Template talk:Bitcoin

comments

Feel free to add/edit this template. I just quickly threw up these sections/topics. Genjix (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I don't think that Blockchain.info is a 'technology'. I also don't think bittorrent is a bitcoin-related technology. I'm skeptical of the link to peer-to-peer file sharing, since file-sharing is not a Bitcoin-spedific technology either.Sanpitch (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Companies" criteria

Some of the companies listed are bitcoin exchanges (Coinbase, Mt. Gox), while the bitcoin exchanges category that already includes them is also listed. For consistency, I'd suggest listing just the category, or listing all the exchanges as companies. Although some exchange companies also engage in other Bitcoin-related activities (e.g., LocalBitcoins manufactures ATMs, Coinbase provides merchant-processing services). Agyle (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I've trimmed the list previously. This is bound to keep happening. Suggest we delete the "Bitcoin exchange" category any just maintain the list here in the template. The category system is inflexible and doesn't make sense when there are so few topics in the taxonomy. Chris Arnesen 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could delete this template. I'm not particularly fond of it anyhow. Chris Arnesen 02:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the template can be useful, having people and companies listed in one place, but useful may not outweigh the WP:NOTADIRECTORY principle. The same could be accomplished with categories or lists, but they'd probably be removed for NOTADIRECTORY reasons. I don't have an opinion on deleting/retaining this template, as I just don't know much about WP's normal guidance on them, and don't feel like digging into the topic. :-) Agyle (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note: there is now a List of Bitcoin companies article. Maybe we should get rid of the individual company listings on this template in favour of that? -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People

Propose to add Adam Back Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the removal of at least three people from this template. I would include Andreas Antonopoulos, Gavin Andresen and Adam Back. What is the justification for this large change without consensus? - Shiftchange (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is messy

This infobox, to me, feels like it just lacks structure and is an indiscriminate list of all things Bitcoin, though it isn't even consistent on that (omissions of various relevant topics). It needs restructuring and trimming imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader:, what do you feel is being left out? As you can see, I recently added a list of companies that are not exchanges. I would argue that those companies are more interesting, but at the end of the day, the template shouldn't judge what is and is not interesting. I wouldn't object to adding more structure, but I'd rather have an exhaustive list of related articles than having to make some weird decision on what is and what is not notable enough to link here. Why not just get rid of topics that are not notable, and then link everything? It would be weird to have two levels of notability, one for the existence of an article, and one to get included in this template. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about notability, more like having a clear inclusion criteria. Right now, this template is trending towards all things remotely Bitcoin related. This makes the template less useful. The "People" row is just an indiscriminate grouping of some people famous in the Bitcoin world. But the Bitcoin world isn't 2013-size now, enumerating them here is pointless. Perhaps keeping some individuals like Satoshi, as 'founders' or something. But, basically, imo this template needs a clear inclusion criteria to have any usefulness to readers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again, I still think this is an indiscriminate mess, and consequently of limited navigational value. It should be restructured, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam

I don't think 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam should be included for the history of Bitcoin. It's notable for the history of Twitter, yes, and it's included in Template:Twitter, but it isn't the biggest "hack" or scam to do with Bitcoin, heck, it isn't even a hack on Bitcoin at all, it's a hack on Twitter and a social engineering trick. As I say, 10 year test. This isn't the first Bitcoin scam, it certainly isn't the largest, and various others aren't documented here (like exchange heists).

By the way, David Gerard, this is a misuse of rollback. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your edit was one of this template's many, many drivebys.

Are there other scams that rated articles?

Given the history of this template ... what's a good, clear and objective criterion for its content? - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, I think anything related to the history or development of Bitcoin is relevant to be included here. The 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam is inherently related to Twitter, and their history, not bitcoin. There's so many crypto scams, they're just not worthy of individual inclusion on here. This one got more notoriety, especially since it revealed a flaw in Twitter's operations, but it has little to do with Bitcoin imo. There is no objective criteria defined as of now, and imo the template is a bit of a structural mess, but that's the criteria I would use personally. It would be more relevant to include WannaCry ransomware attack in Template:Microsoft Windows family, than it would be to include the Twitter scam in this template about Bitcoin, at least WannaCry was a vulnerability in Windows. We also don't include WannaCry, and all the various other scams where the scammers/hackers ask for Bitcoin, in here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right ... those still seem like subjective criteria. See also the section above this - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

add blockchain.com template

RG for Blockchain (talk · contribs) asked for Blockchain.com to be added to this template. In my mind, blockchain.com is not a notable exchange, and my initial response was that we would only add notable exchanges. However, then I looked at the template, and I see that we have lots of exchanges that don't appear to be notable (note that my view on exchange notability as of this comment is just my personal opinion of notability). Note that RG for Blockchain is an employee of Blockchain.com. My position is probably leaning towards inclusion in the template (since there are many exchanges there already), but seeking comments first. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]