Talk:Bitcoin

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Given the recent Slashdot article on Bitcoin [1] and that I found this page helpful, I would vote that it not be deleted. 98.207.104.187 (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting new technology to someone (like me) who deals in economics and computer science research. On the other hand, this article is clearly too-long and written by an interested person. It should be substantially pared down but kept. 68.174.160.35 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote that it (the article) should be kept. It's a unique system of money with ever-falling inflation practically limitless divisibility. However the article goes into a lot of detail without explaining the smaller things (like what is a block, apart from something that the nodes create?).-BLSTIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.136.180 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who pays for what? Coins are generated by time.. What are the networks cpus used for? Who does use it? Is it used for design of Iranian nuclear toasters? Theres no thing like a free lunch.. 83.255.81.118 (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coins are generated by the individual CPU's in the network. The amount of coin generation (globally) is determined by time only, and the amount of your coin generation is determined by your CPU power as a percentage of the whole network. So to make a lot of coins you need a lot of time or a lot of CPU power. As for what it is used for? Digital media is all I can find at the moment. Things like e-books, songs, etc (although from a very limited amount of suppliers at the moment). However in the future (as faith in the bitcoin and its value grows) physical products and services may be offered. For example if you bring me oil and a filter and ask me to change your oil, I will probably accept bitcoins as payment. This is both wearable as a cost to me at the moment (as so few people are even aware of bitcoins, let alone have any to pay me with) and an investment in the future (as more people become aware of bitcoins more people will accept them as payment, and todays oil change by me will at some point be exchanged for a delivered pizza). Essentially it's a new currency that cannot be controlled and is fighting to be accepted. -BLSTIC

Single Sourcing

I have removed the following sentence from this article:

It should be noted that this article comes from one source, the creator's website www.bitcoin.org.

While I understand the concern, that is something which does not and should not be in the article and is a POV commentary.... perhaps even an editorial tag that is improperly formed. I agree that additional sources of information about this concept ought to be found, and getting everything from a single source is a bad idea even if it is a community project.

Along that line of thought, are there any other websites or places that are talking about this, besides Slashdot? --Robert Horning (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Th== My opinion ==

So what if it only comes from one source? References to how it works and economics should be referenced, but this is an open source software project. Why would it be deleted? It has extensive white papers, and those could be used for outside references to the ideas behind bitcoin. Grow it - don't delete it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.102.91 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:NOTE for details, and it does matter. I do think this is novel enough of an idea that very soon some additional papers and news sources (other than Slashdot) would cover this concept and topic. The call here is to seek out those other sources before this gets deleted. Even one good scholarly paper by a 3rd party that isn't in the development team (or published in a major conference or peer-reviewed journal) would certainly make a difference. Put the argument into the AfD if you really think it needs to stay! --Robert Horning (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the information comes from a single source, what does Wikipedia provide other than credibility? Some claims are false, such as the removal of fractional reserve banking. This system doesnt prevent third parties from creating promissory notes based on bitcoins and since it isnt regulated (capital requirements, government guarantees, etc) the instability would be greater.