Talk:Cryptocurrency/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Add STEEM to Proof-of-Stake currencies

As it is using that form of algorithm, Steem should be added to the Proof of Stake coins besides EOS.IO. Theaustrianguy (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Alt Season? Over 100 Crypto Assets Outperform Bitcoin in Q1 Surge

The first quarter of 2019 was a breath of fresh air for the cryptocurrency market, having recorded its first quarterly increase in overall network valuations since the fourth quarter of 2017.( https://newslik.net/index.php/2019/04/02/alt-season-over-100-crypto-assets-outperform-bitcoin-in-q1-surge/ ) Interestingly, however, bitcoin is among the least significant price gainers so far this year while still flashing a noteworthy Q1 increase of 10 percent. What this means is that a sizable portion of the market’s recent growth came from the many other cryptocurrencies trading on exchanges today.

In fact, data from analytics provider Messari reveals that 118 cryptos increased more in price on a year-to-date basis than bitcoin, with several boasting triple-digit percent increases during that period.

As a result, the total network value of all cryptocurrencies – excluding bitcoin – came within 1 percent of suprassing that of bitcoin’s in March.

With Q1 of 2019 now in the history books, let’s dive into some of the more notable individual performances by way of breaking down their respective asset size classes and market sectors.

Performances by asset size

There is a wide spectrum of assets, in the cryptocurrency market. These range from some of the biggest, like ethereum (close to $15 billion), to the smallest, like dancoin (DAN), which is worth just over $3 million. Hundreds of networks fall in between.

The table below depicts how Messari segments crypto-asset sizes into the four groups (large cap, medium cap, small cap and micro cap), as well their respective best and worst performers for the Q1 period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediaanaa (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Counos listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Counos. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki/mining listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiki/mining. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. feminist (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019

≥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.126.70.198 (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

New section "Risks"

Would that be relevant in the article?--Swedebugia (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

The features organizations want: BjørnBj (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 11:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lendawg2303. Peer reviewers: Ixf23, Yzo5031, Cam JC Chen, Kaileesmyth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ctrl-F "bitcoin", 99 results

It seems this article was written at a time when Bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency. This article needs an overhaul to generalize the language. The fact that there are 99 mentions of Bitcoin in this article is ridiculous. Bitcoin should only be mentioned in the Origin/History section, probably once in the intro, and maybe one or two other places if it's absolutely necessary. 107.77.221.25 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point, i removed a few. Many cant be removed easily as the citations anchor the text. I think more than half of your search results are in the citations FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019

"change Cryptocurrencies are a potential tool to evade economic sanctions for example against Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. Russia also secretly supported Venezuela with the creation of the petro (El Petro), a national cryptocurrency initiated by the Maduro government to obtain valuable oil revenues by circumventing US sanctions. to change Cryptocurrencies are a potential tool to evade economic sanctions for example against Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. Russia also secretly supported Venezuela with the creation of the petro (El Petro), a national cryptocurrency initiated by the Maduro government to obtain valuable oil revenues by circumventing US sanctions."

Added links to sources related to the launch of El Petro with links to oil and bypassing US sanctions. There were no links before. Please add to back up the facts. Thank! 7ilver (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 04:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lendawg2303. Peer reviewers: Ixf23, Yzo5031, Cam JC Chen, Kaileesmyth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 八路军被服厂李厂长.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization

There are many instances where Bitcoin isn't capitalized. For example, in the overview:

Since the release of bitcoin, over 6,000 altcoins (alternative variants of bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies) have been created.

I am not sure if this is intentional or not. Rafplayz001 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019

CHANGE

A cryptocurrency wallet stores the public and private "keys" or "addresses" which can be used to receive or spend the cryptocurrency. With the private key, it is possible to write in the public ledger, effectively spending the associated cryptocurrency. With the public key, it is possible for others to send currency to the wallet.

TO

A cryptocurrency wallet, comparable to a bank account, enables you to send and receive cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The various types include hardware, paper, desktop, mobile and web-based wallets. Each cryptocurrency wallet contains a pair of public and private cryptographic "keys" or "addresses". A public key allows for other wallets to make payments to the wallet's address. A private key is a long hexadecimal code needed to access funds and make transactions from within the wallet. Mstephenw5 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 八路军被服厂李厂长.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lendawg2303. Peer reviewers: Ixf23, Yzo5031, Cam JC Chen, Kaileesmyth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Something-backed cryptocurrency

How can a cryptocurrency be backed by anything ? How would that work ? For example, i find in Petro (cryptocurrency) that it "is supposed to be backed by the country's mineral reserves" (Venezuela), and in its Petro gold section, that that one is "a gold-backed cryptocurrency". In this article i find nothing about a resource "backing" (in addition, a term to be defined, seems to me) a cryptocurrency. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: I guess that i am thinking of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, perhaps that's why i'm having diffculty reconciling the two concepts. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency tokens are not Digital Assets

@Ladislav Mecir: In response to the Article's existing claim that “A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions…” this is a proposal to remove links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset as a reference. The Digital Assets Article clearly states that Digital Assets are data that comes with a right to use. Data that do not possess the right to use are not considered Digital Assets. Digital Assets are typically sold as goods for revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Nemo is an example where a legitimate reference to a Digital Asset can be made, since the film was produced with an expectation to be sold as goods, the film comes with a right to use. For example, Facebook Libra's source code is a Digital Asset with a right to use, but the Libra token is merely a binary data medium. Not all binary data are Digital Assets. The standard of care for WP:OR in this case must reference a source that claims that cryptocurrency tokens come with a right to use - such source does not exist, which makes the current statement not attributable. The proposal is to change the current statement to read: “A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is binary data designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions…” Litesand (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree This source cited in the article confirms the claim that a cryptocurrency is a digital asset. In contrast to that, your proposal applies your own WP:OR interpretation of the definition you read in the Digital asset article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ladislav Mecir: The referenced definition by Chohan, Usman W states: "At its simplest, a cryptocurrency can be thought of as a digital asset that is constructed to function as a medium of exchange, premised on the technology of cryptography, to secure the transactional flow, as well as to control the creation of additional units of the currency." While the terms "digital asset" may seem interchangeable, this is not the case. Digital assets, as defined by the article, can undergo management with use of Digital rights management (DRM) tools, unlike cryptocurrency. Digital Assets, as defined by the referenced wiki article must posses a right to use. The definition in the source you reference assumes that digital asset is any binary data, uniquely identifiable, and has a perceived value, with or without the distinction of rights to use. These terms cannot coexist. Either Cryptocurrency article must be modified to exclude Digital Assets as a reference, or Digital Assets article must clearly include all binary data, with or without a right to use, as a definition for a digital asset. As I stated before, the standard of care is not simply the term, but the function. The right to use of the movie Finding Nemo, as it stands, does not fall under the same category as rights to use ofBitcoin token reference - a medium of exchange. To combine these two terms, be that as it may referenced by the same name, into a single experience degrades quality of both definitions. In effect, the use of the term digital asset must be treated a homonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym, where these two terms are spelled the same and sound the same but have different meanings and uses. Litesand (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ladislav Mecir: Please take a look at Digital_asset#The_use_of_the_term_with_cryptocurrencies Litesand (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that libra could be both a digital asset and a cryptocurrency right? Or the maker token on ethereum could be both a digital asset and cryptocurrency. @David Gerard: comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• • • Libra's not anything yet, but it'll be a cryptocurrency of some sort if what they're building now ever launches - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Litesand - the trouble is that all these words are used as euphemisms for each other in various ways, so the "definitions" are retrospective. Nobody invented separate things called "cryptocurrency" and "digital asset" that had their own definitions - what actually happened was that there was Bitcoin, then there were people who wanted to make Bitcoin, things derived from Bitcoin and things inspired by Bitcoin sound a bit more respectable to various different listeners. A lot of retrospectively made-up taxonomies were created, particularly in academia - and these are what are being quoted here - but these taxonomies are inconsistent and blurred at the edges, hence this argument. So the process of deciding what one feels is the right taxonomy, then finding someone who agreed, is going to lead to arguments like this - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. I used the above citation of a paper by Usman W. Chohan deeming that it is scholarly. There are many other citations of SSRN papers in the Bitcoin article, e.g. Retimuko tagged the cited paper as self-published, though, so my question is, whether the papers published by SSRN are self-published. Thank you in advance. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

SSRN is basically just hosting, so just putting a paper up would make it an WP:SPS. Is the paper peer-reviewed in a journal that isn't otherwise disreputable? It'll probably be up to RS then - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, these so called academic sources seem dubious. There is another attempt to get IOTA listed and being somewhat discussed Draft_talk:IOTA_(technology)#Non-RS and there have been at times 20+ 'academic' sources. For the average editor that doesn't follow it everyday, it is impossible for me to figure out what is an RS and what is not. Better to just err on the not RS side if we dont know. I recognize a few years ago when I was quite excited about all the 'cool' stuff that might be built on ethereum I was on the other side of this argument, but today I see the other sides point (and now I am on the other side) that is just too hard to edit and police the poor sources without quite strict rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

I will like to speak on Bitcoin halving and submit a valuable resource on what users should expect from halving. Esseson009 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Please note that we have very strict sourcing standards relating to WP:RS on crypto articles. We require the sources be mainstream, such as FT.com, bloomberg, wsj, nyt, etc. We do not use WP:primary sources or sites such as coindesk. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency in the future

can we please add a new section called Cryptocurrency in the future Cryptocurrency will disrupt the norms of commerce More investors will buy in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinitasimhan (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Legal section

@Ladislav Mecir: I am concerned that this section Cryptocurrency#Initial_coin_offerings_and_US_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_filing is not encyclopedic. It appears to be some WP:OR gleaned from US law. Wikipedia doesnt provide legal advice. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf, and thank you for the information. I just made a couple of edits to the text to make it compatible with the WP:MOS. Other than that, I did not check thoroughly the contents or the sources it uses, so it may well be WP:OR as you mention. Also, it may not be neutral in that it discusses just the US regulations. Feel free to handle the text as you consider best for the Wikipedia. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i noted you were only cleaning up a bit. Wanted to get other feedback before I blanked it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Preserve

Moving here per WP:PRESERVE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Initial coin offerings and US Securities and Exchange Commission filing

The majority of the issued cryptocurrencies types have been funded through an initial coin offering (ICO) or through a security token offering (STO), wherein a future promise is made on a speculative investment interest in an asset or a financial instrument including the coin tokens, the crypto tokens, or in the coin business. In the US per notification on 19 April 2017, for offerings that are not SEC filing registered, issuers must comply with each independent state securities laws and regulations in the state in which securities are offered or sold. To guarantee investor protections, all fundraising of a business or investment through intrastate offerings must comply with Securities Act Section 3(a)(11), Rule 147, and Rule 147A.

When the ICO or the STO has a future promise of value and is not SEC filing registered, there is a mixed subset of requirements that must be satisfied. The issuer must be organized in-state, the officers, partners, or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer’s activities ("principal place of business") in-state. The issuer must satisfy at least one of the "doing business" in-state requirements: issuer had at least 80% of its consolidated assets located in-state, offers and sales are limited to in-state residents or persons who the issuer reasonably believes are in-state residents, and a written representation from each purchaser as to residency. The issuer must derive at least 80% of its consolidated gross revenues from the operation of a business or of real property located in-state or from the rendering of services in-state; the issuer intends to use and uses at least 80% of the net proceeds from the offering towards the operation of a business or of real property in-state, the purchase of real property located in-state, or the rendering of services in-state; or a majority of the issuer’s employees are based in-state.

Future securities purchased in an STO can only be resold to persons residing in-state for a period of six months from the date of the sale by the issuer to the purchaser. Issuers must disclose these limitations on resale when making sale offers and to purchasers and include appropriate legends on the certificate or document evidencing the security. Persons reselling the securities will need to register the transaction with SEC or have an exemption from registration under federal law.

Securities Act rules 147 and 147A require that any sale will not be integrated with prior offers or sales of securities or subsequent offers or sales of securities that are: registered under the Securities Act, except as provided in Rule 147(h) or Rule 147A(h); exempt from registration under Regulation A or Rule 701; made pursuant to an employee benefit plan; exempt from registration under Regulation S or under Regulation Crowdfunding; or made more than six months after completion of the Rule 147 or Rule 147A offering.

References

"Store of value" source

I originally added "or store of value" to the first line because some BTC people claim it to be, which was reverted for supposedly violating WP:OR. I put it back later with a source (Cointelegraph), which was again reverted because "no cointelegraph please". This seems to me like arbitrarily striking sources. I don't see any reason why Cointelegraph is untrustworthy, but if anyone can tell me why, I'll gladly listen. The same person also said "no investopedia please" on a different article, which implies either there is a list of sources understood to be unacceptable somewhere that I'm not aware of, or the undoing was based on their personal opinion of the source rather than the source material itself. NateNate60 (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency-related programming languages?

There is a discussion on this at at Talk:List of programming languages#DAML. Please reply there. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020

In first sentence, add link to digital asset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset) Absurdpizza (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent energy consumption claim is nonencyclopedic

The "equivalent" starting part of the "In 2017, Bitcoin mining was estimated to consume 948MW, equivalent to countries the scale of Angola or Panama, respectively ranked 102nd and 103rd in the world." claim is nonencyclopedic:

• It is well known that 948MW is not equivalent to any country.
• Since the consumptions of Angola and Panama are not equivalent, it is not even possible for the consumptions to be both equivalent to 948MW.
• The consumption of no country is a standard unit of energy, that is why this specific part of the claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, a recent edit added a citation of the Nature correspondence. Note that per the journal policy,

• Correspondence is a forum for readers' reactions.
• Correspondence submissions are only rarely peer-reviewed.

Summing up, the correspondence is not a reliable source of informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's peer-reviewed scientific research, of course it's encyclopedic. The comparisons to countries are used by the researchers themselves in their papers since most readers have no idea how electricity usage is quantified. And obviously no two countries use the exact amount of energy, but it's helpful context. My original edit used the Nature correspondence as a citation for the claim that scientists were calling for reform, but it also works as context for the lead sentence in the paragraph.Citing (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As confirmed by the Nature journal, the correspondence is not peer reviewed. While you want to ignore it, it is a fact.

I do not have access to the contents of the article. I do not doubt that if there is any peer reviewed contents that compares 948MW to something, then it is the consumption of some country, not to the country as you mistakenly suggest in your edit, however. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand the correspondence is not peer reviewed but the source before was an archived blog post so this is an improvement (it's still scientific writing and a reliable source). WP:LIBRARY can help with access. There are also other ways. I don't understand the other objection though -- do you have a preferred wording for electricity consumption?Citing (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Shopping cart systems

Besides POS systems, it's not exactly clear which shopping cart systems actually support payment with them. Some do have support for them though, since many webshops (that use shopping cart systems) allow payment with them. See https://www.inverse.com/article/38953-the-22-major-stores-online-that-accept-bitcoin Perhaps clarify in article. --Genetics4good (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Money

in term of alcohol.

1 bottle of Belvedere will last 1 year.

1 year equals 250 euro.

cryptocurrency= buy 1 year for 250.

income fast due alcoholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.66.128.169 (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

IOTA & NANO

@MrOllie: you reverted Qwahzi (talk · contribs)'s edit [1] saying it was promotional. My read is that it is no promotional and reflects a real difference in these two cryptos, in that they have a different type of proof of work, that each sender does, instead of the miner. Worth including in my book, as the nuance between these two coins and say bitcoin is significant and encyclopedic. IEEE is probably a reliable source as well, @David Gerard: comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a couple of questionable aspects to the above:

• Every cryptocurrency has some special aspect to it, and this article is not a list of cryptocurrencies.
• If I understand it correctly, the system used by IOTA should not be called a "proof of work", so I do not consider it encyclopedic to use such a term in relation to it.

That is why I support MrOllie's edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ladislav, how do you suggest to edit the content so that it can be included. The difference between Bitcoin and these small tokens is interesting (at least to me). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie, @Ladislav Mecir - Not having a transaction fee is a major difference that should be mentioned. Without that mention, this Wiki page currently reads as if all cryptocurrencies have or must have a transaction fee in order to prioritize transactions. There is a difference between PoW as a consensus mechanism (e.g. in Bitcoin) and PoW as a transaction priortization/anti-spam mechanism (e.g. in Nano and Iota). Iota does use client-side Proof of Work for their transactions, see the linked sources: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10925.pdf, https://docs.iota.org/docs/getting-started/0.1/transactions/proof-of-work. There are also other peer-reviewed sources that mention this feature of Nano as well: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.10013.pdf, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1229650/FULLTEXT02.pdf --Qwahzi (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Qwahzi, I note that 100% of your editing is related to the Nano cryptocurrency. Do you have some kind of association with that project? If so, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use.

As to the issue at hand, I would have no issue with mentioning that some cryptocurrencies avoid the transaction fee in general terms, without mentioning paritcular coins. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I think both IOTA and NANO are Directed acyclic graph in setup or similar. It would be interesting to state how this might allow for no fee transactions. I think that is the concept at least. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no association with the Nano project, I'm just a cryptocurrency enthusiast. My interests started with Bitcoin, but I began diving into the technical details over time and found other projects that are more interesting to me. There are only two cryptocurrencies with zero fees (not all DAG-based cryptocurrencies have 0 fees - see Obyte), so to me they warrant the explicit mention, but I would be ok with not mentioning them in this article and leaving the statement more abstract. E.g.: Some cryptocurrencies have no transaction fees, and instead rely on client-side proof-of-work as the transaction prioritization and anti-spam mechanism. --Qwahzi (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I support naming the cryptos but it seems others dont. If another high quality source is available maybe they will reconsider. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I also support naming specific cryptocurrencies when they are notable and supported by WP:RS's. This article is completely stunted by the lack of information on specific cryptocurrencies because of a fear of PROMO activity which seems to curtail ALL edits related to any alternate cryptocurrency, no matter what. If some obvious PROMO is happening, it should be removed. Otherwise, notable information should be included per Wiki policy. Otherwise it is WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasnt supporting naming all notable cryptos. But a few examples of other novel types (that truly are different) such as Nano and IOTA would be great if we have sources for it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. We are on the same page. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Introduction - Example Cryptocurrencies

@Ladislav Mecir: @Ravensfire: @MrOllie: Why are editors removing links to example cryptocurrencies in the introductory paragraph? This article is about cryptocurrency and should obviously include links to examples of different cryptocurrency articles for the reader. This has been in the introductory paragraph for a long time and all of a sudden is being deleted. Why? How does this make the article better? HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: @Ravensfire: @MrOllie: Any response? I'd like to add this back to the article if not. HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

'A long time'? It was added last week. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And then removed a few days later! Humorously, the most well-known example wasn't even included. It's like there's some promotional editing happening... Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is that your guys answer to why this was deleted? Because it was a recent edit? Also what well-known example wasn't included? I don't care what gets added-- please cut the ad hominem attacks. The examples that were included come from the Wall Street Journal cite. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus00, Shockingly, Yes. WP:BRD. That's normal editing, contrary to your apparent view. As the comment on the original revert (just a few days ago) the example list doesn't add anything. It's something that's easily prone to high amounts of disruption as advocates push their preferences. And on top of it, you don't even include the best known example?!?! That's just pure insanity. Relevant examples can be discussed in the main article, the lead doesn't need them. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ravensfire Why are you speaking like the edit purposely left out a cryptocurrency? What is this "best known example" alt that was left out? Ethereum? It was included. Please stop talking in riddles and speak. I didn't make the original addition to the article but we can improve upon it. Also, I am following WP:BRD -- you all are not. Some editor added these examples to the article, it was then reverted by one of you all (I believe MrOllie), and then this edit war began so we are discussing. So the question must be asked- how is this not appropriate for WP:MOSLEAD in an article that is literally about cryptocurrency? Examples of alternative cryptocurrencies are probably one of the most important things the reader should learn about when opening this article. If you are worried about disruption, the article should be protected or the edits should be overseen to make sure they are cited using reliable source's. Not just deleted outright. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not appropriate because mentioning particular examples is undue. A list of altcoins does not belong in the lead, which is only supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. It already mentions that there are 7000+ altcoins to choose from, which is more than sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at S&P 500 Index for example, off the top of my head. If you believe the previous list added to the article was somehow not neutral, perhaps we can come up with a list that is neutral. Maybe the top 5 or 10 alt coins by market cap? The point is people come to this article and are seeking information about cryptocurrency, which includes alts. Links to other crypto articles are very much appropriate for the lead here. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus00, Apples and oranges. That is an article about a stock index. Since this isn't an article on a particular index, the apt comparison would be Stock, which of course does not list particular company stocks in the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie Fair enough, I should have cited Currency. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie that these altcoins are not needed in the lede and adding them is UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is UNDUE exactly, if we decide a list that is based on a RS and neutral? Readers should be able to get examples in the introduction. This is something that is typical across Wikipedia. See Currency, Commodity, Precious metal and more. Please explain how cryptocurrency is different. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is why: Wikipedia does have the List of cryptocurrencies article. It is not this one. Note also, that the List of cryptocurrencies article is mentioned in this article as one of the see also items. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir The fact that this information is relegated to the "See Also" section illustrates the exact problem with this article. Some limited examples of notable cryptocurrencies should be provided in the introduction, per WP:MOSLEAD. This article is literally about cryptocurrencies and there are no cryptocurrencies mentioned in the introduction beside Bitcoin! The fact that there is a separate article, with a separate list of cryptocurrencies does not cure the issue here. This is like if the Currency article mentioned that there was the US Dollar and ignored everything else. Or the Precious metal article with gold but ignored silver, platinum, etc. But they don't do this. They mention the alternatives because they are also notable. Other notable cryptocurrencies exist, are cited by reliable sources, and should be mentioned in the introduction. Why is there such pushback on this? I don't understand. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, to be abundantly clear, I'm not saying there should be a long list of cryptocurrencies in the introduction, which is what that article is and the purpose of that article. Just examples of notable ones. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Re "Some limited examples of notable cryptocurrencies should be provided in the introduction, per WP:MOSLEAD." - actually, there is an important example that is already mentioned. As to the other alternatives that are not listed in the article body: since they are notable, they are listed in the List of cryptocurrencies article, but are not mentioned in the body of this article, where the list of all notable cryptocurrencies would be inappropriate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a substantive argument. The fact that alternative currencies appear in another related Wikipedia article does not somehow relieve this article of also providing notable information if relevant. Since Bitcoin is also on the List of Cryptocurrencies page, should it be removed from the introduction too? Of course not. This seems like WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus00, there's certainly some WP:IDHT going on. Consider that multiple other editors have disagreed with you. Read over WP:DR for next steps. Ravensfire (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ravensfire I'm trying to discuss the issue through here to conclusion. I asked why it was appropriate to delete a valid edit to the article (the addition of example cryptocurrencies from the introduction) and I received three different answers. There is no consensus from you all. One of you claim it's WP:Undue (which can be remedied), one of you stated they are already listed in the separate List of cryptocurrencies article (which is not a substantive argument as to why something should not be noted in a main article), and one of you stated that adding examples would make the article prone for disruption (which is also not a substantive argument and can be remedied). In fact, @Ravensfire, your first reaction was to state without basis that I am doing "promotional" editing. Please provide a substantive response as to why this information should not be added to the article, otherwise this appears to be WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors discuss content and have positions on it, that is routine and may appear to you as stonewalling. I dont see how we can decide which altcoins to include out of the 7000, thus I too am opposed to inclusion. Your next approach would normally be to open an WP:RFC and then more people can comment on it. Then you can get a wider set of comments and maybe other editors will feel differently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. All I am trying to do here is allow for the conclusion of a discussion and perhaps reach a compromise. So far I've gotten nothing in the way of a compromise and have been attacked personally, both of which are typical of WP:Stonewalling. Regardless, Moving forward and finding a conclusion: This article appears stunted to me. The lack of information about alternate cryptocurrencies is a glaring omission despite it being a notable part of the cryptocurrency space and the subject of much news. I believe providing examples of perhaps the top 3 alternate cryptocurrencies by market cap (so Ethereum, Ripple and Tether) makes sense in the introduction so people learn examples of cryptocurrencies that have developed beyond Bitcoin. I'm not sure how this wouldn't be informative or neutral. This would also not be UNDUE (they are all the subject of much news and have many RS's). If you think these examples should be expanded, edited, or not added at all, post below. Reasoning would be helpful for future editors. If we can't reach some sort of basic compromise I may raise to WP:RFC. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The lede summarizes. If you want to add more information about other cryptocurrencies, then add it to the body and later come back and discuss how you want to summarize it in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a fine compromise for now. I think the altcoin section definitely needs some work. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Re "All I am trying to do here is allow for the conclusion of a discussion and perhaps reach a compromise." - Well, this issue has been discussed in the past and already reached a consensus between the editors. As noted above, the List of cryptocurrencies article lists only the notable ones (as it should, Wikipedia does not list the ones that are not notable). Taking into account how many cryptocurrencies it lists, the notability criterium does not give us a list small enough to put into the lead section. Your proposed use of another criterium would neither adhere to the Wikipedia rules, nor respect the consensus already reached in respect to this matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to accomplish here. I'm trying to simply add a brief additional sentence to the end of the introduction saying something like "Some examples of alternative cryptocurrencies include Ethereum, Litecoin and Ripple." For example, this Bloomberg article came out and spoke about some notable ones. I'm not sure why this article is being stunted from developing. This is the cryptocurrency article (generalized) and the introduction doesn't name any cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin. This just doesn't make any sense. As I said above (which no one has responded to), I'm not sure why this article isn't aspiring to be as well written as Currency, Precious metal or Commodity. HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The lede summarizes. The source you provided does have nice content for comparison purposes, suggest you add that to the article rather than simply pushing to add weight to your selected Altcoins in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I added additional information about Ethereum and Litecoin in the Altcoin section of the article per our discussion above. I'm happy to add additional information about some other notable altcoins as well. Just let me know if any of you believe any others should be covered. I added ETH and LTC because of notability and because they were mentioned in the Bloomberg article. I think Ripple and Tether could easily be added as well. Any issue now with allowing the introduction to be expanded? This introduction is much too short and uninformative for the length of this article. MOS:LEADLENGTH HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I must admit I am ambivalent, and the rest of the editor are opposed to it. I would suggest to spend some time improving the article and then come back to the lede rather than the others way around. This article would be great to have a summary of the major ones as well as some comparisons (that you have started to add). I say keep up the good work, and my vote is to hold off for now on adding more 'examples' to the lede. In closing, I am not sure if tether is often referred to as a cryptocurrency, but it I guess is one. Nice to add something on stable coins to this article as you point out as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I thought Tether could be added just as an example of a stable coin. It's also one of the most used cryptocurrencies, even though it's not what people often think about when they think of a typical 'crypto'. I'll continue to work on the article and we can circle back to the introduction. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Biased list of altcoins

Per available sources and established editor consensus (see history), there are many notable cryptocurrencies. The choice of cryptocurrencies in the "Altcoins" section is subjective, made just by one editor. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above in the "Introduction - Example Cryptocurrencies". The list of example alt coins was determined by notability and this Bloomberg article. There are 5 examples listed (ETH, LTC, XRP, DOGE and BSV - all of which are notable). This is the cryptocurrency article and must mention cryptocurrencies beside BTC. As long as there is no issue with WP:NPOV or notability, which I don't see here, I don't see an issue. Can you please explain how this is a biased list? HocusPocus00 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the list of example altcoins was provably not determined by notability. If it was determined by notability, then we would need to list all notable cryptocurrencies, which is a much longer list than the one currently presented in the article. One Bloomberg article is not sufficient to determine all notable cryptocurrencies (there are other WP:IRS than this specific Bloomberg article). Selecting only a subset of all notable cryptocurrecies, there obviously is an issue with WP:NPOV. The list is biased even in relation to the cited sources: there are cryptocurrencies mentioned in the sources that are not listed in the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus00, please add some more that you can find RS for. We can have more in the altcoins section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Jtbobwaysf. This has been discussed and resolved a long time ago by a consensus of editors. You seem to not understand the nature of the problem. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to revisit this issue, especially if a decision was made a long time ago. Altcoins make-up between 35-50% (depending on the day) of the crypto space now in late 2020. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, e.g. Bitcoin SV listed by HocusPocus00 is obviously not as notable as, e.g. Ethereum, taking into account that it was not found notable enough (yet) to have its own Wikipedia article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not list Bitcoin SV or DogeCoin. Please get your information correct before making statements about editors here. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I propose to replace the biased formulation by a significantly more neutral

The notable altcoins are listed in the List of cryptocurrencies article.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I didn't realise that SV section of bitcoin cash was being linked to. That was weird and I have changed it to Bitcoin Cash (for now). I too might support a highlight of a few extra noteworthy altcoins in the section, but we would need to have consensus on what to include and how to determine what to include (we might get stuck here). Some have been batted around here and the section above and I might be ok with Ethereum, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dogecoin, and Ripple. IOTA was also quite notable in the past, that might be interesting to add as well. Same goes for Namecoin. We don't need to be try to be what is notable today, as wikipedia (at least from my opinion) is more about the history, than the present. These all seem to be quite common and longstanding. But that said, it might be nearly impossible to manage this list and come to agreement on what to include and what note to. But we can try. I am with you that anything that cannot muster notability sufficient to have its own article certainly can't get listed here. The problem with only using the list of crytpocurrencies is that it doesn't give us a chance to tell a story, where a story is due and interesting.

Namecoin was the first altcoin. Litecoin was an early clone of bitcoin created by Charlie Lee. Bitcoin Cash is a notable fork of Bitcoin that resulted from the Bitcoin scalability debate. Ethereum was created by an early bitcoin blogger (and later creator of Ethereum) Vitalik Buterin, and Ripple (payment protocol) was created by Jed McCaleb (also known for creating Mt. Gox). 

Just throwing out some ideas where we might consider for inclusion if we can at least wiki link to two separate article or important stories per altcoin under consideration. I'll ping N2e (talk · contribs) he might have a comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to replace BSV to Bitcoin Cash. Additionally, Ladislav Mecir: having a generic link to the "List of cryptocurrencies" article is not sufficient information for an encyclopedic article that is about cryptocurrencies. The article wouldn't provide any information about any cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin! We need to use WP:COMMONSENSE here. Brief examples of notable altcoins should be listed. No one is arguing that ALL notable cryptocurrencies should be listed. I think the point we are arguing here is trying to figure out WHICH cryptocurrencies to include as examples in the article, and how to make sure they are objective. One way of doing this is by rewriting the section so it includes only the top 5 alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap. It could say something like: "Currently, the five largest alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap after Bitcoin are Ethereum, XRP, Tether, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash." Simple and objective. No bias. Additionally, it allows us to expand on those and introduce the reader to several important concepts about crypto such as forks and stablecoins, which are nowhere to be found in the article currently which is ridiculous. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Jtbobwaysf, I think your list above is fine, but I think the list of alts should be tied to something objective to alleviate concerns of bias like those raised above. I think most of the alts you included all led to important issues in the crypto space (such as BCH and the scalability debate), but I think we should still really tie the list down to something objective so no one can continually claim the list is biased (or from it being vandalized). That's why I propose tying the coins listed in the article to those that are the top 5 by market cap. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for mentioning you, HocusPocus00 as referring to Bicoin SV, it was a mistake I made. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Re "I think the point we are arguing here is trying to figure out WHICH cryptocurrencies to include as examples in the article, and how to make sure they are objective. One way of doing this is by rewriting the section so it includes only the top 5 alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap. It could say something like: "Currently, the five largest alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap after Bitcoin are Ethereum, XRP, Tether, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash." Simple and objective. No bias." - actually, it is not simple, since that would require to get a WP:IRS listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. Even if we had that, it would not be simple - after a couple of days, the selection would become biased, not listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. Therefore, this criterium you propose is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

In relation to forks, there already is an article discussing them. It is the Fork (blockchain) article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding stablecoins - as far as I can tell, this is rather problematic: the article contains a cryptocurrency definition now. Assuming that the definition is correct (I am not sure it is, but the consensus was to keep it when I proposed its deletion), the first property is "The system does not require a central authority, its state is maintained through distributed consensus." That is not true about any stablecoin: the values of all stablecoins are maintained by their respective central authorities. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Pragmatically speaking the list of top 5 by market cap is problematic as it is always shifting. I think better to just include a sentence summary of various crypto's from the existing wiki articles as I have more or less suggested above (with a source). There is no real reason we need a ranking, any reader can google a ranking themselves. Wikipedia doesn't need to be complete. But it is useful if we can summarise some historical background, like I was trying to do in my example. What came first, who and what was first, created by who, etc. Tell a story. I too am not convinced that tether is a cryptocurrency as pertains to the standard mainstream definition we have on this article. Tether is a stable coin rather. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Business Insider has a listing of the top cryptocurrencies that is constantly updated. BI is generally considered a WP:RS when it is not syndicated content (which it's not here). We could use that here. Also I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here: "Even if we had that, it would not be simple - after a couple of days, the selection would become biased, not listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization." How would after a couple of days the top 5 alts by marketcap become biased? Could you elaborate? The top 5 altcoins by market cap is objectively just that: the top 5 coins by market cap. They can shift in and out, and that is fine. If you are worried about having to constantly maintain the article, perhaps we can start with the top 3 altcoins. Frankly, any information is better than what we have now. Also, I propose we just stay on point here and leave discussion about the lack of information about stablecoins and forks for perhaps another section (although I think it's pretty obvious the article should absolutely have information about those topics). HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you put an additional indent under my comment, it means you are replying to me, FYI...I guess you were not replying to me, as I never said it would be biased. Not important, just FYI. I don't really have a problem with listing the top 5 as long as we use an 'as of' format, as this is prone to get out of date. I am guess you are not going to update it daily, and I certainly am not going to monitor it. But I think more important is you are for some reason pushing to have a top 5 rather than listening to other editors suggesting another approach for including content. I am opposed to a top 5 in the lede FYI, if this is what you are advocating for. But in the body I am not opposed, but let's hear what Ladislav has to say. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The reply above was meant for Ladislav Mecir. This conversation moved fast and I missed a reply in between. Also, I am not die hard on my proposal about having the top 5. I was trying to propose an objective list of alt coins. I'm trying to reach a compromise per Wiki policy. I'm fine with your approach as well as I noted above. Again with these insinuations. I think I've made it clear through throughout this whole conversation that I literally don't care what alts are listed, but the article needs SOME alts listed. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Another editor, Smallbones, just now removed the introductory image from the article which included images of various cryptocurrency logos with this edit (claiming it's an advertisement). Folks, Wikipedia cannot ignore that cryptocurrencies exist and that they have names and logos. If we are not going to provide ANY mentions of alternate cryptocurrencies in the article, then it is inherently biased to include details of only one, Bitcoin. Should we remove references to all coins, including Bitcoin? I think we can agree that we don't. Please, lets use WP:COMMONSENSE here. The image is not an advertisement. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Logos are generally copyrighted and trademarked - which means that we can't use them except as "fair use" images which have lots of restrictions on their use. Undoubtably mashing up a bunch of copyrighted images wouldn't comply with our policy on fair use. But the use of them as advertising is even more serious IMHO. What are they doing on this page other than promoting their use? What is the image being used for otherwise? Just saying "The image is not an advertisement," doesn't explain anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your assumption that these logos are copyrighted is a huge jump to a conclusion, considering that the crypto space is generally open-source. For example, the Bitcoin and Ethereum logos are freely available for anyone to use. Your question about why the image is there is absurd: the reason it's on this page is for information and encyclopedic purposes. If you disagree with it, head on over to the Currency article and remove their "mashing up" of their currencies image. The logo that you removed has a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 designation. If you have evidence that it violates copyright or is is an advertisement, present it. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Logos don't help anyone understand the article, and the article certainly does not go into critical analysis of the logos (nor should it). The copyright concerns are real. The arrangement may be CC0, but it is clearly a derivative work of the component logos so you'd need to show they are all CC0 as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie Frankly, this is absurd. Perhaps you should remove the Amazon logo from that article as well? Wikipedia policy is to have articles full of relevant images, which the image you removed certainly was. And again- what copyright concerns? You can't just state something and then not follow up with evidence. If there is a copyright violation, I agree it should be taken down. But you can't just make the argument "It looks like it might be something therefore it is.", especially when most crypto logos are open and free to use. If you have a genuine evidence about copyright issues, present it! HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for policy please. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I find it disingenuous of both of you that once a discussion is happening regarding whether names of altcoins should be included in this article, the introductory image that includes altcoin logos is coincidentally taken down for "advertising" and "copyright" concerns. Despite being on Wikipedia for four years. If you all have a genuine copyright complaint, then I apologize and it should be raised here and discussed. Otherwise, I must say that it appears that you are just trying to deteriorate this article further to conceal as much information as possible about altcoins with false premises. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus00, The MOS section you linked states "They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." - what do these logos illustrate? How do they improve our readers understanding? Also, to pick one at random, I see Dash's logo there. That is CC BY 4.0, not CC0, and attribution is not given to the author so we are not in compliance with that license. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie It illustrates that there are different types of cryptocurrencies. Fairly straightforward. Thanks for raising that copyright issue- I believe the next best step is to raise it on WP:CQ for full discussion and evaluation. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

HocusPocus, I am not insinuating anything. I think better to use my suggested approach to include some alts, focusing on the history and tell a story of altcoins. There are plenty of other sources from the other articles, and if you did a one sentence summary per alt you can construct a section at least on it. I think few would have any objection to adding them to the article body. I think adding them to the lede creates a weight and POV issue, essentially which we should single out to be the lede. I too never liked the alt coin image, but wasn't strongly against including it. But I am not opposed to removal either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I'm fine with your approach. You said earlier that I was trying to push listing the top 5 coins, which I'm not. Try convincing the others which coins to include, however. Therein lies the issue. That's why I suggested the top 5, which is objective. Regarding the lead, I still think it's fine to include a brief sentence or two in the introduction regarding alts after the body of the article is developed. Not doing so would actually be inconsistent with how Wiki articles are typically written. Regarding the introduction image, I don't mind if it is replaced with something different. The issue is that it was taken down as an "advertisement" and then again because of "copyright issues", without discussion here first. It just simply isn't a blatant advertisement (there are ~15 coins shown). MrOllie raised a copyright issue with Dash logo. If there is indeed a copyright issue, it should be taken down. However, I think it should be replaced with a similar image that doesn't violate copyright as I think it's illustrative and informative. From my experience, I think most folks are surprised when they learn that Bitcoin isn't the only cryptocurrency. HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources on the other articles of notable altcoins such as litecoin so it is easy to just make a sentence for this article to summarise lite coin with one or two sources for a sentence here. Then do that 5 or ten times and we have a full section on altcoins on this article. This is a cleaner approach than the top 5. Top 5 seems intuitive but isn't the wikipedia process, as here we first follow sources and give weight to what has more sources, thus the fallacy in taking a top five from business insider. Make sense? As for the image that was removed like I said above, I am indifferent about it. I did think it was nice to have an image, but Smallbones raises the point that what might have been a fair use (wp using a logo) was probably no longer a fair use once a new image had been made to create a mashup. This should be debated at the copyright noticeboard, not here, as we can't form any limited talk page consensus on a copyright issue here. That has to be done on a noticeboard. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I started developing out the altcoin section and this 'bias' section of the Talk article got started. I added blurbs on Ethereum and Litecoin and we can move forward from there based on RS's. My original approach way above was to do this (based on a Bloomberg article that had a nice list of ~5 or so notable alt coins and why they were important), but it was shot down in the previous Talk section, saying we can't rely on just one RS because of bias/undue or some such nonsense. I guess we need separate RS's for each alt. Just more cryptocurrency nitpicking -- not from you, but just in general. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, this is mostly cryptocurrency specific, although there are many other article types in Wikipedia that have some sort of WP:DS, such as politics, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdaymate011.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)