Talk:Bitcoin

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I was the one who added that. It is a fact that there is only a single source. It is my opinion that it should be noted and yours that it should not. The Wikipedia article existed before any publicity (slashdot links to wiki, instead of the original source) so its likely that the authors are using wikipedia to increase their credibility. Next time I will add it to the discussion first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CacbaVII (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Publication about BitCoin on popular Russian open-source resource: http://www.linux.org.ru/news/opensource/5113340 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.66.3 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Also it doesnt seem to follow any of the WP:NOTE guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.35.117 (talk • contribs)

It sounds like you need to read up on what precisely this concept does, as it is not based upon fractional reserve banking and a central regulatory authority. This isn't really a false statement as the design of the money specifically doesn't need any of that to happen in order for it to effectively work. You are correct that it doesn't prevent promissory notes based on this coinage, but it does prevent somebody from "loaning" money they don't have (hence fractional reserve lending). As for greater instability... I would like to know what theory suggests it would be more unstable, even if the claim for better stability could be just as suspect.

There are several 3rd party websites that are discussing this concept, which can be found through a simple Google search (or your favorite web search engine). Most of them are blogs, which gives rise to WP:SPS. Not all of these sources are good, but there might be a couple that could be debatable as having been written by "experts in the field". I openly admit that I would like to see some more genuine academic presentations and scholarly papers on the subject... something that similar kinds of concepts have received. By a very loose interpretation of WP:NOTE, this article does qualify as having multiple 3rd party sources. Debating the quality of those sources, however, is a much more fair criticism and perhaps they aren't quite good enough to meet a typical Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources of information. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The US dollar is not based upon a fractional reserve system. Banks do not print money, they take you're money and promise to give it back when you want it. The amount of US dollars (paper currency) is dwarfed by the amount of bank promissory notes. The question for bit coins becomes; will banks provide enough value to exist? Obviously a system for loans is of value. Banks can also provide security, accessibility and interest to your bit coin wallet. It seems far from certain that bit coins prevent fractional reserve banking and this hyperbole provides doubt on the rest of the article. My claim of instability is just that if banks came into existence, there is currently none of the regulation that exists on US dollar banks. I agree that this could change banking from charging 3% for some simple database processing (bank transactions) to a near free service. However there are many ways of achieving this goal and if bitcoin reduces peoples trust in new methods of banking it would make adoption of others more difficult. Until credible sources are found, I think Wikipedia gives bitcoin undue credibility.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.35.117 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If a bank is created in the United States (and most other countries), it would have to meet the standards and guidelines for banks as they exist for the jurisdiction where the bank is located at. The regulations for a "Bitcoin" bank are identical as one that works with dollars, although it might be a bit of an uphill climb for some private individual to convince regulators to allow them to use bitcoins instead of dollars. If there is a bank operating without the formal licensing (including business licenses), it is an "illegal" bank and could result in some pretty large fines if some attempt to "go legit" doesn't happen.

I agree. If the bitcoin organization (providing bank like services) was under the same regulation as normal banks then they would have the stability similar to normal banks. I made the assumption that an organization dealing in bitcoins isnt currently subjected to traditional banking regulation.

BTW, the U.S. Dollar is indeed based upon a fractional reserve system. That is why the "central bank" in the USA is called the Federal Reserve, which maintains the regulations on the percentages of reserve that must be maintained by each bank and acts as the money supply. Yes, I realize that paper currency transactions are a minor part of the overall dollar-based economy now, but it would take to actually learning a bit about what is being talked about here. One thing that is different between Bitcoins and Dollars is that Bitcoins can't be created "out of nothing" except in a manner that has already been described. That process of creating new units of this currency is extremely limited and throttled with CPU limits with a mathematically difficult to perform task. A doubling of the money supply simply can't happen without the full cooperation of the entire network (or at least a super-majority of the network). In the case of the U.S. Dollar, that can be done by the authority of just a small group, mainly the board of governors for the Fed. If you aren't aware of it, that in fact was done this past year with trillions of dollars literally created out of nothing and put into the U.S. banking system.

The central bank is now the only one with the ability to create US Dollars. I was wrong to say paper currency, they adjust the money supply via electronic accounts (open market operations, the buy/selling of government bonds). This has nothing to do with the fractional reserve banking system. The central bank does have the power to adjust the amount of Bank promissory notes by adjusting the required reserve rates banks must hold. These two abilities have a similar effect but are entirely separate. The fractional reserve banking system could be removed from the US Dollar.

As far as credibility, that is in the eye of the beholder. In terms of this article, the issue about keeping this article rests on notability, which I think this article is barely borderline to be kept and many Wikipedia editors would argue that it fails the requirement. Those opinions have been and are expressed on the AfD page. Regardless of what you think about the validity of the concept of Bitcoins, it is something that is unique in terms of what it does. We can debate the merits of what it accomplishes and certainly there are parts of this article that can be edited to give a more neutral tone... and to express contrasting viewpoints on controversial aspects of this idea. Rather than debating the merit of Bitcoins and its stability or instability (which is better done on the Bitcoins forum anyway and not here on Wikipedia), the focus here should be on what is written and the article itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)