Jump to content

Talk:Digital currency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

based on Bitcoin

[edit]

So how many of these are based on Bitcoin? At least Litecoin is...

Rucoin probably is. NovaCoin is. Terracoin is. PPcoin is. BBQcoin probably is. Ixcoin is. ... I think it needs to be made clear that this "alt" coins may well be scams, and that people should be careful about putting any real money, or any significant amount of time, into them. At least until they have verified that they are not scams, and that they are widely used enough. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for scam warning: Andresen, Gavin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42465.0 (accessed 6 Apr 2013) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=143221.0 (accessed 6 Apr 2013) I understand that these are forum links. However, the first one leads directly to a reliable source (the main developer of Bitcoin) discussing this. Saying, beware that they aren't scams. Other people in the thread also seem to be long term forum users. I don't understand why that source isn't reliable, when a link to btc-e.com is considered reliable. They don't even have an about page! There is no indication of who runs the site. They are based in Bulgaria, that's all I can find. So, as an academic, I would suggest that a known person, who is expressing a warning about "alt-chains" (meaning digital currencies based on Bitcoin) is more reliable than an unknown person saying that "Novacoin" is "Active" (and a warning that Novacoin (and all the rest) maybe a scam, and to take care, seems to be to be a fair warning). **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what's with the link to http://blockchain.info/charts/market-cap for how much bitcoins are worth? I can't see where they get their information from. Do they get it from the exchanges? (In which case, why not link directly to the exchanges?) Or do they guess? (In which case, it isn't a reliable source.)**** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

safety

[edit]

I think that not having a safety warning is a mis-service to all users of Wikipedia. I also think that it needs to be made clearer that many of the *coin systems are not seeing widespread usage, and that the references for them are basically unreliable. See above for a comment on that.

I won't tolerate removal of either the section, or the reference, without discussion on this page first. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've generally thought (partially due to this page) that internet forums are not reliable (Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable). When I attempted to use bitcointalk and other forums as a source (even if information was posted by a major person in the community) in the past (on other pages), the information was normally swiftly removed because others said it was unreliable, so I've learned to treat it as such. Concern that many of these currencies are not notable/are seen by many as scams is why I moved them off of this page, there used to be dozens of currencies in the list. I've only left the most notable ones, for which there are multiple articles by news sites. Nevertheless, I'm not too bothered about having Gavin Andresen's comment if you really feel it adds to the article.
With regards to your comment: I think that not having a safety warning is a mis-service, Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual, nor should it contain safety warnings. Due to this, I'd advocate changing the saftey section to a criticism section, as is more common in Wikipedia.
With regards to your comment: what fucking part of "use the fucking talk page" do you fuckers not understand?, I was trying to be bold to avoid getting bogged down unnecessarily, in the event of a disagreement, an edit can easily be reverted (as you did).
(This is also a reply to this post) Cliff12345 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about that edit summary, it wasn't aimed at you specifically (I wrote it before I knew who made the edit). It's more that a) it's the second time that the section has been removed without any comment, and for ages I was the only one using the talk page.
As for the source, I think that it's safe to say that the source is not a random forum, but the main dev of Bitcoin. I think it's not hard at all to verify that the main dev is in fact the person who wrote that forum post. And, so, if you have tried to use information referencing a forum post, and it's been removed, and you can tell that the person who made the post is reliable, then you should just put the reference back and slog it out with the idiots who don't agree. While a random forum post isn't reliable (just like a random web page), a post by someone who is obviously reliable should be. Having any source is better than no source.
I don't care what the section is called as such. But I think it's important to provide "both sides of the argument" ;) neutrality (not all these things are wonderful). I think it's good not to list all the various potential scams. Good job removing them.
**** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it, we should probably keep it for now, as it's definitely true that a lot of people are wary about these new, smaller currencies (but the section should be titled Criticism, not Safety).Cliff12345 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool bananas. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notability

[edit]

I'm concerned that many of the "currencies" on this page are not notable. I think there should be a discussion about whether or not the they should be included on this page at all. Bitcoin has had wide-spread coverage in the mainstream media. NovaCoin for example though, does not seem to have had any coverage. I suspect that is also the case for each of the other Bitcoin based systems, and also for some of the other non-bitcoin systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm not human (talk • contribs) 15:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If a currency is simply a proof-of-concept that does not actually have a method of exchange then it should not be included in the Digital currency page. One major problem with the notability of the page is that the early currencies are not even listed. For example, Second Life Linden Dollars and the other one originating from China should probably be first on the list. These well established currencies should be the focus of information over the relatively new currencies like bitcoin and the resulting spin-offs. Another prominent problem is relevancy. I don't believe listing off cigarettes, unnamed drugs (obviously marijuana), and nukes as possible items to buy with virtual currencies is relevant. Noisavni (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linden Dollars are game currency. They aren't intended to be a alternative digital currency you can use however you like. --KyleLandas (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we should remove the "currencies" that we can't find any evidence of actually being used to purchase stuff? If they just being used to exchange for other currencies, then I don't think they should be listed. I also agree it is not relevant what can be purchased. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the grounds that the list would be very small at that point. --KyleLandas (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? I really don't see a problem with that. If Wikipedia's job is to list every tiny thing in existence, then there should be a list of toilet paper manufacturers somewhere. We should only be listing currencies that are actually used and useful (or that have been used and useful, but are no longer because the company behind them collapsed or whatever). **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a historical reason to document these things. The information may not be useful to you personally but there are those who would like to see how digital currency has evolved over the years. Some of these are just concepts but bitcoin was once, too, a currency that wasn't "used or useful." Additionally, we can verify that some of these currencies have a market value and that's a good barometer for their use. So, it seems a good majority have some use to them. I removed the ones that clearly did not. -KyleLandas (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Q coin was one of the first popular virtual currencies that originated in China. It started as a game currency but became a way for people to buy real world goods. What constitutes a currency digital or otherwise is something that can be traded and used. I'm not saying the now defunct Mochi Coin should be on the same list as bitcoins because it was more of a virtual currency that could be used only to purchase in game items. With that said, Linden Dollers and Q coin have been traded for government backed currencies and to purchase both virtual and real world goods. Just to restate, I don't believe we should remove any proof-of-concept currencies or not included virtual currencies. But it seems like a good idea to organize the information so someone new to virtual money can easily see the history and differences between the currencies. It seems bitcoins have stirred a lot of interest on the subject, so we should do our part to explain that it was not the first and only digital money. Noisavni (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to virtual currency

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Digital currency → Virtual currency – virtual currency is broader in scope than digital Oicumayberight (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that any currency that is not commodity money is a virtual currency. But that wasn't why I requested the move. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, the US dollar is virtual currency (it is not gold, nor is it backed by gold, it is a fiat currency). -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A fiat currency could be considered a virtual currency in effect. The only thing that makes it physical is the media it's printed or minted on. But I'm not against the consensus of the distinction as defined by the article. Changing the redirect of "virtual currency" has made the move unnecessary. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A virtual currency is a currency used in a virtual economy. A digital currency is a real-life currency that only exists digitally. These are completely different concepts. I actually just changed the virtual currency redirect to virtual economy since that's more relevant. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the virtual currency redirect to virtual economy may have solved the problem temporarily. However, future alternate usage of the term may require it to be a disambiguation page. The word "digital" may cause problems as not all electronics are digital and not all digital data is processed electronically. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. We'll discuss that when it happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of death section

[edit]

I noticed that a recent edit added a "death" section to the list of major digital currencies, but I wouldn't have thought that this made much sense, as cryptocurrencies (due to their decentralized nature) don't die suddenly, they are more likely to slowly decline and gradually become inactive, hence the original "inactive" section. The same goes for this section here. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this now, an admin has deleted the page which held this content. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

The formulation " the fungibility of mainstream digital money is rising" does not make sense to me, it looks like being written by somebody not knowing what fungibility is. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the author of the sentence meant "the convertibility of mainstream digital money is rising"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladislav Mecir:The fungibility could only be rising is bitcoin were getting more and more a like, presumably becoming identical after a certain amount of time. Neither of the references mentioned fungibility, so I've removed that sentence. The IRS has decided, for tax purposes, bitcoin and other virtual currencies (not sure which, or if all, or just crypto) are property not currency.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital / virtual currency

[edit]

I'm erring towards thinking these articles need merging. More information about the origin and usage (common and academic) of the terms would helpful>Jonpatterns (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin section

[edit]

Edit [1] is justified as follows: "bitcoin.org and my other sources agree: "Bitcoin is the first implementation of a concept called "crypto-currency". The problem is that the edit contradicts the source in the article. The "other sources" are not in the article and thus they cannot be judged. Reverting to the wording not contradicting the source in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a copyright violation anyway... someone just copied and pasted from the source. Fleetham (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is possible. But even if true, such a circumstance does not give any right to delete verified informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with List of digital currencies

[edit]

I propose that List of digital currencies be merged into Digital currency. The page is small so there won't be an issue with size and the list shouldn't have its own article in the first place.--Nickps (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed your question somehow. I am not sure what will be best, and it looks that no other editor gave another opinion. You can nominate the list for deletion, I will not oppose it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France

[edit]

I find strange there no translation in French and no explanation of the political choice of the Republic Française.

Do you know why ?

I find a good article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.castelain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede contradiction

[edit]

The lede's first paragraph states digital currency is a currency that is only available in digital form, then goes on to describe it as something like a cryptocurrency. The second paragraph then claims digital currency can be a claim on a private bank or other financial institution such as bank deposits. In fact most of traditional currency/money exists in digital form in a database.

Suggestion, make lede consistent by making clear both definitions are valid. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the lede now to improve its accuracy. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errors in the article

[edit]

This article contains a few errors as listed:

1. History - e-gold was launched in 1996, and was the first Internet money, as well as the first digital currency accessible to the general public. Paypal followed in 1998.

2. Terminology - "Digital Currency" came into use in the e-gold community around 1998. The term was used by Robert Hettinga in the e-gold list in early 2000.[1] "Digital Currency" was defined as a peer to peer electronic payment unit.

Part of e-gold's struggle with the US Treasury from 2001-2008 was their request that e-gold be recognized as money so they could apply for relevant MSB licenses. In 2005 the Treasury issued a letter to e-gold stating gold, and therefore, e-gold, is not money. Then the US govt brought a case against e-gold for not having a "money transmitter license" as required by the USA Patriot Act. In the proceedings the government argued that any system that allows peer to peer transfer of value was a form of money transmitting. The judge on the case accepted that argument and repeated it in her ruling, creating a precedent.

FINCEN now had a problem in how to harmonize the government's position, because it had argued on the one hand that e-gold wasn't money, and on the other hand, that it was a money transmitter. FINCEN came up with the term "virtual currency" to describe services that allow peer to peer transfer of value denominated in a non-official payment unit, such as gold grams.

FINCEN introduced the category of "virtual currency" in 2012, in their attempt to broadly interpret the USA Patriot Act. Other regulators such as FATF have followed suit, and this terminology is now used by several countries. By their definition a "virtual currency" is a fungible peer to peer payment unit denominated in something other than fiat-currency issued by a government.

Currently the FATF, EU Payment Directive and other recognize the following taxonomy:

e-money - peer to peer payment services denominated in government issued currency units, but not engaged in fractional reserve banking.

virtual currency - electronic peer to peer assets denominated in something that is not a government issued currency unit

The term digital currency has not made it into the official taxonomy, but as it was originally and historically used, it would mean any P2P transferable unit of value, regardless of who issues it. Therefore virtual currency and e-money would both be included in the definition of digital currency.

Interesting information. Do you think you could list some additional sources confirming the claims? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=e-gold-list%40talk.e-gold.com&q=%5C%22digital+currency%5C%22&o=newest&start=300

False claim in article

[edit]

Under the "Virtual currency" section, this claim is made: "The key attribute a virtual currency does not have according to these definitions, is the status as legal tender."

This claim is made in regards to this part of a quote of the US Department of Treasury: "... but does not have all the attributes of real currency."

The problem here is that the U.S. Department of Treasury wasn't referring to legal tender here, but to the four functions of money according to economics. So, the claim made in the article is false, since it's baseless, also uncited. Specifically, cryptocurrencies fail the "store of value" function as they can't regulate supply to match demand, which is necessary to maintain a fixed value, i.e., "store of value". In banking, this is called "regulation" of currency and it can't be performed via a purely decentralized manner. Since cryptocurrencies are unable to regulate supply to match demand, cryptocurrencies function as an asset. This is exactly what happened to Bitcoin once people realized supply was limited, i.e., hoarding, which resulted in Bitcoin no longer being used as currency, but became hoarded by commodity speculators. This is also why the U.S. treats Bitcoin as an asset for tax purposes, i.e., Bitcoin couldn't perform as a currency in the long-term. See the "Functions" section on the Wikipedia page "Money" for more on the four functions of money.

Since the sentence with the false claim lacks citations and is very unlikely to find support, I would suggest that it be removed. I'm not able to make changes as the article is semi-protected. Once appropriate changes are made, please delete this from the talk page too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "the claim ... is false, ... also uncited." Well, no. The claim "Virtual currency does not have legal-tender status in any jurisdiction." is contained in the cited source,[1]: 3  and it directly confirms the claim you dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Audit Report" (PDF). Treasury.gov. 10 November 2015. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
Even so, the article is still incorrect, as it states that sentence is a result of prior statements in that paragraph: "according to these definitions". This is not true. The final sentence doesn't derive from any of the two prior definitions, one from the US DoT and one from the ECB. Both the quote you cite and conclusion in the final sentence are from the source cited in the article. I would suggest that the line, "The key attribute a virtual currency does not have according to these definitions, is the status as legal tender." be changed to "The US Department of Treasury also stated that, 'Virtual currency does not have legal-tender status in any jurisdiction.'" This is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

[edit]

The following section is not referenced and should be removed:

Doubts on the real nature of EU electronic money have arisen, since calls have been made in connection with the 2007 EU Payment Services Directive in favor of merging payment institutions and electronic money institutions. Such a merger could mean that electronic money is of the same nature as bank money or scriptural money. Alcuin MacAlcuin (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Vgbyp (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin:A 10-minute increase in mining blocks reveals BTC’s precarious future.

[edit]

Cryptoqed (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You have not indicated what change you want made to the article. I am also removing the "reference" which you posted, as no material has been posted for which it is a citation, and in view of your username and your other editing (now deleted) it was probably posted for promotional purposes.JBW (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

[edit]
Wisteed312 (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Payments Interface (UPI)

 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. Aoidh (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

[edit]

In the India section, here is the outbound link for the unified payment interface unified payment interface Wisteed312 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: We do not add external links to prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity section is full of dubious claims

[edit]

The “Popularity” section of this article is a paragraph full of unsourced statements and weasel words. The entire section seems dubious, and it doesn’t tell me much (or anything) about the popularity of digital currency. I recommend deleting the entire section. 2604:3D09:727B:6300:B413:4343:8651:6F0A (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_currency&oldid=1233202285"