Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 41) (bot
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 130: Line 130:
|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index|mask=/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
}}
}}

== RFC on bitcoin/Bitcoin capitalization ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 22:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1731448871}}

Shall we continue to use lowercase or capitalize the first character, and thus use ''Bitcoin''? Note [[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ]] says to use lowercase ''bitcoin'' in all cases, and this dates to 2014. And does this consensus apply to inbound wikilinks? Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 21:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

===Polling===
* I vote "Bitcoin" rather than "bitcoin" - see discussion for my rationale. (My first time participating in an RfC please remove this comment if I should not have left this comment here) [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]])Artem P75
*No strong opinion; the status quo of lowercase '''bitcoin''' is fine with me but I'm amenable to change should a new consensus emerge. As outlined below, all I really care about is consistency across articles. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::Status quo actually has been to use the large B for more than a decade. Its only a recent change that changed it to small character. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Other way around. :) You acknowledge it in the opening of this RfC. It's been lowercase ''bitcoin'' since 2014, applied quite consistently to this article. [[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ]]. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 23:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*I'd actually prefer lowercase ''bitcoin'' for the units of account (e.g., ''10 bitcoin'') and uppercase ''Bitcoin'' for the technology/blockchain (e.g., ''the Bitcoin network''). [[User:Vgbyp|Vgbyp]] ([[User talk:Vgbyp|talk]]) 10:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I prefer "bitcoin" always lower-case and while I admit I don't like the idea of "Bitcoin" for tech and "bitcoin" for unit, I would still MUCH prefer that to the other option of always upper-case "Bitcoin". The unit of account should always be "bitcoin". [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 14:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* I vote for consistency and simplicity. So either "bitcoin" or "Bitcoin" but not something like "lowercase for the unit and uppercase for the technology". [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 11:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* I vote to stick with only "bitcoin". I will write my rationale in the discussion. To put it briefly: No compelling reason to change from lower-case after more than ten years, changing will cause confusion and it will mean massive updates to many pages even though we gain nothing and 90% of crypto-page contributors are used to lower-case and most articles use lower-case already. [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* Consistency should be kept, in my opinion. With that, as Bitcoin is more than just a currency (technology/otherwise), uppercase in all cases should be used. While this might make less sense for unit accounting, Bitcoin is '''not''' just a unit, it's much more, and we should use standardized capitalization that fits most scenarios. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 13:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*{{small|(from [[WP:RFC/A]])}} My primary opinion would be '''bitcoin''' for currency, '''Bitcoin''' for technology platform. Failing that, I would prefer always lowercase. I would strongly object to always uppercase. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] ([[User talk:Fieari|talk]]) 05:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''bitcoin'''. — Consistency would add clarity and would be much less distracting. It would also bypass debates over whether or not the 'technology' or the 'currency' is being discussed, which can be a lot more subjective than it might seem.
:Bitcoin is not named after a person, nor is it a company or brand owned by a company, so [[MOS:TM]] doesn't apply. We do not typically capitalize the names of either technologies or currencies, why make this the exception? By way of comparison, in an international context when people say "the dollar" they usually mean the US dollar and its accompanying financial institutions. This wouldn't mean that 'dollar' should be capitalized in that context. Sometimes sources do capitalize 'Dollar' in that situation to make a political point (or by mistake), but this kind of editorializing isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The same applies here. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 20:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Grayfell}} I looked at a couple of other technology articles trying to find something similar, and I see generally the use of capitalization of the first letter in both the article name as well as throughout the article. For example, [[Linux]], [[Gnutella]], and to an extent [[Unix]] with Unix being a bit more complicated as there is a trademark for UNIX (in caps). Do we have some examples of open source software projects that tend to use the lower case? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::As I said, bitcoin is not named after a person. Linux is named after [[Linus Torvalds]]. Bitcoin is also not a trademarked name, as both Linux and Unix are. Gnutella is a pun on [[Nutella]] (another brand name) and [[GNU]] (an acronym). Both Linux and Gnutella exist specifically because Unix is proprietary software, and trademarks are typically capitalized, so there is a certain sense in continuing this capitalization. Bitcoin, on the other hand, exists as a cryptocurrency, and currencies are not typically capitalized. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 19:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*{{small|(from [[WP:RFC/A]])}} '''bitcoin'''. Currency names are lower case. Discussions over at [[Ethereum]] decided to use "ether" ([[Talk: Ethereum/Archive 4#Uppercase currency name?]] and [[Talk: Ethereum/Archive 3#Ether or ether?]]) so there is precedent. As one of those discussions points out, MOS prefers lowercase when sources are mixed. Grayfell's reasoning above is sound: by using lowercase there is no risk of debates about technology versus currency. [[User:CareerDoofus|CareerDoofus]] ([[User talk:CareerDoofus|talk]]) 23:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''bitcoin'''/status quo - I'm new to this debate/question, but after a very quick glance at 3 RS's, it seems like the lowercase is the common practice. [[User:NickCT|NickCT]] ([[User talk:NickCT|talk]]) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
*Capitalized '''Bitcoin''' is my preference. I would think we would follow [[WP:COMMONNAME]] that would tell us to took at what is more common. {{user|a455bcd9}} pointed out above in comments that the larger B was 3x more common. [https://bitcoin.org/en/vocabulary#:~:text=Bitcoin%20%2D%20with%20capitalization%2C%20is%20used,as%20a%20unit%20of%20account. Here] a bitcoin.org primary source (albeit a very important one it that it is the somewhat official website on the domain created by Satoshi) puts it clearly and states "Bitcoin - with capitalization, is used when describing the concept of Bitcoin, or the entire network itself. e.g. "I was learning about the Bitcoin protocol today." bitcoin - without capitalization, is used to describe bitcoins as a unit of account. e.g. "I sent ten bitcoins today."; it is also often abbreviated BTC or XBT." As I think this article is about the network and not the unit of account, I think we should use capitalized "Bitcoin". For us to use the lower b will confuse reader that we are referring to the unit of account, and this is bordering on [[WP:JARGON]]. To help create some discussion of a broader policy we can follow, I think if we are referring to the plural, we could mostly use '''b'''itcoins but if we are referring to the unit of account (which is rare). Please note this is not a [[WP:STATUSQUO]] issue as we have been using capitalized version for a decade or more and the term was changed by an apparent SPA. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tquote|Please note this is not a WP:STATUSQUO issue as we have been using capitalized version for a decade or more and the term was changed by an apparent SPA.}} – Other way around, actually. It's been lowercase ''bitcoin'' since 2014: [[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ]]. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 15:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*::No, it wasn't the case in practice. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::It was – just look at revisions of the page from various years: [[Special:Permalink/806801579#Design|2017]], [[Special:Permalink/876832085#Design|2019]], [[Special:Permalink/1087635153#Design|2022]], etc. (chosen at random). All of these are overwhelmingly using ''bitcoin''. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Bitcoin''', as this is the [[WP:COMMONNAME]], and thus the most likely expected formatting by our users/readers by [[Google Ngram]]. I don't find the arguments to split ''b'' and ''B'' for denomination and technology, respectively, very persuasive. It seems to be an issue of technicality, and would soon run into various issues in implementation. Overall, [[WP:KISS]] reigns here. Don't make rules so complicated they will inevitably result in issues. '''Capitalized''' is the way most users (and readers) likely think about it, and thus makes the most sense to implement as an overall rule. —&nbsp;[[User:Shibbolethink|<span style="color: black">Shibboleth</span><span style="color: maroon">ink</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Shibbolethink|♔]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Shibbolethink|♕]])</sup> 19:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

===Discussion===
*{{user|a455bcd9}} above has noted that "Google ngram viewer, Bitcoin is 3x more common than bitcoin and both are growing": https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bitcoin%2CBitcoin&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false :Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Are there any advantages / disadvantages to either? From my perspective it just seems like a semantic difference. Unless someone comes along and rationalizes why either may be better, my two cents is that it doesn't matter, and I therefore support either at this time [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 03:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe in that with the small b the term is being used as descriptive rather than as a proper name. Thoughts? [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 04:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::My train of thought would be that it doesn't really make sense as a descriptive? I wouldn't refer to Ethereum as "a bitcoin" but would refer to it as a crypto-currency... I guess Bitcoin is Bitcoin. I guess in relation to BCH, BSV and BTG, BCH is a fork of Bitcoin, with the other two being forks of Bitcoin Cash - which I would still not describe them as different "bitcoins" but would again describe them as different crypto-currencies [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I also dont really see the use case for a descriptive bitcoin either. So then why would we drop the large B for a small b? For example the name John, is there really a use case for the name john? I would think if we are dealing with the name of a thing, it would normally be capitalized unless there is a clear convention to not capitalize (say a company name that is not capitalized in the company's branding). In that train of thought why would the article be named with a capital name, but all of the inbound link across wikipedia be changed to [[bitcoin]] (as {{user|ILoveFinance}} recently BOLDLY changed). Seems incongruous and a likelihood of creating confusion. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 04:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I did see the change to "b" it looks to me as though the edits were made in good faith by [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] and [[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]] under the direction of [[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ|this FAQ]]... I would still think that this direction is out-dated / makes things confusing and should be over-ruled [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 05:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, I wasn't arguing bad faith. Just dont see the point either. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 05:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed - well yeah with having this discussion I would change my "I don't mind" position to:
::::::::A lowercase "bitcoin" does not really make sense, I think it would only confuse the reader with the assumption that there is a "bitcoin" adjective, when from my understanding, there is only "Bitcoin" the proper noun. Other crypto currencies that share the "Bitcoin" name are not "bitcoins" but are separate crypto-currencies [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 05:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Why does a lowercase euro or dollar make sense while a lowercase bitcoin doesn't? [[User:Vgbyp|Vgbyp]] ([[User talk:Vgbyp|talk]]) 07:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You have a point there! I too dont know. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Interesting point. I would assume it would have something to do with being a unit (of account) (like grams, or liters, or meters). This article suggests that Bitcoin/bitcoin is less of a unit of account (for now, anyways).
::::::::::I mean, how far do we look into it? Is cash more or less fungible? Cash generally has serial numbers, Bitcoin/bitcoin has UTXOs, so they are pretty equal there, I would say. But is it a commonplace unit like the metric/imperial systems? Like other currencies? No, at least not as of yet, as it is not a unit of account today, I would say.
::::::::::Given this, I would vote for a capital "B" and say "Bitcoin" should be used going forward. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I would think because many countries have the dollar as their currency, with different value per dollar per country - it is not a single consistent unit of currency - Bitcoin however is Bitcoin, there is only one Bitcoin and only one price relative to Bitcoin [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 22:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think there's any deeper logic to the style of lowercase currencies beyond it simply being convention. There's only one [[renminbi]], [[Israeli new shekel|shekel]], [[Kyrgyz som|som]], etc., yet we still wouldn't capitalise those in any instance. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 22:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is a good point, I suppose then it is just a matter of semantics and does not really matter as long as we can reach a conclusion to have uniformity between articles? [[User:Artem P75|Artem P75]] ([[User talk:Artem P75|talk]]) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yeah, I agree – the uniformity is most important, to me. Something we can apply consistently. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 00:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's worth keeping in mind that the one thing that most style guides ''can'' agree on is that the unit of currency is always lowercase (''bitcoin''), much like dollars, euros, pounds, and so on. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'd say, though, that since bitcoin/Bitcoin is not currently used as a unit of account, in most places, that it is not a standardized unit (like others) and a capital B should likely be used.
::::::::::Then again, if it is considered a commodity, I think most are classified with a lowercase letter (as not a proper noun)? [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 23:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{tq|I'd say, though, that since bitcoin/Bitcoin is not currently used as a unit of account, in most places, that it is not a standardized unit (like others) and a capital B should likely be used.}} I can definitely see the reasoning, but at that point wouldn't we be departing from the majority of style guides, if we were to use ''Bitcoin'' even for the currency unit? At least to my eye, it looks wrong to say {{tq|I gave him two Bitcoins}}. I think the convention to render currencies in lowercase doesn't have that much to do with their specifics, per se. Bitcoin might not be a stable, widely used unit of account, but nor are [[complementary currencies]] and other 'money-like' things which (with some exceptions, mostly for branding) typically don't receive capitals (e.g. [[stelo]], [[Totnes pound]], [[eusko]]). <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The thing is, Bitcoin (and this would apply for most if not all cryptos) is more than just a currency. It is a technology, and idea, a platform. The other currencies, or even other units, I don't think can say that.
::::::::::::Saying "Alice gave Bob two bitcoins" surely makes sense, but what if you were to say "Steve built x technology on bitcoin" or "Lightning Network is built on bitcoin." That doesn't look right to me. Repeating the three examples with "Bitcoin," looks better in my mind. Sure it is a unit, but it much more than that too. So for consistency, I think "Bitcoin" would make more sense. But this is more colloquial/conversational to say "Bitcoin" when referring to it in units. In text, the common abbreviation is "BTC" or the unicode character (though that is not frequently used that I have seen). For instance in writing, more often than not text is written or displayed (even when used for payments) as "...received 0.047 BTC" rather than "...received 0.047 bitcoin." [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 02:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tq|Saying "Alice gave Bob two bitcoins" surely makes sense, but what if you were to say "Steve built x technology on bitcoin" or "Lightning Network is built on bitcoin." That doesn't look right to me.}} – Yeah, it does feel a little... off, in those contexts. I can see why the distinction between the concept and the currency is so often made. Then again, it's only fairly recently that ''Blockchain'' became ''blockchain'', so I suppose these things do change over time – I'm curious whether there's any way to assess current usage and trends beyond just Google Ngram. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 08:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Ngram should never be used when case is important. You search "Bitcoin" and it has 500 results but you can't make a fair comparison to "bitcoin" because "Bitcoin" might start a sentence but "bitcoin" lower-case never could. And headlines using caps would always be "Bitcoin". So it's an unfair comparison. "Bitcoin" is also used in brand-names, company names, compound-words like Bitcoin Cash that have their own case. Also tens of thousands of quotes regurgitated of Satoshi who always wrote "Bitcoin" because in the early days all new tech gets upper-case haha. [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Across articles, "Bitcoin" and "bitcoin" have been used interchangeably, within the same articles often times. I'm not sure how standardizing across articles would be considered "BOLD," especially when the established consensus (Bitcoin FAQ) is "bitcoin." Maybe this is just a difference of how we define capitalized "bold." But I appreciate you recognizing that it was not in bad faith. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 13:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'd hesitate to call these changes [[WP:BOLD]]; they're minor stylistic updates to bring articles in line with an existing consensus, with appropriate discussion started by {{u|ILoveFinance}} and me. As for: {{tq|In that train of thought why would the article be named with a capital name, but all of the inbound link across wikipedia be changed to bitcoin}} – an interesting point, but that's simply because Wikipedia article titles are written in [[sentence case]] (with some exceptions like trademarks, e.g. [[eBay]]). Per [[WP:LOWERCASE]]: {{tq|Titles are written in sentence case. The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default}}. That's why we have [[Euro (currency)]] but we write ''euro''. The same applies here. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
* As I wrote above: "There's no established consensus on capitalization. As written in the article: "No uniform capitalization convention exists; some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the unit of account. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary use the capitalized and lowercase variants without distinction."". Reliable sources use one or the other spelling. [[Ethereum]] and [[Solana]] are capitalized but [[euro]], [[dollar]] and [[gold]] are not. So hard to decide. The only convincing argument is that B- is 3x more common than b- but that could well change in the future as well. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 11:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:There does appear to be consensus for Wikipedia, as per [[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ]], old as it may be. This is not to say we don't change this. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*::This page itself has zero value unless it reflects a discussion that happened here and led to a consensus. Do we have such a thing? In any case, there might have been a consensus back in 2014 when the page was updated, but as of today (10 years later!), it appears that all across the English Wikipedia, and including on this article (until it was changed recently), the two spellings have been used. So, by definition, there's no consensus anymore. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 14:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Makes perfect sense. That's all I was suggesting :)
*:::I provided a comment above with thoughts. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 14:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::There does seem to have been discussion that led to the current FAQ, and a consensus slowly emerged. Re {{tq|and including on this article (until it was changed recently)}} – actually, as best I can tell this article has fairly consistently used ''bitcoin'' throughout since that time; only a small number of appearances of anything other. I agree that there is a '''''lot''''' of inconsistency across articles. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'd also add that, while editors regularly appear quite inconsistent, titles seem to stick to the current consensus: [[Economics of bitcoin]], [[Environmental impact of bitcoin]], [[History of bitcoin]], [[List of bitcoin forks]], [[List of bitcoin companies]], and so on. Whether the capitalisation is consistent within the articles themselves does vary a lot, although I do note a general preference for ''bitcoin'' in most related articles including the aforementioned (and well prior to any recent edits). <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 22:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Ngram is bad for searches when case matters. Even with the case sensitive option. It uses OCR (optical character recognition) for some books and newspapers and for images of text inside books, OCR is bad for case and makes alot of mistakes. And, you get no insight into how the word was used. Like, are we looking at people writing "Bitcoin" in mid-sentence or when it starts a sentence or when it's in a headline or part of a brand or compound-word etc etc? Ngram is useful but should not be a major reasoning for anything where case is important like this IMO. [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 13:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* To me, what matters most is that we're '''consistent'''. This discussion began when I noticed this article using lowercase ''bitcoin'' throughout, but other articles varied: some used ''bitcoin'' at all times, others ''Bitcoin'' at all times, some made a distinction between ''Bitcoin'' for the concept/network/software and ''bitcoin'' for the unit of currency, and some were all over the place. I discovered that lowercase has been the preference for this article since 2014 ([[Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ]]) and adhered to quite faithfully since that time. The current consensus wasn't the result of an RfC (that I can find) but simply a number of smaller discussions where a general consensus emerged over time. Prior to 2014, it looks like the style was ''Bitcoin'' for the network and concept and ''bitcoin'' for the unit of currency. I'm honestly not convinced that honouring this distinction particularly benefits the reader (standard English makes no shade of distinction when referring to ''euro'' and ''euros'' which are always lowercase), but nevertheless it's the style that [https://x.com/APStylebook/status/438316517307215874 AP] and the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/all BBC] use ([https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-b The Guardian] appears to suggest lowercase).
:But again, in my view the most important thing is that we have a style we can apply consistently in this article and others. If the point is to benefit the reader, we need to be consistent; why bother making reference to style guides and usage statistics if we're going to have thousands of articles many of which use varied capitalisation, leaving an unfamiliar reader befuddled? I don't have a strong opinion (I'm honestly fine with the status quo of ''bitcoin'') but I do hope we're able to agree that whatever the outcome is, we can apply it consistently and throughout Wikipedia. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::It is not true that articles vary that much TBH. They are not completely uniform but most crypto articles write "bitcoin" 90% of the time. This is what crypto editors are familiar with and why changing it suddenly now is pointless and it will cause alot of confusion [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 13:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I do think ''bitcoin'' is more frequent on Wikipedia, but I have ''very'' little confidence in that {{tq|90%}} claim. I don't think I could put a percentage on it, but there is absolutely more inconsistency than that. That's why I bothered to raise it here in the first place. <span style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 2px;">[[User:GhostOfNoMan|GhostOfNoMan]]</span> 18:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* I strongly think we should remain with "bitcoin".
: 1) It has been lower-case for a very long time. It's what most editors in the crypto space are familiar with for bitcoin. Do not underestimate this and please don't undo things like this lightly.
: 2) No strong compelling reason to suddenly change it after +10 years?
: 3) Changing it will cause confusion. The "Bitcoin for technology and bitcoin for unit" is even more confusing. There is no need for that because it does not add clarity. A sentence so confusing that capitals would clear up the confusion is obviously a bad sentence that needs rewording. It is just a bad idea.
: 4) It is an easier task to begin updating pages to use "bitcoin" uniformly because '''most of them already use lower-case 90%.''' If we change then we have to change so many article names and texts. For no reason!
: For those reasons we should continue to write "bitcoin" IMO. (I apologize if I got the format wrong or made typos) [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 13:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* Also a strong argument is other currencies like has already been pointed out. It's dollar, pound, euro. It doesn't matter if we mean the "concept" or the central bank or the fiscal policy or anything else? A euro is always a euro. Yes bitcoin is different (it's also a technology and a network and a blockchain) but none of those are so special they need a different case. They're just associated things. Fiat currencies have things bitcoin doesn't too but we don't randomly switch lower-case to upper-case for those. The bitcoin network backs bitcoin, the bitcoin blockchain records bitcoin transactions, Satoshi wrote the bitcoin software so now we can send bitcoins to buy bitcoin merchandise and alpaca socks. Just my two cents. [[Special:Contributions/45.42.141.34|45.42.141.34]] ([[User talk:45.42.141.34|talk]]) 13:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
If the [[United States Patent Office]] continues to refuse to register {{tq|bitcoin}} as a trademark that would be dispositive for lower case {{tq|bitcoin}}, right? A few other countries have registered bitcoin as a trademark—some of those registrations are not for the financial instrument. — [[User:Neonorange|<span style="color:orange">'''N'''</span>'''eonorange''']] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk to Phil]]) (he, they) 04:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC) —
*Ping a few more editors that edited here in days of yore, see if they care to contribute. {{ping|Retimuko}}, {{ping|N2e}}, {{ping|David Gerard}}, {{ping|AndyTheGrump}}, {{ping|Kiwi128}}. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 12:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
* fwiw, I used to capitalise "Bitcoin" all the time but gave up cos AP style is to lowercase the names of cryptos, so "bitcoin" is more common now it seems to me. Compare the lowercasing of "internet" even though it's a single entity and you could argue it's a proper name - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 19:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024 ==
Line 237: Line 156:
::::::::As a more simple solution I would therefore suggest removing "that are hashes of a public key" - as this incorrect. [[User:Tannmauser|Tannmauser]] ([[User talk:Tannmauser|talk]]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As a more simple solution I would therefore suggest removing "that are hashes of a public key" - as this incorrect. [[User:Tannmauser|Tannmauser]] ([[User talk:Tannmauser|talk]]) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine</span>]] | [[User talk:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="color:#813d9c">talk</span>]] 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="background:linear-gradient(to right,#1a5fb4,#187148);background-clip:text;color:transparent;">Bowler the Carmine</span>]] | [[User talk:Bowler the Carmine|<span style="color:#813d9c">talk</span>]] 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024 ==

{{edit extended-protected|Bitcoin|answered=yes}}
Add release date to the whitepaper. [[User:Halotsch|Halotsch]] ([[User talk:Halotsch|talk]]) 16:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:We do have the white paper release date in the article. I dont see a field in the infobox for the whitepaper release date. So your request was not done [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== BLP noticeboard discussion ==
{{atop| status=Notification |reason=This is a notification of discussion, not intended as discussion here. Closing discussion to avoid duplicate discussions that has been [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#James Howells|raised elsewhere]]. [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}}
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#James Howells]] regarding James Howells missing Bitcoin ([[Draft talk:James Howells|see coverage]]) on how and where to cover this topic. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--> [[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]] ([[User talk:CommunityNotesContributor|talk]]) 10:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:I am not sure it is notable enough for its own article, but could maybe add one sentence to this article. Kinda also a bit of [[WP:TRIVIA]], so not sure if DUE here either. Just a suggestion. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 15:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


== first paragraph is bad ==
== first paragraph is bad ==


is is too technical, starting from the second sentence. it basically is completely unintelligible if you do not already know abut crypto [[User:Finnigami|Finnigami]] ([[User talk:Finnigami|talk]]) 05:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
is is too technical, starting from the second sentence. it basically is completely unintelligible if you do not already know abut crypto [[User:Finnigami|Finnigami]] ([[User talk:Finnigami|talk]]) 05:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:The first paragraph cites a source (8) where the speaker said they struggled to understand bitcoin. How is that an authoritative source? [[Special:Contributions/186.121.195.9|186.121.195.9]] ([[User talk:186.121.195.9|talk]]) 00:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== "Unknown person" ==
== "Unknown person" ==
Line 258: Line 167:
Schoolboy error. Should read "Based on a free-market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person or persons unknown." [[User:Covtom|Covtom]] ([[User talk:Covtom|talk]]) 13:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Schoolboy error. Should read "Based on a free-market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person or persons unknown." [[User:Covtom|Covtom]] ([[User talk:Covtom|talk]]) 13:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Bitcoin Art ==
اسحاق ء ا د ما [[Special:Contributions/169.155.235.241|169.155.235.241]] ([[User talk:169.155.235.241|talk]]) 18:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In 2021, a bust of Satoshi Nakamoto was unveiled in Budapest, Hungary.[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-irl-real-life-tributes-165036025.html]

In 2018, Nelson Saiers displayed a 9-foot inflatable rat adorned with Bitcoin references and code outside the New York Federal Reserve.[https://fortune.com/2018/10/12/giant-inflatable-bitcoin-rat-wall-street-facing-feds-building/] [[Special:Contributions/2600:4041:7973:7800:B837:7F4D:5644:4023|2600:4041:7973:7800:B837:7F4D:5644:4023]] ([[User talk:2600:4041:7973:7800:B837:7F4D:5644:4023|talk]]) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Undo of addition of new info regarding El Salvador ==

@[[User:A455bcd9|A455bcd9]] -- your undo of the revision sates that the revision is irrelevant to use in payments. I disagree. The points mentioned are directly related to payments. (1) It will no longer be mandatory for merchants to accept BTC -- directly related to payments and the previous sentence stating it was previously mandatory; (2) no longer accepting tax payments in bitcoin -- this is also directly a use for payments; (3) discontinuing its involvement in the Chivo wallet -- again, the most important wallet in El Salvador and directly used for payments.

Could you please clarify your stance on the undo? [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 17:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

:[[WP:UNDUE]]. This is the article about bitcoin. Not [[Bitcoin in El Salvador]] (where you added the same paragraph and it's great: thanks for doing so). The 3 points are not minor and irrelevant here in the bitcoin articles. Taxes and Chivo were not mentioned before. So their disappearance has no reasons to be mentioned either. The legal requirement to accept BTC was mentioned but we said it was in practice not applied, so again: irrelevant. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 19:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Fair enough on the other two, makes sense put like that, thanks. However, the legal requirement should still be added since it is officially being removed, even if as some small note...perhaps something like:
::"...despite being legally required to ''(this requirement was removed in December 2024)''." [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I removed "despite being legally required to". Better than the note because I don't know if El Salvador has already officially enacted the new law. So far I think it's just news announcement of the IMF deal. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Makes sense! [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*I agree with the removal, sounds like PR from the IMF. I read the IMF announcement on the the IMF website yesterday and there seemed to be no actual commitments from El Salvador to implement this and it was worded in a hopeful manner. Given that El Salvador went on to buy a large amount of bitcoin just after the announcement [https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/el-salvadors-bitcoin-wallet-be-sold-or-discontinued-after-deal-with-imf-official-2024-12-19/ said Reuters], we might also infer that this was telling a different story. There was also a [https://fortune.com/crypto/2024/12/20/el-salvador-sell-shutter-chivo-crypto-wallet-bitcoin-president-nayib-bukele/ fortune] piece, but I dont have a paid account for this. As Antoine said, this is all too speculative and undue for the article at this time, but could be good for the Bitcoin in El Salvador article nor are we going to get off into speculation of actual use of bitcoin in relation to this. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 01:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You can use reader view to bypass, depending on your device. Not sure how I could share that article with you. However, El Salvadorian officials have commented on this. Around the purchasing/not there are mixed messages, but the shuttering of Chivo (not appropriate for this article) and the move to make acceptance optional are confirmed. [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 03:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:For clarity to my above comment, it will still be considered legal tender as far as any announcements have gone, just made optional for businesses (except for acceptance for taxes -- have not seen El Salvadorian officials confirm or deny this particular point yet). And as to the point of being made optional, A455bcd9 already modified the text accordingly! [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 03:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] What would be worth mentioning in the article is if we find new data about the actual use in the country: how many people own btc? How many businesses accept it? How many people use btc monthly? Etc. [[User:A455bcd9|a455bcd9 (Antoine)]] ([[User talk:A455bcd9|talk]]) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I saw a more recent stat that an estimated 12% of the population owns some BTC. Need to find it again, will see if RS. Will post stats and RS here if I find them then we can figure out how to integrate (if makes sense). [[User:ILoveFinance|ILoveFinance]] ([[User talk:ILoveFinance|talk]]) 15:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

== Second Paragraph. So, um, what is Bitcoin again? ==

I'm not a crypto bro and have little interest in cryptocurrencies apart from in passing - like most people I would suspect. So, I came here to get a grasp, but I have no idea what this paragraph is saying - or trying to. This might be useful for someone with a knowledge of cryptocurrencies but trust me, for someone of any intelligence it's incomprehensible gobbledygook. And I say this with all respect to the authors

"[[Node (networking)|Nodes]] in the [[peer-to-peer]] [[bitcoin network]] verify transactions through [[cryptography]] and record them in a public [[distributed ledger]], called a [[blockchain]], without central oversight. [[Consensus (computer science)|Consensus]] between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on [[proof of work]], called [[Bitcoin mining|mining]], that secures the Bitcoin blockchain. Mining consumes large quantities of electricity and has been criticized for [[Environmental impact of bitcoin|its environmental impact]]." [[User:PythagorasDyscalculia|PythagorasDyscalculia]] ([[User talk:PythagorasDyscalculia|talk]]) 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:You're right, and you're not the first person to comment on this issue. If anything, you're being too generous. The first paragraph is no gem of clarity, either, and the rest of the article follows. The article is bogged-down with misused buzzwords and jargon. Attempts to fix this have met with tedious resistance.
:Obviously the article should explain the technical details of how this works, but there are much better ways to do this. The technical details should provide context for what it does and why it exists, which isn't ever really satisfactorily explained despite the article's length. This would be a much more useful approach for disinterested readers.
:Any explanation which avoids providing this context is going to end up confusing and frustrating to readers. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:48, 31 December 2024

Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

[edit]

Change: "In the blockchain, bitcoins are linked to specific addresses that are hashes of a public key."

to: "In the blockchain, bitcoins are linked to specific addresses that are hashes of a public key or redeem script."

This is because in general, bitcoin addresses are not only hashes of a public key. Tannmauser (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please provide a reliable source to back this change? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/keys/address
https://river.com/learn/terms/r/redeem-script Tannmauser (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards unfortunately. Please provide an academic paper, a book, or an article from a mainstream media. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mastering Bitcoin (Chapter 7)
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Mastering_Bitcoin/IXmrBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Tannmauser (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
S. Bistarelli, I. Mercanti and F. Santini, "An Analysis of Non-standard Bitcoin Transactions," 2018 Crypto Valley Conference on Blockchain Technology (CVCBT), Zug, Switzerland, 2018, pp. 93-96, doi: 10.1109/CVCBT.2018.00016.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8525397 Tannmauser (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concept of a 'redeem script' is not explained in the article (or even mentioned), introducing it to this article based on such flimsy sources would make the article even more messy and confusing than it already is. Our goal is not to pile-on technical jargon, it is to provide context to readers. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these considered reliable? @A455bcd9 Tannmauser (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tannmauser, yes these are reliable sources. But we should first define what a "redeem script" is. It might be too detailed for this general article. You might want to look at expanding Bitcoin protocol instead as that article delves more into technical details. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a more simple solution I would therefore suggest removing "that are hashes of a public key" - as this incorrect. Tannmauser (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

first paragraph is bad

[edit]

is is too technical, starting from the second sentence. it basically is completely unintelligible if you do not already know abut crypto Finnigami (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph cites a source (8) where the speaker said they struggled to understand bitcoin. How is that an authoritative source? 186.121.195.9 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown person"

[edit]

Schoolboy error. Should read "Based on a free-market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person or persons unknown." Covtom (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Art

[edit]

In 2021, a bust of Satoshi Nakamoto was unveiled in Budapest, Hungary.[1]

In 2018, Nelson Saiers displayed a 9-foot inflatable rat adorned with Bitcoin references and code outside the New York Federal Reserve.[2] 2600:4041:7973:7800:B837:7F4D:5644:4023 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undo of addition of new info regarding El Salvador

[edit]

@A455bcd9 -- your undo of the revision sates that the revision is irrelevant to use in payments. I disagree. The points mentioned are directly related to payments. (1) It will no longer be mandatory for merchants to accept BTC -- directly related to payments and the previous sentence stating it was previously mandatory; (2) no longer accepting tax payments in bitcoin -- this is also directly a use for payments; (3) discontinuing its involvement in the Chivo wallet -- again, the most important wallet in El Salvador and directly used for payments.

Could you please clarify your stance on the undo? ILoveFinance (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. This is the article about bitcoin. Not Bitcoin in El Salvador (where you added the same paragraph and it's great: thanks for doing so). The 3 points are not minor and irrelevant here in the bitcoin articles. Taxes and Chivo were not mentioned before. So their disappearance has no reasons to be mentioned either. The legal requirement to accept BTC was mentioned but we said it was in practice not applied, so again: irrelevant. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the other two, makes sense put like that, thanks. However, the legal requirement should still be added since it is officially being removed, even if as some small note...perhaps something like:
"...despite being legally required to (this requirement was removed in December 2024)." ILoveFinance (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed "despite being legally required to". Better than the note because I don't know if El Salvador has already officially enacted the new law. So far I think it's just news announcement of the IMF deal. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense! ILoveFinance (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the removal, sounds like PR from the IMF. I read the IMF announcement on the the IMF website yesterday and there seemed to be no actual commitments from El Salvador to implement this and it was worded in a hopeful manner. Given that El Salvador went on to buy a large amount of bitcoin just after the announcement said Reuters, we might also infer that this was telling a different story. There was also a fortune piece, but I dont have a paid account for this. As Antoine said, this is all too speculative and undue for the article at this time, but could be good for the Bitcoin in El Salvador article nor are we going to get off into speculation of actual use of bitcoin in relation to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use reader view to bypass, depending on your device. Not sure how I could share that article with you. However, El Salvadorian officials have commented on this. Around the purchasing/not there are mixed messages, but the shuttering of Chivo (not appropriate for this article) and the move to make acceptance optional are confirmed. ILoveFinance (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity to my above comment, it will still be considered legal tender as far as any announcements have gone, just made optional for businesses (except for acceptance for taxes -- have not seen El Salvadorian officials confirm or deny this particular point yet). And as to the point of being made optional, A455bcd9 already modified the text accordingly! ILoveFinance (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ILoveFinance What would be worth mentioning in the article is if we find new data about the actual use in the country: how many people own btc? How many businesses accept it? How many people use btc monthly? Etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw a more recent stat that an estimated 12% of the population owns some BTC. Need to find it again, will see if RS. Will post stats and RS here if I find them then we can figure out how to integrate (if makes sense). ILoveFinance (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph. So, um, what is Bitcoin again?

[edit]

I'm not a crypto bro and have little interest in cryptocurrencies apart from in passing - like most people I would suspect. So, I came here to get a grasp, but I have no idea what this paragraph is saying - or trying to. This might be useful for someone with a knowledge of cryptocurrencies but trust me, for someone of any intelligence it's incomprehensible gobbledygook. And I say this with all respect to the authors

"Nodes in the peer-to-peer bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger, called a blockchain, without central oversight. Consensus between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on proof of work, called mining, that secures the Bitcoin blockchain. Mining consumes large quantities of electricity and has been criticized for its environmental impact." PythagorasDyscalculia (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and you're not the first person to comment on this issue. If anything, you're being too generous. The first paragraph is no gem of clarity, either, and the rest of the article follows. The article is bogged-down with misused buzzwords and jargon. Attempts to fix this have met with tedious resistance.
Obviously the article should explain the technical details of how this works, but there are much better ways to do this. The technical details should provide context for what it does and why it exists, which isn't ever really satisfactorily explained despite the article's length. This would be a much more useful approach for disinterested readers.
Any explanation which avoids providing this context is going to end up confusing and frustrating to readers. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=1266460538"