Talk:Cryptocurrency

Daily page views for this article over the last 2.5 years
Detailed traffic statistics

Defining "Cryptocurrency"

It seems there is some lack of clarity in what is actually a "cryptocurrency".

My view:

• A cryptocurrency requires its units to be defined by cryptographic hashes
• A cryptocurrency is not linked to anything else of value (somewhat debatable)
• Transactions in a cryptocurrency involve transfer of ownership by signing with a private key, to a recipient public key address

For debate:

• Can a cryptocurrency be centrally controlled? My vote, Yes.
• Does a cryptocurrency require the ability to be transferred directly between parties, without a third party? Possibly not, but that would be an interesting cryptocurrency (arguably an escrow based cryptocurrency is entirely plausible) - my vote, No.

Not required:

• Anonymity /pseudo-anonymity
• open source

What is NOT a cryptocurrency

• A reference to value which is only encrypted while it is communicated (ie. bank communications which are encrypted)

Please expand VinceSamios (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Removing Bitcoin from the CryptoCurrency and Virtual Currency list since it's the First Virtual Commodity and not the first Currency. To be a currency, it need to be centrally controlled. Starting new section for a POV-check

Theochino (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• • There is a very clear line for you: its property, but not an asset. The differential elements are: title (rights), jurisdiction and consideration. A Chair inside a Building - both are property, but only one is an asset. I find it dangerous for people to reflect on these systems as "digital assets" All digital assets (code, movies etc.) have rights, consideration and jurisdiction, unlike "Blockchain assets" that have only some, or none of these. Whoever manages it (miners or ICO companies) doesn't really matter after that. FinTech-wise: I am against calling something an asset until there is a jurisdiction to enforce its value Litesand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Control-F "bitcoin". 94 results

It seems this article was written at a time when Bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency. I propose an overhaul to generalize the language. Bitcoin should be mentioned in the history/origins section and possibly once in the intro, but that should be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.237.195 (talk • contribs)

Be so kind and try to sign your posts, otherwise we have got no idea who is trying to discuss what. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Supposing that it is you who made this edit, I want to inform you about the proper procedure. When your edits are reverted, you are not supposed to turn to edit warring by reverting back immediately. The correct approach is to discuss the changes and try to find consensus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a list of reasons why I find your edits nonconsensual:

* You inserted a capitalized Bitcoin into the article, while the existing consensus in notable sources like The Chronicle of Higher Education or the Oxford English Dictionary and in this article is to use lowercase bitcoin.

* You inserted whitespace before a reference, which is discouraged by the Manual of style.

* The claims in the article you edited were based on an independent reliable source. Editing the claims, you actually misrepresented the cited sources.

* You also deleted a claim citing a WP:IRS replacing it by your own opinion, violating the priciple that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.

Summing up, you still do not have consensus with your edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Last but not least, by writing "User is shilling Bitcoin on the Cryptocurrency article.", you are violating another important principle, namely to assume good faith. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If two people are edit warring, how do you decide which version gets to stay up while the consensus is determined? Did the author of the version I edited get consensus for that edit? What if he/she didn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.237.195 (talk • contribs)

You should read WP:Consensus, WP:BRD and similar to find out more about Wikipedia policies. You may find out that I am not edit-warring, since I did not revert your edit the second time. Note, however, that it was reverted by another editor due to problems with policies. I can understand that it is not easy for a beginner to know the procedures, and that it can take time to get into it. Note also that both I and the other editor do assume your good faith, and that we reverted your edits only due to problems with the policies here. If you want to improve the article, it is best to research the WP:IRS on the subject. After doing that, you can change the article body. Body changes can eventually lead to necessary updates to the lead section, which is supposed to summarize the informations contained in the article body. Starting from the lead section without knowledge of reliable sources may not be the best approach. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• • Bitcoin is a major cryptocurrency, its impossible to ignore. Having to separate currency types on principle of operation does not relieve any one approach from issues of risk, jurisdiction and maintenance cost factors. It’s a mistake to separate mining systems into their own class without focusing on these factors. Let me know your thoughts, thanks Litesand (talk)

"Example" section needed

Unless the intent of this article is meant to be mainly academic it really should have examples including: 1) one or more methods a non-technical person uses to obtain some cryptocurrency (trading for cash, other?) 2) how to spend/transfer that currency (mechanisms, apps, software, registrations required by both parties) and 3) how check/dispute balances.

Maybe there should be two overview sections -- technical and non-technical. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a textbook. Its goal is to explain what a cryptocurrency is, not to teach you how to obtain/spend/transfer it, or how to check/dispute balances. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not suggesting that the article teach anything -- but examples do contribute to illuminating what cryptocurrency is. An extra paragraph in the overview could serve that purpose (e.g. One obtains cryptocurrency by setting up... then.... and spends cryptocurrency by....). Such an example is no more textbook-like than the current sections on history, criticism or economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbalest Mike (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the Overview section again, I have to wonder who the intended audience is for this article. I can't imagine the lede or the overview is useful to anyone other than someone already having familiarity with the topic. The WP is an encyclopedia, and intended for a very wide audience. Yet this article is written as if intended for a fan/enthusiast of the subject. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • I do understand what you mean by “Example” section. I think something like this already exists, maybe a separate article with a list of active coin exchanges, but I don’t see it being part of this article directly. I see this article purely FinTech related. You can probably add a related article link under “See Other” section, but looks like Cryptocurrency exchange link is already there. Let me know your thoughts, thanks. Litesand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding a second POV-check around Bitcoin in the Cryptocurrency talk.

Adding a POV-Check around Bitcoin based on the properties it shares with various discussions. (And would like a Neutral Admin to look at the properties.)

Bitcoin is a Commodity and it has been said by many Economic and Legal scholars.

A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is an intangible commodity that can be used as a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange using cryptography to secure the transactions and to control the creation of additional units and to verify the transfer of the Intangible Commodity.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theochino (talk • contribs)

• Theochino, you are a WP:COI editor, and as such, you are not supposed to edit the article. This fact is known to you for quite some time, and yet, you still do not seem to respect the policies. Also, please sign your contribution above.
• Per the sources you mention, it is possible to classify cryptocurrencies as commodities, e.g. per, or as "intangible commodities" per, but your formulation "that can be used as a digital asset" contradicts the available sources that claim that cryptocurrecies are digital assets, not that they "can be used as" digital assets.

Summing up, per the sources you mention, I can imagine editing the second sentence of the lead section as follows:

Cryptocurrencies are classified as commodities, as a subset of digital currencies, as a subset of alternative currencies and as a subset of virtual currencies.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• Ladislav Mecir, I don't know how it works where you are but here in the United States, having a court case to discover the truth doesn't make me a WP:COI editor, it makes ma an Expert Matter on the subject. I don't own any bitcoins, and I surely will make no money out of that court case; so please explain how that make me a WP:COI... Petitioning the court is the way in this democracy one get to the truth.

• Ladislav Mecir, the sources you mention are made up of journalists that have a hard time understanding what it is so they write something that is wrong and then other journalists read what you have been writing and continue to perpetuate the wrong definition. When I realized that your definition was wrong, I went to see an **economist** (someone with a PhD and I asked what is bitcoin) and we looked at it using the scientific method, method I have asked you repetitively to look at. Instead you have been saying I have a WP:COI

• Ladislav Mecir, here is Thierry Philipponnat, an European economist sitting next to Jed S. Rakoff (if you don't know him Jed S. Rakoff, it's the judge that said Bitcoin is money without using any scientific method and sent Charlie Shrem to jail.) The reason I asked Philipponat the question was to see Rakoff expression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lolFvY52LZw (11 seconds of Philipponat saying it's not a currency. https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/cercle-173085-le-bitcoin-nest-pas-une-monnaie-2109359.php)

• Ladislav Mecir bitcoin the token is not a currency, it's a Intangible Commodity. It's the first ever invented. Bitcoin is the first Bartering Network over the Internet. If you explain to people bitcoin as an Intangible Commodity, they understand it in less than 5 minutes flat. Why folks are afraid to say those two words? Bartering and Commodity ? You are right, a lot of resources will need to be changed, and I have this ticket open for Bitcoin.org https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1887 but the amount of change doesn't mean we stop calling thing by their correct name.

• Ladislav Mecir, bitoins are not a subset of anything. They are the motherload. There is a case in Arizona, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6073504/united-states-v-costanzo (or http://courtcasedocs.com/Case%20Files/17-CR-00585-GMS/index.html) where they explain why Bitcoin as money might be unconstitutional (the case will be heard next year.) This is the document: http://courtcasedocs.com/Case%20Files/17-CR-00585-GMS/pdf/052-0-20171030.pdf

Theochino (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are in a court case proves that you do have an external relation to the subject - specifically, you are trying to win the court case. I think that being able to edit the Wikipedia as you like would help you in the trial, but that is not allowed here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

You have never answered the question about you owning Bitcoins (I take it that you too have an external relationship to the subject.) Do you own any of those items ? Because that would be the same, you have an external relation to the subject. Theochino (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I never told you that I owned any bitcoins. I do not think it is constructive to claim something you know nothing about. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

My court case is about finding the truth, there is no winner and looser in my case. It's about defining bitcoin for what it is, an "Intangible Commodity" so the relationship Theochino (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your claims related to digital assets are not based on any sources at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have attached many articles from Prominent economists that says that bitcoin is a "Commodity" ... and you are ignoring them all because it doesn't suit your narrative. Theochino (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You cited a couple of articles claiming that "bitcoin is a commodity". I am not ignoring them. The fact is that I found a way to incorporate the claim to the lead section, but you did not react to my proposal, as far as I know. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the question whether bitcoin is money or not - this is known to be controversial, and various authorities present conflicting opinions. That is mentioned in the Wikipedia, and supported by independent reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned as a footnote. I would like to see displayed in the TOP of the page in big bold letters. Theochino (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think we shall mention it in the lead section and in big bold letters, when it is not settled yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my above proposal to reformulate the lead section - do you agree or disagree with it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"All commodities are assets, but not all assets are commodities." so I will agree to the wording that show that it is a Commodity, and then an Asset. Not the other way around. Theochino (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with the digital asset notion. The characterization as a digital asset is, however, quite specific and uncontroversial, as opposed to the classification as a commodity, where even one of your sources presents opposing opinions. Moreover, the classification as a commodity is not a definition. For example, iron can be characterized as a commodity, but (see Iron) that is an economic classification, not a definition what it is. Similarly for bitcoin. The claim that it is a commodity is an economic classification, not a definition what it is. I do not see much sense in putting the classification to the first sentence, which is supposed to define what it is. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that I have a problem with digital asset since it is a legal definition that has its own meaning. The bitcoin token is brand new so it get to have it's unique classification. An Asset is something that as a "static use" and a value that is defined by that static use. Outside of that usage, the asset doesn't have any value. Now, bitcoin doesn't care about the "static use" ... you can make an asset out of bitcoin, but the price of bitcoin is irrelevant on the use you make. For example, the hash code that is tied to a bitcoin for the purpose to tag a song, is an asset; but bitcoin is still the commodity used to make that asset. Theochino (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"You are absolutely right that I have a problem with digital asset since it is a legal definition that has its own meaning." - interesting. Can you point me to some source claiming that the digital asset notion is a "legal definition"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

A digital asset must have an owner, or a creator, if you will, who can legitimately define, protect and enforce "terms of use." Digital asset is unique because its 100% easy to steal and 100% reliant on the rule of law to sustain its rights. Now, lets take it further, on "any asset" definition. The best legal definition for an asset comes from Accounting: Asset is a resource instead of an expense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset Under such definition any Blockchain and Crypto keys are and ALWAYS qualify as non-asset due to their limited life-span and expense-like features accompanied by high maintenance fees. You can look at such keys as either an expense, non-asset property with a set depreciation value, or a token of good-faith that may or may not be there tomorrow as means of exchange. Any key by itself can never be an asset, but systems that issue such keys are assets if they do or can bring in revenue. Let me know your thoughts, thanks. Litesand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mining profitability as a requirement

The following is a discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. To clarify, this applies only to the validity of the statement alone. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.

The existing statement reads: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger."

The new proposed statement, in accordance with the proof below to read: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable."

Reason for the adjustment: the existing statement implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger. Any infinite call to action is false by default. In addition, the existing statement is grossly inaccurate, because it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining process delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. The existing statement must therefore be amended to include the limitation of profitability as a requirement for miners’ participation in the maintenance of the ledger.

Facts: miners are required to expense hard costs of mining; mining revenue is the sole financial incentive to miners; mining is the only revenue source engaged as a financial incentive to maintain the ledger.

Evidence: an independent article that shows hard costs are mandatory to mining.

Assumptions: all economic principles are expressed in long term.

Proof: lets begin with an established equation - revenue less expenses equal to profit (EBIT) or loss as a relationship to the financial incentive to maintain the ledger. This equation now combined with hard costs expense requirement, presented as evidence, in turn, allows to include hard costs as a mandatory value in the expense variable. In turn, revenue and a profit must also become mandatory variables of said equation, in order for the equation to balance. In turn, mining must be profitable in order to comply with mandatory variables and assumed long term economic sense. Therefore, when the system requires miners to acquire mandatory costs, miners have a financial incentive to maintain the ledger only while mining is profitable. Hence, no further proof is required.

Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @Ladislav Mecir: @C.Fred:

References

Litesand (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree:

"the existing statement implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger." - the statement does not say that, it is only you who claims it does.

Ladislav, thanks for the reply. The existing statement allows for infinite financial incentive as an option and thus I am mitigating this issue. I am not adding above-mentioned statement into the article, this is only my reasoning for changing the statement. I am allowed to state my reasons when proposing a change. --Litesand (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This supports the current wording as is: "why bother to be part of it at all? Because the third thing the puzzle-solving step adds is an incentive." There is no need to "correct" the wording in a way you deem "correct" - see WP:OR, in particular: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, this is why I added proof of my reasoning that is based on verifiable facts and evidence. I'd like to see an alternative proof that topples mine, this would help me evaluate this objection. In the meantime, I am going to add the following as evidence that shows that current statement is insufficient at the very least.

Source says “This mining equilibrium leads us to an interesting conclusion about Bitcoin: because mining resources must currently be purchased with currencies other than Bitcoin, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price of Bitcoin. Thus, if the Bitcoin price falls substantially, so too does the incentive to mine. This leads to the possibility of a death spiral in which loss of confidence in Bitcoin could cause the Bitcoin price to go down, a falling price lowers the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate, lower mining rate leads to the currency being easier to subvert, and this leads to a further loss of confidence in the currency.”

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A "proof of your reasoning" is just WP:OR. The relativized claim that "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable." assumes that at any given time (e.g. at present), mining either is profitable or it is not profitable. The reality is more complicated. Your own sources prove that different miners have different expenses, depending on costs of electricity and other factors. Therefore, different miners have different profitabilities, and even if some miners are not profitable, it still does not mean that mining is not profitable in general. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, thanks for another reply. WP:OR only applies to the article itself, I am not bound by WP:OR rules in the Talk section, or at least I shouldn't be. My assumptions clearly state that all economic principles are expressed in long term. This means that, as part of my proof, I am not obligated to determine if the mining is profitable at any specific time, because profitability issue is in the long run. Profitability, nonetheless, can also fluctuate rapidly, "leading to the possibility of a death spiral." Its an important distinction, so if it resolves your objection, the "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable in the long run" wording may be easily used.--Litesand (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, provided WP:OR is your main concern, this change in statement may work for you: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, because mining resources must currently be purchased with real currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price. Thus, if the price falls substantially, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. This leads to the possibility of a death spiral in which loss of confidence could lower the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate, lower mining rate leads to the ledger being easier to subvert, and this leads to a further loss of confidence and security of the ledger." This statement is WP:OR compliant and it also accomplishes my goal to clarify long-term profitability as a system's requirement. Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, such a change could improve things. However, there is also WP:CRYSTALBALL. To respect that, a wording not predicting future events that are not very likely to happen should be preferable:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, this makes sense. Nobody is an a position to predict when or if the long-term profitability will fall below required threshold to maintain the ledger, especially in an environment that operates high-risk activities that generally are able to sustain an incredibly high rate of loss and continue to remain viable (tax avoidance, money laundering etc.) I would like to use your proposed version, but also add one more sentence to clarify that the security of the ledger is also vulnerable to a possibility of future change in consensus among miners:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Although miners currently follow the original rules to maintain the security of the ledger, this behavior is stable only by consensus and the rules could be changed at any time.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was premature. There was no consensus with your latest sentence, since you did not allow us to discuss it. The problems with the sentence are:

• It is not clear what the sentence is supposed to say:
  • The source mentions three types of consensus, and you did not communicate which one do you mean.
  • It is not clear what does "follow the original rules" mean (What are "original rules" in the general context of cryptocurrencies?) I do not even think that such a claim makes sense.
• The use of the word currently violates the WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper priciple.
• The sentence seems to forecast change(s) of rules of cryptocurrencies. Changes of rules occurred in various cryptocurrencies. Some of them resulted in chain splits, some did not. Nevertheless, it is not clear how is that related to the previous two sentences. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, the statement can be re-worded, but the main objective is to state a possibility of a change in mining incentives with a change in rules (such as payout incentives), not specific to any one cryptocurrency. The reason is that the rules that govern the mining incentive can be overridden by the mining community with a potential to favor of miners first and security of the ledger second, specifically in case if the ledger is about to collapse and the future of mining profits is no longer an option. This version may work better for you:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger are not fixed.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now it looks more understandable, indeed. I think, though, that it may make sense to simplify the text to be easier to understand:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.

Ladislav, ok, however "can be changed" brings us back to miner "consensus" discussion, and it is prohibitive to go into further detail in an overview section, meaning the question comes "who can change them?" etc. Perhaps the alternative is to use "subject to change" wording that is both easier to read and focuses on the passive nature of the rules themselves.

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger are subject to change.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The "subject to change" formulation means that the change is likely. I know that the change is possible, but the claim that it is likely does not reflect the known facts or sources, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, yes, "subject to change" implies a more likely possibility than "something can change." The source clearly references a very real possibility formation of a mining cartel as well as general trend towards pool mining by larger entities. Currently, mining pools own the majority of mining capacity and are based primarily in China. Having to build a 51% consensus to modify incentive rules of the system in this environment is a substantial possibility and the source clearly addresses it as a fact. As barriers to entry increase, so as do odds of a mining monopoly that can easily act to modify any of the rules it wants. "Subject to change" is a neutral statement among these facts.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Litesand, taking into account that the strongest claim in the cited source is that "the rules could be changed" (see the Conclusion section), it is not true that the source claims that the rules are likely to change. Moreover, the source relativizes the claim further by saying "Even if a regulator forces the developers to incorporate changes into the Bitcoin rules and reference software, the rest of the Bitcoin community will be able to fork the rules and carry on under the ruleset of its choice.", demonstrating that there is a possibility to resist any effort even if a poverful actor seems to be able to enforce a rule change otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, the claim you mentioning is related to a much weaker option - government or third-party interference. The stronger reasoning to support the change in statement is that the network is built with an inherit flaw of having no self-regulations or government controls against monopolizing itself. Powerful pools of miners have a real ability to change the rules of the ledger, this is not a future prediction. Mining monopoly behavior is already changing the rules that, in turn, directly affect the security of the ledger. I am including this article (http://fortune.com/2017/08/25/bitcoin-mining/) as additional evidence to support "subject to change" statement.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really. "Subject to change" looks like your own opinion. It is not present in the source you refer to which discusses a specific case unrelated to mining reward, mentions the influence of a miner as only a possibility, and explains that any accusations may turn out to be unfounded. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, here is another alternative: "Collusion trends among some of the miners also systematically undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger." I think adding a simple statement that the ledger is a "subject to change" is more neutral, however, this alternative statement is directly supported by the evidence and is in line with WP:OR and WP:BALL. An example of a personal opinion is: without anti-trust regulations, mining is a dead-end technology that runs a lot of expensive heaters.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Re "subject to change is more neutral" - that is where I disagree all the time. I am sure it is not neutral. It would be neutral to mention that change is possible as the sources do, but "subject to change" is not a neutral representation of that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, “can be changed” version is ok, I don’t see that much difference between that and “subject to change.” I’d like to expand on the reason why the ability to change the rules of the ledger is critical due to lack of regulations within the system to discourage collusion. Currently, there are about five mining pool that control 60-80% of the ledger; these five cartels can agree or change anything at any time, mainly for their own benefit. The idea of a “mutually distrustful miners” is great, but its inaccurate since miners best option is always to collude and pool resources, instead of pure completion. The only thing that stops collusion is either inherit system built-in protections (there are none,) or securities regulations, (also none.) This is the great flaw of the system – without any built-in alternative, the system assumes that protections offered by the centralized entities such as pyramid and anti-trust laws are benign, and they are in actuality the only tools that hold real currencies and securities in check. Once miners were able to effectively collude in small groups, blockchain process has lost all of its inherit advantages and the ledger can no longer be considered independent or secure. Hence, this would be my proposed statement:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among some of the miners systematically undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.

Quotes from the publication I used as reference:

“Mining is now generally organized into pools of coordinating miners who partition the search for proof-of-work puzzle solutions and who share in the mining rewards ... Furthermore, as mining becomes increasingly specialized (with specialized hardware such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) for efficient hashing and the need for powerful computers to validate transaction blocks, the barriers to entry increase, effectively concentrating the mining power among a few powerful players who are less accountable to the (much larger) set of all Bitcoin holders.” … “We observe that a cartel can change any rules which are enforced by consensus and players who are not in the cartel will likely be obliged to follow. For example, a cartel can choose any strategy in the mining game. Players who continue to use the old strategy risk having their newly-mined blocks ignored as forks of the consensus branch and thereby risk losing the mining reward payments associated to those blocks. Thus, if the cartel announces its mining strategy, it can shift the equilibrium chosen by the non-cartel players.” … “An interesting facet of mining cartels is that they can censor certain transactions. The cartel can choose to ignore any transaction it does not want appended to the log. Further, the cartel can choose to treat any blocks appended by others to the log as forks which it will not attempt to extend. Thus, other players will naturally also abandon these transactions, possibly even consciously if the cartel announces that certain transactions (or transactors) are disfavored.”

Quotes from the article (my ease-of-use changes are in brackets):

(a blockchain expert), who recently wrote an editorial for Fortune questioning the viability of (a hard fork) … believes (a mining pool) is engaging in shenanigans to secretly undermine the integrity of (the blockchain ledger). “(A mining pool) does have a lot of control for now, and much of that is simply due to mining centralization. (A mining pool) is so vertically integrated, from selling ASICs, to operating mining farms, to running mining pools, he can prevent network upgrade and attempt to hijack the (the blockchain ledger) brand with things like (a hard fork),” (a blockchain expert) said by email … the real world market implications may also give pause for ordinary (cryptocurrency) buyers—many of whom are likely unaware of the emergence of mining cabals that are able to sway the future of (cryptocurrency).

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Litesand: The last sentence you propose ignores this part of the cited source: "We naturally ask, therefore, what a mining cartel could do if one ever comes to exist." In other words, the last sentence using terms like "systematically undermines", etc. violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. You seem to want to synthesize the claims from the articles to obtain these strong formulations, but that is not allowed by WP:NOR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, agreed, "systematically undermines" does somewhat combine both sources and is a recent development that needs more research. Hence, a proposed revision:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Re "collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50%" - I cannot help but think that this formulation suggests that such colluding groups already exist. Such a claim is controversial, at best. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, if the statement implied that such group already exists, then it would state it as a fact and reference that group. The revised statement warns of a strong possibility of collusion and its affect on the security of the system, exactly as does the source, hence its in line with WP:OR rules. The recent article also states expert's opinion that it is already happening, but I already agree that "systematically undermines" is pushing the line of combining the two sources, hence my revision. Having almost 80% of a joint hash rate in hands of only five pools (https://blockchain.info/pools) is also a fact. However, to address your concern, we can add "potentially" to that sentence. Also, going back, I can't find anywhere a reference to year 2013 in the statement "However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies." Where did you find the 2013 year reference?

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger. As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Where did you find the 2013 year reference?" - that is a "translation" of the word "currently" taking into account that the source is dated to 2013. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, I think the solution with the 2013 reference is to neither mention "2013" nor use the "currently" reference. The 2013 reference implies that this date has significance outside the date of the publication. Hence, revised version:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, because mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger. As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Litesand, since a 2013 source mentions "currently", and due to WP:NOTNP, it is a standard practice in Wikipedia to use the {{as of}} template to mark the statement which, per its source is potentially dated. The generalization you propose is not allowed, since it is not confirmed by the source.

Re "Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger." - this is a complicated sentence, not really related to the previous two. It also does not really make sense, since pooled mining refers to pooling resources among individual miners, while the "collusion" term you use is probably meant to refer to collusion between several mining pools. The fact that you use two sources to confirm it suggests that it is a synthesis, which is also not allowed per WP:NOR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, the 2013 reference is odd, but since wiki has WP:NOTNP rule, its very rarely enforced with the date of the publication like that, however, I wont object to it; in fact, lets do that to every reference on wiki and see how fast it confuses everyone. The source clearly draws the parallel between mining pool and collusion: "cartel... that is, no coordinating group of miners (or a single player) can hold more than 50% of the network’s mining (puzzle-solving) capacity. However, this assumption is questionable: mining is now generally organized into pools of coordinating miners who partition the search for proof-of-work puzzle solutions and who share in the mining rewards." There is no synthesis in the statement, however I can revise it state "pool mining strategies" "instead collusion strategies (pool mining)." The sentence is necessary because it further brackets an unlimited proposition that "mutually distrustful miners" have the power to maintain the security of the ledger, the statement clarifies that there is "unchecked collusion possibility" within the system that makes any healthy competition among miners - futile.

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. However, as of 2013, because mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger. As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose The last two sentences are just a synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, how exactly do you explain the synthesis for last two sentences? Last sentence "As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools." is taking data from a reliable source and summarizing it as a fact, nothing more nothing less. What part of the sentence is synthesized here? The sentence beforehand addresses "51% cartel constraint" of the system on the same terms as described by a completely separate source. If you oppose anything, do the wiki community a favor and explain what exactly the objection is - on actionable terms. Words "just a synthesis" means nothing to anyone here.

Thanks. --2601:646:4101:4740:B4B9:D746:5B88:BE5C (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim that "As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools." is indeed confirmed by an independent source. On the other hand:

• The claim is not related to the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency—even if the joint hash rate of the five mining pools was 100%, it would still not mean that the currency is centralized.
• The claim is related only to bitcoin, i.e. not to cryptocurrency in general. In this sense, the claim is unconfirmed as far as the subject of this article is concerned.
• The overwhelming majority of the sources claim that bitcoin is decentralized. This is pushing a particular point of view, for which only one or two sources can be found. Moreover, such sources are bitcoin-specific, i.e. they do not discuss other cryptocurrencies.
• The "51% cartel constraint" really holds for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies copying its design, the rest of that sentence is questionable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav,

• The claim is not related to the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency—even if the joint hash rate of the five mining pools was 100%, it would still not mean that the currency is centralized.
  • • The claim does not imply that the currency suddenly becomes “centralized”, it only states the current mining equilibrium: five pools control 80%. A completely separate claim states that the security of the ledger could be compromised if a cartel is formed, as does a separate source. If a cartel is formed, the currency will still remain “decentralized”, but the ledger itself could no longer be maintained by “mutually distrustful miners.” I added clarification that the currency remains decentralized by design.

• The claim is related only to bitcoin, i.e. not to cryptocurrency in general. In this sense, the claim is unconfirmed as far as the subject of this article is concerned.
  • • Well, the entire Overview section does the same thing, bitcoin is really difficult to separate from this issue. However, I modified the claim to reference bitcoin only, since the source only provides bitcoin statistics.
• The overwhelming majority of the sources claim that bitcoin is decentralized. This is pushing a particular point of view, for which only one or two sources can be found. Moreover, such sources are bitcoin-specific, i.e. they do not discuss other cryptocurrencies.
  • • The claim does not weight on the decentralization issue, only issue of mining pools. I added clarification that the currency remains decentralized.
• The "51% cartel constraint" really holds for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies copying its design, the rest of that sentence is questionable.
  • • OK, yes, however my goal is to only address limitations of the ledger control provided by mutually distrustful miners. I added the proof-of-work clarification to address this point.

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme. However, decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, are not subject to financial regulations, and pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger. Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design, as of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools. Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Because, as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.

Hopefully, this resolves your objections. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Hopefully, this resolves your objections." - unfortunately, it does not. As I said, the majority of sources claim the bitcoin is decentralized. The text you propose this time contains a huge blob of minority-sourced (at best) text trying to suggest otherwise. For example, "decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, are not subject to financial regulations" is unsourced, known to be incorrect and, in fact, unrelated. The claim that "five pools control 80%" is also unrelated, and smells as a synthesis attempt. Also, the claim that miners have an incentive to maintain the security of the ledger confirmed by huge majority of the sources is now buried into the huge blob of synthesis attempts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, as I said, neither the source, nor proposed statements claim the currency becomes "magically" centralized; this is a very odd objection you yourself invented and keep pressing, even after I added clarifications that the currency is decentralized by design. My main goal is to limit erroneous statements with regards to "community of mutually distrustful miners," that without any limitations, have full control of the ledger and have an unlimited incentive to mine. There are very specific pitfalls of the system that the source addresses independently, without me having to synthesize anything. Currently, I am only aware of US-IRS regulations with regards to status of the speculation proceeds from crytocurrency, these are not financial regulations. Nonetheless, I don't much care if there are regulations somewhere trying to somehow regulate unregulated systems, this is irrelevant to my goal, so Im removing this reference to clarify the statement. The claim that "five pools control 80%" is a fact, it is not synthesis, and is allowed under WP:OR, even if it smells like something to you, it remains true and is directly related because it addresses the state of the "community of mutually distrustful miners" as it stands today. "Community of mutually distrustful miners" does not readily translate into five mining pools to a reasonable person and this is why this clarification is needed. The claim that miners have an incentive to maintain the security of the ledger is generally correct, but ONLY up to a defining point, this is exactly why a separate clarification is also needed. Unless you have specific WP: policy objection, unfortunately, your personal opinion is not something I am able to resolve. My goal is not to blob or blurry anything, it is to clarify how existing statements are broad and over-ambitious: the system has inherit limitations when it comes to security of the ledger, exactly as described by the source to directly address your past WP:OR policy objections.

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme. However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design, as of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools. Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Because, as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"have full control of the ledger" - Let me inform you that this is a formulation that is in no source nor is it contained in the article.

"have an unlimited incentive to mine" - This is also a formulation that is in no source nor is it contained in the article.

"There are very specific pitfalls of the system that the source addresses independently, without me having to synthesize anything." - the majority of sources, even the academic ones, claim otherwise. One source claiming there may be some possibilities in one specific case do not suffice - per WP:NPOV we should not give the same or greater weight to a source that considers just some distant possibilities of some consensus failure as we give to the majority of sources that mention different facts.

Re '"five pools control 80%" is a fact' of course it is a fact. But it is a fact unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the cryptocurrency ledger. Your claim that these two facts are related makes the whole a synthesis.

"Currently, I am only aware of US-IRS regulations with regards to status of the speculation proceeds from crytocurrency, these are not financial regulations." - Consult WP:OR, please.

"The idea of a “mutually distrustful miners” is great, but its inaccurate since miners best option is always to collude and pool resources, instead of pure completion." - I do not understand why you think that "pure completion" is required in this case. This is also unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the ledger, unless you want to make a synthesis somehow. The claim that "miners best option is to always collude" is a WP:OR, and it is also unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the ledger.

'Community of mutually distrustful miners" does not readily translate into five mining pools' - Why should it, unless you want to base some synthesis on the requirement for it to "readily translate"?

"Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design" - It not just remains decentralized by design. It remains decentralized. I know that you are trying to claim otherwise, but that is a claim contradicting the majority of available sources. Rest assured that there is no consensus to give undue weight to such minority opinions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir I think some of your prior recommendations were excellent, especially having to do with WP:OR and WP:BALL policy, and have been noted and contributed to the revised version. Nonetheless, this subject was brought up here with a single goal to archive user consensus on proposed edits in accordance with wiki rules and the research done by others, this is not to debate. You had adequately voiced your opinion and its time to demonopolize this discussion by seeking input from other users. Hence, Im going to start a new subheading to seek further input. For you to effectively step back from participation, in my opinion, is a constructive solution to help gain consensus and receive independent suggestions from others.

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Litesand. The fact is that your "Mining profitability as a requirement" suggestion did not achieve consensus per WP:NOR. Your request for me "to effectively step back from participation" is not a constructive solution to help gain consensus - quite the opposite is true. All your attempts at slipping your "Mining profitability as a requirement" in were found problematic, and you trying to continue with them is now WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ladislav Mecir, you misunderstood, I will keep looking for constructive feedback and keep this issue open until WP:CONS is reached. Disruptive editing is at all not applicable here, your accusation is false, specifically after I had addressed your WP:OR recommendations. You seem to want to WP:OWN this discussion by turning a simple edit proposal into a debate. My request for you to "step back" from this discussion is an effort to hear from other users with regards to their take on the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR constructively. It you find it problematic, it only further proves my point.--Litesand (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Theoretical profitability

• What you are saying is quite clearly correct and should be included. If miners do not gain anything from mining then they have no incentive to mine (this is the point of fees and block rewards). The current form of the statement gives the impression that there is always an incentive to mine, even if a cryptocurrency is worthless, which is not the case. It is not too hard to find sources showing this: [1][2]. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No, the current wording says that there "is an incentive", and, in this sense, it reflects what The Economist says. It is not a claim that there "will always be an incentive". Also note that the relativization of the claim proposed by Litesand does not reflect (misrepresents) what The Economist says. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is where we disagree. The current statement makes a bold assertion that miners have financial incentives. It does not include the (factually correct) qualifier that mining must be profitable and does not detail any exceptions, therefore implying that miners are always incentivised. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not factually correct that mining must be profitable. The fact is that mining is unprofitable with inadequate equipment and in places with high prices of electricity. That does not mean, though, that the same miner could not acquire a more efficient equipment and move to a place where electricity or other facilities are more affordable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

If miners cannot make money from mining, then they will not mine. This is not a difficult concept to understand. When I say "mining must be profitable", I am not saying "mining must be profitable anywhere with any equipment". I am saying that it must be theoretically profitable. If the market value of a cryptocurrency is $0 and miners are reimbursed in that currency then there is no incentive to mine, contrary to the current statement in this article. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As said above, your claim is just a WP:OR, actually contradicting The Economist saying "why bother to be part of it at all? Because the third thing the puzzle-solving step adds is an incentive." without the additional part saying anything about your "theoretical profitability". What your "theoretical profitability" even is? Any miner can be either profitable or not, the general knowledge is that mining is generally unprofitable unless the miner acquires very efficient equipment and moves to a place where electricity and other facilities are cheap. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal (January 30, 2018)

The following is a continued discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.

The existing statement reads:

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme. Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.

The new proposed statement, in accordance with sources:

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme. However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized, As of January 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools. Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Because, As of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.

Reason for the adjustment: the existing paragraph implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger and miners have an infinite ability to maintain the ledger in a form of a “mutually distrustful” group. The existing paragraph is grossly inaccurate due to omission of a number of limiting factors built into the system. First, it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining the value of the mining reward delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. Second, it also refers to a “community of mutually distrustful parties” that maintain “safety, integrity and balance of ledgers” without mentioning a possibility of collusion (pool mining) by miners that can effectively seize control and remove “mutually distrustful” relationships within the group.

Evidence: an independent research paper, current statistics on the bitcoin pool mining.

Assumptions: all economic principles are expressed in long term.

Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @C.Fred: @Laurencedeclan: @NeilN:

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Adding a "Crypto Sign" to represent cryptocurrency

This design proposed by artist Johnson Rice is a symmetrical generic "crypto sign" for representing cryptocurrencies in a generalized fashion. This design was specifically created to be released into the public domain. It has been used by several organizations including the controversial investment ratings company Weiss Ratings, the first nationally syndicated radio talk show to ever accept cryptocurrencies "Free Talk Live", and a smaller regional organization promoting localized crypto usage, the "Monadnock Decentralized Currency Network"

There is a stark lack of visual representation of crypto when referred to in a general or generic way. A logo design has been created to represent it which was released into the commons as CC0 and been used by the first podcast and major globally syndicated radio talk show named Free Talk Live, and the design was also used by the controversial financial ratings agency Weiss Ratings which recently launched their cryptocurrency ratings. (These have been very controversial amongst crypto investors)

There are signs for other major currencies e.g., $£€¥, there should be an accepted symbol for cryptocurrencies. I believe this should be added to the page.

TempusInfernus (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What matters is what is stated in the words of a reliable source. None of the provided refs actually state this symbol is representative of cryptocurrency. Since Wikipedia does not accept original research, just linking to various company logos is not a valid source to support the use of the symbol here. Also, even if reliable sources can be found that state this symbol is representative of cryptocurrency, the puffery of who created it and why is non-encyclopedic, it's irrelevant to the article so doesn't belong in the caption. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the puffery, and stated it because this blurb is that it is about a PROPOSED design / logo for CryptoCurrency, as there is not an accepted universal crypto sign yet, and the Free Talk Live reference actually does state that it is a design for cryptocurrency, but in audio format as it is a podcast / radio show. All of these sources ARE in fact fairly clearly using this logo to represent and discuss cryptocurrency, but I take it the authors here will only accept someone who has written an article about the symbol itself? I'm sure I could talk to some people at Bitcoin Magazine and Bitcoin Talk and see if they want to cover it. :: TempusInfernus (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-existent symbols as of February 2018 per WP:OR; Talk Page content only.

Its an interesting direction, however, I doubt it will make it into the main article due to WP:OR rule. You will need to have this symbol accepted and published elsewhere first. The overall design you propose is difficult to replicate: currency design must be simple and easy to write. If you had asked me to come up with a symbol for cryptocurrency, I would say that it can’t be done. At least two separate symbols must be utilized: one is for proof-of-work and another ia for proof-of-stake. At this point, I would refer to the Columnarios for twin worlds inspiration, as does the USD. The double column design “support” is quite brilliant. My best guess from there is an “upside down” pyramid for proof-of-work designation and the “upside” pyramid for proof-of-stake designation. The “upside down” pyramid is relevant due to decentralized nature of the system and the fact that support is required to exist in the world of the real currency. The “upside” pyramid is self-explanatory. Again, if ONLY to break all WP:OR can you actually add anything right now. I do like your efforts to resolve this, keep at it.--Litesand (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversial

Note that this section was never a Request for Comment, and it has not been closed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It has not been closed by an admin and it would be better for people to see the discussion at WP:AN than to deny the obvious - that cryptocurrencies are controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One editor does not think that cryptocurrency is controversial and has removed the word and supporting text twice. I'd responded to his templating me on my talk page with the following.

controversial

adjective /ˌkɑn·trəˈvɜr·ʃəl, -ˈvɜr·si·əl/

causing or likely to cause disagreement

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/controversial

If you don't think cryptocurrencies are controversial, you haven't been following the many disagreements that they are causing. see e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree
  • The dictionary definition of controversial does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The Facebook is not an independent reliable source and does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The Fortune article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The NY Times article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The CNBC article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
  • The American Banker article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Also note that per WP:LEAD 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' That is why I disagree with your edit adding

  On January 30, 2018 Facebook banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies as well as for initial coin offering and binary options.

  to the lead section. It is not a summary, nor it introduces cryptocurrency as the subject of the article. That is why it does not belong to the lead section, which should be reverted to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Let us not try to pick this apart with Wikilawyering. Cryptocurrencies are obviously controversial in that they are causing many controversies. Facebook was not cited as as a source, but obviously they know what they are writing about when they explain their own policies. Roughly, that policy is that ads for cryptocurrencies, ICOs and binary options won't be accepted because many of these advertisers are not acting in good faith. The cited sources are the Financial Times and Bloomberg - you can't get better sources than that in business and financial areas. They were asked to do this by the FBI and Canadian regulators and I can source that as well.

Somehow, I think you are asking for a direct quote from such a source saying "cryptocurrencies are controversial". Quotes like that are *not* required by our policies, only that the the sources support the wording. Nobody reading the sources I provided can come away thinking that cryptocurrencies they are anything other than controversial. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency itself cannot be described as controversial. This is like saying automobiles are controversial because they facilitate armed robberies. I suggest removing this word and elaborating elsewhere in the article. Fanta206 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense, please read the definition above. What you are saying is that the Chevrolet Corvair (Unsafe at Any Speed) or the exploding Ford Pinto cannot be described as "controversial cars" because of some grammatical rule that you just invented from whole cloth. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are describing Cryptocurrency as controversial which as you quite rightly point out is defined as "causing or likely to cause disagreement". Yet, I can only assume you're alluding to either the Bitcoin protocol scaling debate, or the legislation debate. In any case, this is merely two areas of the whole ecosystem. You cannot describe it as controversial as a result of the scaling debate as it applies only to Bitcoin, not cryptocurrency as a whole, and you cannot describe it as controversial as a result of legislators concerns, as there is not widespread debate surrounding this yet; most of the citations I can find seem to in fact suggest widespread acceptance of legislation. If you are alluding to something else, please cite it. Fanta206 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

See the 25 or so references in our article Cryptocurrency bubble and the 700,000 pages given in a Google search of "Cryptocurrency bubble". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

* Google search results are not useful as an encyclopedic argument, sorry.

* Articles claiming that there is a cryptocurrency bubble do not make cryptocurrency a "controversial asset", similarly as articles claiming that there is a real estate bubble do not make real estate a "controversial asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

How about the reference you just added? See

• Rushe, Dominic (25 March 2014). "Bitcoin to be treated as property instead of currency by IRS". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 February 2018. in the lede.

I do think you are tending toward a violation of WP:OWN on this article. What kind of references are needed to include the fact that Facebook has banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies? Why aren't the Financial Times and Bloomberg L.P. good enough? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Instead of assuming bad faith, you should consider inserting the information into the article body. This particular news may have some place there, but surely not in the lead section as explained in WP:LEAD. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Agree, with an adjustment
  • Smallbones, thank you for proposing to edit claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset." It is obviously has the correct spirit, but please allow me to explain the reason for resistance from other users on this issue. Your focus with this change is on the word "controversial." You will have a very hard time finding legitimate sources and publications that can argue for cryptocurrency being "controversial" because concept of "controversial" is subjective, it is, in fact, an opinion. What is not an opinion, and is a fact, is that cryptocurrency is not digital asset at all. An example of a digital asset is a Pixar Studios movie "Finding Nemo" - it has an inherit value associated with work, jurisdiction that defends its value and a license holder that owns right to it. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is an equivalent of property, a DVD copy of that movie on your shelf at best. What you are focusing on is that that it is inappropriate to call that DVD copy of "Finding Nemo" an asset and it should be referred to as a "controversial digital asset." I submit to for your consideration that it was never an asset in the first place, moreover, it will never become an asset since no jurisdiction is able to defend it beyond its status for property. The suggestion I can make for you is to revise your change to "cryptocurrency is a digital property" and support that statement with any number of legitimate sources, US-IRS being major. Thanks, and please keep me posted!--Litesand (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree re: WP:WEIGHT. I suppose they are controversial, at least there is a lot of edits. However, I believe that the controversial text in the lede is a WP:WEIGHT issue and should probably instead be explored in a dedicated section instead. It would be like saying "Donald Trump is a controversial president" in the lede. The statement certainly would be true, but I dont think it would belong in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree for reasons pointed out by Jtbob. The first sentence of any article needs to be a crisp, concise definition. It's not the place for commentary. The controversy should be in a dedicated section and maybe at the end of the lede ("Crytocurrency has been critized...") but not right at the start. Look at our articles on fiat money, demurrage, the Austrian School, the Tobin tax, the gold standard, planned economy, capitalism, quantitative easing, or technical analysis: not one of them has a lede that denounces the subject as controversial even though all of them undeniably are. I share Smallbones' unhappiness about the fanboy nature of most of our cryptocurrency articles and I'd be very happy to help fix the problem, but passive-aggressive jabs in intro sentences are not how you go about that. How about we get together and write a useful, informative Criticism section instead? Kramler (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  I agree Kramler. Earlier there was interest by some editors to input a lot of content on the Bitcoin article and we created a couple of sub-articles to try to be a home for it, as bitcoin apparently suffers from WP:TOOBIG. The articles we created one survived (Cryptocurrency bubble, originally called Bitcoin bubble if I recall) and the other on Ponzi didn't pass AfD. The ponzi one that didn't pass AfD mabye the content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article. Thought this might be useful as maybe it could instead offer some Cryptocurrency ponzi content, rather than just Bitcoin ponzi content. Thought this might be useful here in creating an overall criticisms of cryptocurrency section, or even article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the links; I will look at them in a bit. I have a few bookmarks to articles that could maybe serve as a starting point for broader criticism. Bubbles and scams are not the only reason people mistrust cryptocoins after all. Some points that have been made, off the top of my head: the inherently deflationary nature; the fact that proof of work is really just proof of spending power; the way popular coins all seem to fall victim to mining cartels sooner or later; the quantum computing canary thing; the built-in tendency towards crippling transaction costs; the strong historical and philosophical link to certain ideologies that many people find very unpleasant. Right now this article addresses none of these issues. I'll rifle through my bookmarks and I'll post some URLs here in the morning and then everybody can add/comment/draft/dismiss at their convenience. Kramler (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  One more thing, I'd like to politely suggest a two-step process. Let's talk about the issues as such in round 1 and then worry about what particular sources to cite for each point we want to put in the article in round 2. Any serious discussion will inevitably involve a few tabloid articles, political manifestos, personal opinion pieces, and other things that are not exactly WP:RS and if we start with the rules lawyering too early we're never going to get anywhere. Every point and counterpoint should be evaluated on its merits and not on how vulnerable its physical location on the Internet is to the various and sundry verbal cudgels in the WP:FUCKYOU namespace. Kramler (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  Another popular Bitcoin criticsm I see on wikipedia is also electrical usage (energy consumption). I'll ping Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) he might have some input on this as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Good thinking! I'll create a new section because this one is already getting unwieldy. Kramler (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some things that a "Controversy" section might want to discuss

Idea: I'm splitting this into by-topic subsections. Let's discuss each of the controversies that the article could be talking about separately. Things should be more readable that way. Feel free to add additional subsections if you come up with additional topics. Kramler (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Purpose

Crypto doesn't really seem to solve anything that needs solving. Some detractors say that it fundamentally can't; they basically assert crypto combines the disadvantages of government-issued fiat with the disadvantages of commodity money like gold, without having any of the benefits of either. Examples:

• Kai Stinchcombe, 2017: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
• Inside Story, 2017: Bitcoin's Zero-Sum Game
• Technology Review, 2018: Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy
• Vox, 2018: Why Bitcoin is bullshit, explained by an expert

Ideology

"Like all currency systems, Bitcoin comes with an implicit political agenda attached."[8]

Satoshi had an explicit Libertarian agenda. Many notable crypto advocates are techno-Libertarians. Many say they believe in the Austrian School and like bitcoin because they want to remove the banker's ability to manipulate the money supply. The crypto movement also has close ties to the neoreactionary movement and the alt-right in general and has been attacked on these grounds in the past. Notable actors in the Silicon Valley venture capital scene have espoused philosophies that mash crypto together with seasteading, the redpill movement, HBD, transhumanism, Moldbug's Dark Englightenment, the works. No matter which side you are on in these debates, the article is deficient if it simply does not mention them. Some examples:

• Paul Krugman in the NY Times, 2013: Bitcoin is evil
• The Baffler, 2014: Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich
• Mother Jones, 2015: Bitcoin's Problem with Women
• Shuja Haider in Viewpoint Magazine, 2017: The Darkness at the End of the Tunnel: Artificial Intelligence and Neoreaction

---

• Jacobin, 2018: The Dumb Money Mentions the techno-libertarians, the fractional reserve banking thing, "old tropes of right-wing money crankery" TOWT7
• Jacobin, 2017: What's behind Bitcoin mania? Also mentions the political baggage TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Dark markets

Related to the above, the only groups and causes that routinely use crypto coins as an actual medium of exchange are unpopular with most people: darknet markets for drugs and assassinations, Neonazi groups cut off by Paypal and the banks, money launderers, ransomware operators. This too has prompted attacks, not just on the individuals in question but also on crypto as such. Examples:

• Forbes, 2013: Meet The 'Assassination Market' Creator Who's Crowdfunding Murder With Bitcoins
• Salon, 2014: Game over: How libertarians lost the battle for Bitcoin’s soul
• The Root, 2017: Bitcoin and Why White Supremacists Love It, Explained
• The Hill, 2017: Alt-right utilizes bitcoin after crackdown on hate speech
• Great Wall of Numbers, 2017: Eight Things Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts Probably Won’t Tell You]
• Washington Post, 2017: Bitcoin’s boom is a boon for extremist groups
• Business Insider, 2018: How neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists profit from bitcoin
• The Independent, 2018: Bitcoin has gifted huge windfalls to the alt-right, proving the benefits of cryptocurrencies are often dangers too
• The Gerard book
• NY Post, 2018: Feds eye major regulations on cryptocurrency

Macroeconomic impact

Since there is a definitive fixed maximum number of bitcoins that can exist, bitcoin is intrinsically deflationary, according to mainstream economic theory. Adoption of bitcoin as the primary currency in some market would (definitely) cause a deflationary spiral in the short run and (probably) monetary balkanization in the long run. Examples:

• Charles Stross, 2013: Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire
• Technology Review, 2018: Bitcoin would be a calamity, not an economy

Sociological aspects and impact on specific groups

Crypto advocates seem to believe that crypto is the cure for all manner of social ills, but for the time bing, bitcoin has had exactly zero effect on either inequality or the ability of certain social group to extract rents from others. Proof of work is essentially just proof of spending power. The people who can mine lots of coins are the people who have lots of money. Any crypto coin is also inherently similar to a Ponzi scheme in that early adopters win disproportionate rewards and the late adopters are always taken advantage of to some degree. More generally, with no regulation and no other mechanisms to protect the unsophisticated and the gullible, crypto is practically guaranteed to move wealth from less privileged people to more privileged ones. We may already be seeing signs of this. Naive crypto investors are getting into trouble due to surprise tax bills or due to the beginning crackdown on market manipulation. The actual criminals will have taken appropriate precautionary measures; the honest joes are getting fucked. Examples:

• Güring and Grigg, 2011: Bitcoin & Gresham's Law - the economic inevitability of Collapse
• Phil Greenspun, 2017: Bitcoin as Ponzi scheme
• David Gerard, 2017: Why you can’t cash out
• Bloomberg, 2018: The Crypto Hedge-Fund Bubble Is Starting to Deflate
• Quartz, 2018: Crypto traders may not care about market manipulation, but governments do
• The Guardian, 2018: Investors in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies face hefty tax bills
• Recode, 2018: Bitcoin is the greatest scam in history

---

• What's behind Bitcoin mania? Talks about the "thefts, frauds and hackings" and compares the mania to the Dutch tulip frenzy and the South Sea bubble TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• CNBC, 2018: Those Lambos parked at the bitcoin conference are just a promotion − scam scam scam
• Bloomberg, 2018: At NYC’s Big Crypto Conference, the Lamborghinis Are Rented and Protests Are Staged − fake fake fake scam scam scam scam
• BBC, 2017: Magical Money - the ICO crypto-currency boom − "trouble is there is both a startling level of fraud and a high failure rate"

Gender

One particularly interesting aspect of how crypto redistributes from the havenots to the haves is the gender imbalance in crypto. So far, the early adopters reaping the huge payouts have invariably been dudes. Even today, the crypto world is dominated by techbros and quite a few of them seem to be flamboyant douchebags openly hostile to female participation. It appears possible that widespread crypto adoption would set back gender equality by quite a few years. On the other hand, some detractors say that the gender imbalance simply means that crypto ultimately cannot succeed. You can't win as a currency if you don't attract the people who buy most of the groceries, most of the clothes, most of the overpriced lifestyle coffee, three out of four books, and all the Hulu subscriptions. Examples:

• Motherboard, 2013: Bitcoin Needs Women
• Arianna Simpson, 2014: This is What it’s Like to Be a Woman at a Bitcoin Meetup
• Mother Jones, 2015: Bitcoin's Problem with Women

Environmental impact

As another consequence of the whole proof-of-work thing, bitcoin is a grotesquely inefficient way to convert one type of purely abstract capital (fiat money) into another form of purely abstract capital (crypto money). You have to spend enormous amounts of electricity on the currency conversion. The ecological impact could be noticeable. Ecological impact aside, note that we gave up the gold standard in part because it is stupid and inefficient to dig gold out of holes in the ground (mines) only in order to put them into other holes in the ground (vaults). When it comes to currencies and what backs them, energy expenditure matters. Examples:

• Pando, 2013: Bitcoin has a dark side: its carbon footprint
• Guardian, 2017: Bitcoin’s energy usage is huge – we can't afford to ignore it
• Ars Technica, 2017: Bitcoin’s insane energy consumption, explained
• BBC, 2017: Bitcoin: Does it really use more electricity than Ireland?
• Wired, 2017: How much energy does bitcoin mining really use? It's complicated
• Power Compare, 2017: Bitcoin Mining Now Consuming More Electricity Than 159 Countries Including Ireland & Most Countries In Africa
• The Balance, 2018: How Much Power It Takes to Create a Bitcoin
• Vox, 2018: Why Bitcoin is bullshit, explained by an expert

---

• Jacobin, 2018: What's behind Bitcoin mania? Talks about the power consumption among other things TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Usability

One of the main selling points of bitcoin was supposed to be that all transactions are final. No chargebacks for any reason, under any circumstances, at all, ever. It turns out that it kind of sucks for all transactions to be final. Users send money to non-existing addresses; users lose access to their money through losing passwords; users lose access to their money through bugs; buyers are hesitant to wire money to merchants if they have no established recourse should the seller fail to deliver. Examples:

• Guardian, 2017: '$300m in cryptocurrency' accidentally lost forever due to bug -- note the answer to this problem was doing exactly what crypto advocates said could never happen; they rolled back the ledger just like a bank would have done
• Great Wall of Numbers, 2017: Eight Things Cryptocurrency Enthusiasts Probably Won’t Tell You
• Kai Stinchcombe, 2017: Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain
• Kai Stinchcombe, 2018: Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future

---

• Jacobin, 2018 The Dumb Money "a disruptive technology that mainly disrupsts its own users", "the Bitcoin failure graveyard" TOWT7 (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Wired, 2018: When the Blockchain Skeptic Walked into the Lion's Den

Debate away.

Ponzi Scheme Concerns

lot of content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article

Cryptocurrency Bubble

can consider to wikilink to main article here Cryptocurrency bubble and maybe add one sentence summary

Advertising bans

Cryptocurrencies advertisements are controversial and have are banned on Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing Snapchat, LinkedIn and MailChimp. Chinese internet platforms Baidu, Tencent, and Weibo have also prohibited bitcoin advertisements. The Japanese platform Line and the Russian platform Yandex have similar prohibitions.

References

DISCUSSION

• I have added a couple of sections above (ponzi and bubble). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• I added links to some of the sections that were already there ^^ TOWT7 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these! Ponzi and bubble definitely need to be mentioned. The links look very interesting! Where would we best start compiling a draft? Here on the talk page? On a separate page in the Draft namespace? In somebody's User space? Kramler (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: looping you into this discussion here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So seriously, where do we draft this thing? My sandbox? Kramler (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your sandbox is ok with me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability of Cryptocurrencies: Informal RFC

I have seen and participated in many AFDs recently about cryptocurrencies (CC), most of which are non-notable by way of failing the GNG. I don't think CC need to have their own notablity guidelines, as we have the GNG (all hail) and TOOSOON, which allows to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC. Should there be a mass purging of the less notable currencies and they instead be listed on List of Cryptocurrencies in a separate section for TOOSOONs which pass WP:V? Pinging editors who have worked in this area: @Prince of Thieves, DGG, Mark the train, Retimuko, Greenman, Widefox, Hrodvarssen, Jytdog, Winged Blades of Godric, Power~enwiki, Deathlibrarian, K.e.coffman, Vermont, Velella, Alfie, Sphilbrick, and John M Baker: I will also leave notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force and WP:FINANCE. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Ps. if anyone considers the editor selection too narrow, canvassing, or otherwise improper, feel free to convert to an actual RfC, I don't mind.

re-ping: Hrodvarsson L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• @L3X1: Mind reader! Check out what I was working on earlier, with a similar idea... User:Prince of Thieves/sandbox/Bitcoins. -- Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a note, in my view WP:CORP, (in particular the new version that will soon be introduced) is a more relevant specific guideline for these than the WP:GNG, in almost all cases these are commercial or commercially backed, marketed as a product or otherwise compatible with WP:CORP. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I was reading through CORP, and wasn't sure if it was the most useful policy because these currencies kind of blur the line between thing and company. It will help authors looking to create articles on cryptocurrencies by allowing them to make sure the sourcing is proper. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I feel as a general rule any CC that has had an "initial coin offering" is definitely commercial, and since no-one is likely to argue the notably of Bitcoin or Ether (Ethereum?), that's most of them. Also as I understand it the new guidelines (which are based on current consensus) make less distinction between commercial organisations and commercial "things". Prince of Thieves (talk)

• There is almost always nothing to say about them except directory information: their size and who runs them. The sources are almost always promotional, not independent, or indiscriminate from publication whose purpose is to list them all. Dealing with the qualifications for sources for notability required by the GNG is in any borderline case to some extent subjective, and can be argued in either direction. But for those who like the GNG, it haas a provision that where there's nothing much to say, articles can be merged even if they are technically notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, with ICO being the new IPO, my opinion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qtum, in agreement with Prince of Thieves. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest setting the bar at fulfilling not one, but several of the N standards - say all of:

1. WP:CORP (WP:CORPDEPTH)
2. WP:NPRODUCT
3. N for technology (so depth of coverage of the tech)

With over a thousand coins already, it may be helpful to additionally deal with this specific case of systemic bias WP:RECENTISM by tackling the incentive head-on - something like requiring:

4. WP:SPINOUT from parent articles e.g. List of cryptocurrencies via AfC.

This weeks announcement of a ban on ICO, exchange, cryptocurrency adverts on Google, FB etc indicates a broad promotionalism problem that we may need to specifically address ourselves before investing wasting more volunteer time in the vain of WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would support deleting most of them but not sure a mass purge is the way to go about it. The normal AfD process for each seems fine, with the possibility of SALTing those which are very likely P&D scams. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• Since there is no deadline, I am perfectly happy to do my list over time individually. But prompt attention to new articles is important, and Bankex was a good example of how companies closely related to this industry are as common and promotional as the crypto-currencies themselves, even if they never released a "coin". Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I view them all as promotional and non-notable. And ICOs are likely criminal, as IPOs that are just declaring themselves exempt from regulation with no legally coherent reason. This should become clear within the next month. With Facebook and now Google refusing to accept cryptocurrency and ICO adverts, some real regulation coming (as stated by the SEC, CFTC and European regulators), and more and more experts saying "this is just a bubble" the cryptocurrencies are all likely to crash, and we are doing our readers a great diservice but suggesting that there may be something real about them. Get rid of them all asap. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Smallbones, agreed on the ICO are unregulated and dangerously useless. The problem is that "digital coins" don't really have a jurisdiction. In case of getting funded, a Corporation in the United States for example, can sell stock without having to do an IPO only to accredited investors, certain conditions being met, one of which is having make no public announcements of the stock offering, among others only selling stocks to people who can afford to gamble with large sums of money - the State having jurisdiction and the Corporations Code to enforce, this is a completely legitimate way to find financing. "Digital coins" are not financial assets that can't be made compliant to anything since there is no jurisdiction, nor is there a code that governs issuance of such “coins.” I am not an expert on regulations, but certainly "digital coins" are not being sold as securities, otherwise this would be clearly illegal, at least in the United States. ICO's resemble MMM Ponzi scheme taking place in 1994, with promised returns of up to 3,000%. Back then the Mavrodi brothers called it "voucher investments." I think ICO's are still notable, specifically, due to an enormous amounts of cash being funneled into them, same as MMM is notable for causing million people to lose their savings back in the 90’s. Its caveat emptor at this point, but that doesn't by itself, warrant a non-notable status of information, this content just doesn't belong in this particular Article. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Actually ICOs are regulated in the US if they are being sold to US investors and they are selling securities. The head of the SEC has something akin to "Every ICO I've seen is a security offering" Should I dig up the quote? It's pretty obvious that they are securities if they are being sold or exchanged for bitcoin, etc. and promise something in return. I think the smoke and mirrors campaign says that ICOs specifically say that the tokens aren't worth anything. But if they are selling something that is worthless - you've got plain old garden variety fraud. Wanna buy a bridge? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Smallbones, recently the CFTC had argued to treat Bitcoin as a commodity, placing it into category of an economic good; a very bad joke on their end to place Bitcoin and precious metals into the same category. You most likely are referencing this link (https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11) that basically states that for ICO's "the answers will differ depending on many factors." The fact is neither "coins" nor ICO's have ever been registered with the SEC in the United States, I am guessing the same goes for other jurisdictions with whatever agency controls securities in other countries. "Coins" do not have a clearly defined ledger among other requirements for an asset, unlike stocks and bonds, essentially, a back-door into issuing unregulated securities to gambling masses. As much as the regulators trying to fix it, it is incredibly late in the game, most of the money from ICO's and Bitcoin is unlikely to be recovered on an aggregate scale. This fact alone doesn't stop ICO's from being notable, having to be notable doesn't require to produce a public benefit. Instead of a bridge, maybe CFTC will reclassify steel from an Eiffel tower as a commodity, it seems all we need to do is to start offering it as some "coin" somewhere. Cheers! --Litesand (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Presumed non-notable -- barring meeting WP:NCORP, I don't see these articles as viable. WP:NOTSPAM also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Most of them are anyways non-notable, and I see loads of them are being nominated at AfD. Henceforth, a criteria satisfying not one but several factors for notability as said by Widefox would be helpful. MT Train^Talk 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would advise against making a special criterion. There will always be arguments at AfD that the general criterion over-rides it. The way we have Special notability guidelines is confusing, because some are limits on what is otherwise acceptable, and some are extensions, and people can try to use them in both ways. It will probably be better simply to apply the substantial & independent qualifications of the GNG in a strict manner, and making use of our current definition of interviews with the founder as primary sources for the purposes of notability.

But in any case, they ned to be nominated separately. Some are going to be more notable than others, and multiple nominations with dozens of articles are sometimes closed as relist independently if even one of them seems to be better sourced. (At any rate, that's what I personally usually argue for) I have a further recommendation, based on years of refining my strategy: go slowly, perhaps 2 a day, and start with the weakest. Anything more gets the attention of extreme inclusionists. As for timing, the way to go is to start right now. The current mood at AfD will support deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with DGG, the existing guidelines are sufficient to deal with these articles. I also agree that doing them all individually is sensible. I am doing a few each day from my list. I don't think anything will be assisted my dumping a hundred articles onto AfD all at once. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• This article is focused on the general cryptocurrency concept, legal factors, financial implications and technical issues. The discussion shouldn't have "to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC," but instead, to focus on the concept itself. There is already a list of "notable" cryptocurrencies, exchanges etc. listed elsewhere on wiki, whoever moderates that, let them discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litesand (talk • contribs) 20:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DGG. In fact, at the AfDs being more strict about primary sources and independence goes a long way. Widefox; talk 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Also, if anyoen is interested in following crypto-related AFD, watchlisting the Finance Delsort list will help. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Challenges section

Can we add a section titled "Challenges" highlighting the challenges cryptocurrencies are facing at the moment? Such as The Scalability problem (the blockchain of a particular coin may exceed the size of commercial Hard Drive thus decreasing independent nodes) and Quantum Processors (that may be able to deduce the Private Key from a Public Key much faster in a matter of minutes than the regular cpu in approx. 3 years) (Alexceltare2 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC))

If it is reliably sourced then yes, otherwise no. Prince of Thieves (talk)

• Alexceltare2 Thank you for suggesting to add content. The best way to proceed is for you to add your proposed information with sources in the format you would like it to be added to the body of the article. The two "challenges" you are proposing are somewhat odd. Hard drives are hardly an issue for scalability; instead - the cost of mining, pool mining fees, lack of oversight and the long-term security of the ledger are main challenges with all proof-of-work decentralized cryptocurrencies. Quantum processing isn't really a problem either, since miner will always take the most profitable route, as long as it is able to collect fees, any algorithm can follow. The challenge with cryptocurrencies is human, not a machine, hence the stopgap of the blockchain. You may obliviously have some bright ideas on the issue and great sources to support it, so please present it with specifics. Cheers!--Litesand (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

149.152.191.2 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Causing a rise in GPU prices ===

The sudden increase in cryptocurrency mining increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 2002. Popular favorites of cryptocurrency miners such as Nvidia’s GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 graphics cards, as well as AMD’s RX 570 and RX 580 GPUs, doubled if not tripled in price – or were out of stock completely. A GTX 1070 Ti which was released at a price of $450 sold for as much as $1100. Another popular card GTX 1060's 6 GB model was released at an MSRP of $250, sold for almost $500. RX 570 and RX 580 cards from AMD were out of stock for almost a year. Miners regularly buy up the entire stock of new GPU's as soon as they are available, further driving prices up. This has caused, in general, a disliking towards cryptocurrency miners by PC gamers and tech enthusiasts.

 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. You only reposted existing text from the article with no additions or deletions. Based on the material you have given me, I cannot ascertain what edits you wish to have made. Altamel (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Volatility

There are numerous cryptocurrencies currently the most important in circulation are for Litecoin at 5.5 billion dollars, Ripple at 9.7 billon dollars, Ethereum at 44.3 billion dollars, and the most significant Bitcoins at 185.5 billion. Overall these represent the majority of cryptocurrency market which signify 73% of the total cryptocurrency market value.The intrinsic volatility of cryptocurrency has have tremendous swings in value which change yearly, monthly, and even daily. The main drivers of volatility specifically include a sudden increase in the “buzz” surrounding a cryptocurrency could be understood as a signal of increasing volatility . The high volatility most frequently coincides with high volume and price drops. If market participants are risk-averse, given the same expected mean returns, they would be less willing to hold the cryptocurrency if future volatility increases, which would drive prices down and affect returns negatively . This effect would become evident shortly after the surge in “buzz.” or popularity. Gibro2118 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

section 8.1 : Causing a rise in GPU prices It mentionne increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 1992. the reference [96] it dated january 2018 and make no mention of 1992.

One could argue modern gpu did not exist in 1992. 160.109.104.44 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)