy13 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)