Talk:Monero

Creation of the article by a NPOV author

This is a bona fide introduction to Monero.

I am member of the Core Team. Despite trying my best to offer only factual informations, I may have written biased content. I asked several time people to write a Monero article but no one did it. My hope is that this article will bootstrap writing an article were my writings get diluted among content created by more neutral people.

Similarly, if you find something that could be neutralised and do not know how to do it, please mention it here. Hopefully someone else than me will neutralise it.

Thank you for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Latapie (talk • contribs) 10:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Monero history

I did some research and linked the events from the first days of BitMonero/Monero, most of it from bitcointalk.org, history is important for legitimacy and now everyone can read through the archives and understand how Monero came to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis0618 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary Sources

As one of the Monero Core Team it would be untoward of me to edit the Wikipedia page, other than to correct any clear errors others have missed. Nonetheless, in order to satisfy the notability requirement the following should be considered: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." To that end I have compiled a list of media, academic, and other sources that are either about Monero, or mention Monero. It is worth noting that cryptocurrencies are a "niche" (albeit a rather large one), and as such the majority of the news outlets that would cover Monero are cryptocurrency related, while "mainstream" media largely finds cryptocurrencies disinteresting. At any rate, some of these may be relevant to the Wikipedia article, the rest can live on in perpetuity on this talk page.

Online Media

• http://www.straight.com/life/777136/decentral-vancouver-incubates-bitcoin-community
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cryptocurrency-round-uk-explores-digital-currencies-researchers-predict-bitcoin-crashes-1459945
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cryptocurrency-round-dogecoin-turns-one-no-sales-tax-bitcoin-new-york-1478706
• http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/cryptocurrency-round-touchless-bitcoin-payments-mits-bitcomp-winners-announced-1463736
• (ibtimes covers Monero regularly, so I'm not going to mention every instance)
• http://bitcoinist.net/shapeshift-io-integrates-monero-counterparty/
• http://coinjournal.net/shapeshift-io-adds-counterparty-and-monero/
• http://cointelegraph.com/news/115363/altcoin-remittances-arrive-shapeshiftio-partners-with-phillippines-rebitph
• https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/xmr-monero-price-trending-downwards/
• http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/09/09/bitcoin-bonanza-cryptocurrency-exchange-service-shapeshift-raises-a-1-6m-seed-round/
• https://coinreport.net/little-altcoin-sanity-monero/
• https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptonote-team-responds-monero-coin-killer-threat/
• https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/monero-market-added-poloniex-cryptocurrency-exchange/
• http://cointelegraph.com/news/114479/how-to-avoid-fiat-entirely-when-buying-gold-altcoins
• http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bitcoin-market-wrap-up-53-510-bitcoin-sideways-xmr-vrc-and-net-solid-performers/32420
• https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-developer-declares-war-nation-state/
• http://www.coindesk.com/darkcoin-duel-xc-demise-mcdogecoin/
• https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-growing-ireland-1405467019
• https://www.coindesk.com/what-to-know-before-trading-monero/

Print Media

Due to the technological aspect of cryptocurrencies it is unlikely there will be print articles about Monero any time soon.

Books

• Handbook of Digital Currency: Bitcoin, Innovation, Financial Instruments, and Big Data - David Lee Kuo Chuen, 2015 Google Books Link
• Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies - Andreas M. Antonopoulos, 2014. Google Books Link
• Black Market Cryptocurrencies, The rise of bitcoin alternatives that offer true anonymity - Will Martin, 2014. Google Books Link
• Anonymous Cryptocurrencies: The Rise of Bitcoin Alternatives That Offer True Anonymity - Will Martin, 2014. Google Books Link

Academic and Research Papers

It is worth noting that the Monero Research Lab research bulletins (as found on https://lab.getmonero.org) are in Google Scholar's database, and have been cited by some researchers. Nonetheless, the list below refers to papers that aren't MRL publications.

• Trends in crypto-currencies and blockchain technologies: A monetary theory and regulation perspective - Gareth W. Peters, Efstathios Panayi, Ariane Chapelle, 2015. Link
• An Analysis of the Cryptocurrency Industry - Ryan Farell, University of Pennsylvania, 2015. Link
• Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains - Adam Back, Matt Corallo, Luke Dashjr, Mark Friedenbach, Gregory Maxwell, Andrew Miller, Andrew Poelstra,

Jorge Timón, and Pieter Wuille, 2014. Link

• Can bitcoin be self-regulatory legal tender? : a comparative analysis of United States, European Union and Islamic legal systems - Mohammad Mahmoud Ibrahim Tayel, 2015. Link

I'm certain others will expand this list over time, and I trust this settles the "notability" requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffypony (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting.

• So the crypto-blogs in the topmost list are often full of hype and need to be taken very much case by case. Some of them are very good and careful, some not.
• Among the books:

• Handbook of Digital Currency is fine, Academic Press. Has only a few mentions of monero, but something!
• Mastering Bitcoin - I would use this carefully. It is published by O'Reilly Media which does a lot of hype. (even that WP article is obviously promotional)
• Black Market Cryptocurrencies and Anonymous Cryptocurrencies are both self-published, not OK

• academic and research papers.

• "Trends" is not an actual journal article, but a gussied up Ernst & Young report - you can download the published version directly from the "journal" here. Also Monero is mentioned once and not discussed.
• "An Analysis of the Cryptocurrency Industry" is a (master's?) thesis. This is not the greatest source but would be kind of OK... however monero is only mentioned 3 times and not discussed.
• "Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains" is not a journal article, but a white paper by the founders of Blockstream. Not peer reviewed, and is SPS. Monero is mentioned in one paragraph only, so not a lot of use anyway.
• "Can bitcoin be self-regulatory legal tender?" is like the "Analysis" paper a thesis. So similarly marginally reliable. It only mentions the word "monero" and doesn't discuss it though.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monero (cryptocurrency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://bitcointa.lk/threads/monero-economy.310081/page-7#post-6899241

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this still legal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.104.113.89 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Usage

The section usage looks to me like an advertisement. XMR.TO aparently is a commercial service. With the same relevance, one could add any other commercial service, accepting XMR as a payment which would result in a very long list. If there is no opposition, I will delete this section after a few days. --DirtyDishes (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed! One could add a usage section explaining how to (i) buy Monero, (ii) store them (what sort of wallets do they have? Is the block chain so big that it is too massive to download, thus making Ethereum type wallets desireable?), (iii) how to exchange other altcoins for Monero and vice versa. I'd be interested in seeing this information in Wikipedia.

Thanks! Lehasa (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Monero can be bought and sold for various other cryptocurrencies, as well as euros and US dollars, at https://www.kraken.com/ . I used them to sell Litecoins and received euros deposited in a bank account, so it really works. This was about two years ago, though.

I assume there are other similar sites; I mention this one simply because I know it exists. 199.246.169.15 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

interest rate issue

User:103.9.76.7 whatever your deal is with the interest rate, it is not a simple thing. Per WP:INFOBOX, infoboxes are for simple facts that are supported by reliable sources in the body of the article.

Please add reliably sourced (not from something uploaded to google docs) content about that to the body, and we can see if it boil-downable to something for the infobox. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional "note" only in the lead

The following was tucked into the lead.

Monero's modular code architecture has been praised by Wladimir J. van der Laan, a Bitcoin Core maintainer.

References

A few things

1. Per WP:LEAD, nothing goes in the lead, that is not in the body. The lead just summarizes the body.
2. The "who cares?" question looms rather large. Why should the world care that van der Laan likes the architecture? Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and the question matters.

This is the kind of spammy thing that gets added into WP some times, and it needs justification and better placement in the article, if we are to keep it. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Spam, lead

Hey. Content in the lead summarizes the body. We base content on independent, reliable sources in WP. We do not need a link to the website in the first "reference". Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR, bad sourcing

The following contains original research - straight WP:OR as well as WP:SYN, and really terrible sourcing.

Folks need to find independent, reliable sources that meet the WP:RS criteria and check all this against them.

comments on reddit are not OK, and neither are youtube videos by who knows who. these two edits earlier today were an assertion by an editor about the relevance of two academic papers ; we need an actual RS that says those papers are relevant, not just an editor saying so.

Privacy

The changes in the results of blockchain analysis after implementing the ring signatures.

Monero protects privacy in three ways for all transactions on the network: 1) ring signatures hide the sending address, 2) RingCT hides the amount of the transaction (currently enabled by default and mandatory by the end of the 2017), and 3) stealth addresses hide the receiving address of the transaction. A planned fourth way conceals the origin node for transactions in I2P, and the Kovri router that would allow for this is currently in development. The following paragraphs describe these three technologies in more depth.

Monero daemon uses the original CryptoNote protocol except for the initial changes (as the block time and emission speed). The protocol itself is based on stealth addresses and "one-time ring signatures", invented by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Yael Tauman (2001) and modified by E. Fujisaki and K. Suzuki (2007). Cryptography used for signature is essentially Daniel J. Bernstein's library for Ed25519, which is Schnorr signatures on the Twisted Edwards curve. The end result is passive, decentralised mixing based on heavily-tested algorithms.

However, several improvements were suggested by Monero Research Lab which covered the proper use of ring signatures for better privacy. Specifically, the proposals included "a protocol-level network-wide minimum mix-in policy of n = 2 foreign outputs per ring signature", "a nonuniform transaction output selection method for ring generation" and "a torrent-style method of sending Monero output". These changes, which were implemented in version 0.9.0 "Hydrogen Helix", can help protect user's privacy in a CryptoNote-based currency according to the authors.

As a consequence, Monero features an opaque blockchain (with an explicit allowance system called the viewkey), in sharp contrast with transparent blockchain used by any other cryptocurrency not based on CryptoNote. Thus, Monero is said to be "private, optionally transparent". On top of very strong privacy by default, such a system permits net neutrality on the blockchain (miners cannot become censors, since they do not know where the transaction goes or what it contains) while still permitting auditing when desired (for instance, tax audit or public display of the finances of an NGO). Furthermore, Monero is considered by many to offer truly fungible coins.

In April 2017, several research papers criticized the input selection method, arguing that the current method makes it easier to guess the real transaction input than ideal. Community discussions have been in progress through most of 2017 to improve this selection algorithm to better reflect real use.

References

-- Jytdog (talk 02:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

User:Verifiedaccount Wikipedia articles are based on independent, high quality sources. We use primary sources and WP:SPS only with great care. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Some examples

• https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L92 some random commit
• https://github.com/JollyMort/monero-research/blob/master/Monero%20Dynamic%20Block%20Size%20and%20Dynamic%20Minimum%20Fee/Monero%20Dynamic%20Block%20Size%20and%20Dynamic%20Minimum%20Fee%20-%20DRAFT.md blog by "JollyMort"
• https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/currency-bitcoin-breakingviews-idUSL1N0UA0GT20141226 doesn't mention Monero.
• https://openalias.org/%7Cwebsite=openalias.org just the mainpage; supports nothing in the proposed WP content

i don't doubt that in the way you and some others think and read about cryptocurrencies you find these important (although not the Reuters ref which doesn't even mention Monero) but this is not how Wikipedia articles are built. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Verifiedaccount still looking to discuss with you here... Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RingCT / CT attribution

The change in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monero_(cryptocurrency)&oldid=801229609 is correct. The following change by User:VerifiedAccount reverted it, perpetuating the incorrect information. Greg Maxwell didn't develop RingCT. He developed CT. The concepts demonstrated in CT are used in RingCT but none of the CT code is present in RingCT. The development of RingCT is all original work in Monero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.45.51 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

This article has been extensively vandalized (see: Wikipedia:Blanking) by a small number of users under the guise of cleaning up inadequate sourcing. A quick glance of history page will see that a large amount of independently sourced, high quality content has been removed by users such as Jytdog. Over the next week or so I will be reviewing the edits carefully, reverting vandalism/blanking and adding additional sources where needed. I will begin by restoring it to its unvandalized state, then carefully and critically auditing all content to ensure it meets guidelines. From then on the page will be actively monitored. Further vandalism will be referred to moderators and I will recommend the page be locked. If you have any questions, please drop a message at my talk page. Thanks. DreamingSea (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, do see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Reddit

Just noting this thread. Folks who come here from Reddit:

• Please be aware that Wikipedia content is governed by "policies and guidelines" put in place by the editing community over the past 16 years. It takes time to learn them. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of the mission of Wikipedia, and how this place works.
• Please be aware of WP:MEAT, which is one of those policies. This community put that in place for obvious reasons, as many groups have tried to gather/organize off Wikipedia to influence articles. This is not OK.
• Please also be aware that holding a cryptocurrency and then coming here to edit about that currency (or to denigrate others) is a financial conflict of interest, that needs to be managed by disclosure and by putting edits through peer review. See WP:COI.

-- Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am confused about about the third point. I disagree that WP:COI necessarily applies here just by holding that cryptocurrency. I am holding Euros, does that mean I am in conflict of interest when editing Euro and that I need to disclose this on the article's talk page? I don't see any such disclosures on that talk page. Also, I am a biologist. Should I better steer clear of any biology-related articles because I am clearly biased about the topic? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's completely straightforward and there's nothing confusing about it, it's a direct conflict of interest in the plain language sense. Euros are typically just used as money. Crypto assets are typically things held as investments with a view to them going up. Advocates have a notable tendency to want to promote the crypto they have a holding in, and do so on Wikipedia as well, as we're seeing live in action now. COI doesn't preclude editing, but the WMF TOS does require disclosure before editing. If you really want to argue the definition of "conflict of interest" and how it works at Wikipedia, I suggest you ask at WT:COI about your Euro example - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Splette due to the boom in cryptocurrencies, and so many people watching their valuations carefully as investments per se, and especially due to the presence of online communities that advocate for (and against) various currencies, holding a crytpocurrency is now formally defined as a form of financial conflict of interest in Wikipedia.

What that means concretely is that we ask folks who hold cryptocurrencies and want to get involved at relevant articles is a) to declare the COI ("I hold currency X"), not edit directly, but instead propose changes on the talk page for prior peer review, and of course, to keep their COI in mind when they do stuff at the article - to be aware that they very likely have a bias.

This is similar to what we ask people to do who are employees of a company and want to be involved in the article about that company or is products, or someone who wants to be involved with the article about themselves or their friend, or if someone is involved in a lawsuit.

The process of managing conflict of interest through disclosure and prior peer review is common as dirt throughout the publishing world as a way to bring integrity to the publishing process. Nothing kooky here at all. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Blanking Follow-up

There appears to be some controversy regarding adding content to the page. While it would be much more efficient to restore the page to a more complete state and use that as a starting point to improve it, to avoid conflict I will instead add edits incrementally. Note that the page is a work in progress. Will users: Investanto, Jytdog and Timewalk kindly avoid edit warring while the article is improved, thanks.

DreamingSea (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! As the article has been protected before you've wrote this, there's no possibility to do edit warring from my side at least. TimeWalk (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

thumbsup: DreamingSea (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

My focus initially will be significantly improving the quality of the references. After that, I will add back in content that is supported by those references, then polish the grammar and structure. Thanks

P.S., I'm glad there's so much fresh interest in this page. Given time and collaboration, I'm sure we'll all end up with a great article!.DreamingSea (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Any place you'll put your draft? Could be useful to give feedback or add changes.

P.S. I've added some : so that it's more readable. Add them at every line if you write multi-line messages TimeWalk (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag

Will the user who added the buzz-words tag please clarify what specific terms they are referring to, as I have been unable to identify any. If no one is able to, I suggest removing it. Thanks. DreamingSea (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's outdated. If no one objects within a week, I will remove it. Sounds good? Emesik (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

thanks for your contributions to the artile. i trimmed some crystalball stuff but otherwise great. i removed the "buzz" tag. Jytdog (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Cyptocurrency hype; sourcing

So about content concerning "upcoming features". Please stop adding content like this.

Everybody understands that a) cryptocurrencies are cutting edge (technology as well as finance); b) there is tons of speculation (technology as well as finance).

Content that is "X plans to introduce feature Y", even repeated by a cryptocurrency blog, is still at base WP:SPS and promotional. Can we please keep the "here is the exciting feature that is Coming Soon" content out of this Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention it also violates WP:CRYSTALBALL Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, an "upcoming features" section is unnecessary speculation and not encyclopedic and therefore it's better to leave this out of the article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Crypto news sites are particularly bad for this - they'll run articles on all manner of speculative project that doesn't eventuate - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about MRL sources

Since the bone of contention here seems to be what kind of sources are reliable enough for Wikipedia. First of all let me state the obvious:

Blockchains are a new technology that only starts to filter through to academic journals. Anybody writing anything in this area will need to rely on self-published primary sources. AFAIK this is not against Wikipedia rules on sourcing as long as this is done with care (Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works)

With regards to the sources that we have available for Monero, I can list those off the top of my head

• Annotated Saberhangen Whitepaper [1] - quality: self-published, contains factual errors.
• 6 papers (later referred to as MRL papers) [2] - quality: self-published, no glaring errors that I can see
• Singapore Paper [3] - quality: peer reviewed and published
• ZCash Paper [4] - quality: peer reviewed and published, however it has a nearly total overlap with the Singapore paper with addition of a COI

I imagine the main sticking point for the MRL papers will be that they are published pseudonymously. The community knows them, however let me list them for the benefit of others:

Please note, for the benefit of Wiki-newbies, it is against the rules to out a pseudonym here.

• Brandon Goodell, not a pseudonym
• Jan Macheta, not sure
• Adam Mackenzie, if I'm correct this is a developer with long standing contributions to bitcoin
• Sarang Noether and Surae Noether are both academics with either PhD or MSc in Mathematics
• Shen Noether, again not sure
• Xavier Smooth, a monero core developer

I imagine the Monero Core team in contact with most of those people. Perhaps if they agree to waive their pseudonyms we can use their papers as a self-published primary source.

I look forward to everyone's opinion on which sources we can use and to what extent Fireice (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

>> Just a note here... Surae Noether is Brandon Goodell. He unmasked himself multiple places, including here: https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/87822/continued-funding-for-postdoctoral-researcher-surae-noether-me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.253.166 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. The MRL papers can be used some, and sparingly. Sourcing a WP from sources generated by the subject of the article inevitably leads to an article that is a mere mouthpiece. There is a very good reason why the editing community prefers independent secondary sources that aim to provide accepted knowledge.

It is very correct that this is an encyclopedia, and this means that WP does not do "cutting edge" well. If there are not independent secondary sources that express accepted knowledge in a given field, then there is not much we should say.

I completely understand that some people mistake WP for a blog or a newspaper and rush in and try to add lots of detail about cutting edge stuff. One can do this. One can also write "cow cow cow cow". Everything good in Wikipedia happens because people do what they should do, aiming for the mission of providing readers with articles that summarize accepted knoweldge. This is all described in WP:NOT - which is all about the mission of WP.

(did i beat a dead horse there with the "accepted knowledge" thing? i think i did. sorry) Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! If you excuse the direct approach - I'm a programmer therefore when I see a problem, I want to solve it. Let me suggest an article layout that would x-ref self-published sources with a peer reviewed article - Singapore paper (am I wrong in thinking that peer-reviewed articles are an excellent source as far as WP is concerned?)

* First part - we use the MRL papers to explain general structure of Monero and the basics

* Second part - to stop the article being a mere mouthpiece, we add criticism from the independent Singapore paper in the second part explaining problems and privacy concerns

* Third part - we add general "social" concerns such as usage by drug dealers

Would you be amenable to this kind of general structure and sourcing?

Fireice (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Like technical people I too reach for the manual if I want to know how something works. But that isn't how we build WP content. A whole section built from self-published sources is not a great idea in WP. But i don't want to play dictator. User:David Eppstein is an admin and has been watching our crypto-stuff. Pinging him to get his read on this structure and sourcing... Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! In general I'm trying to flip the discussion from what we cannot do to what we can do - this way we will hopefully be left with a blueprint for an article at the end of the process =). My particular concern is that it would be hard to do the second section (the Singapore paper essentially builds on the general description in MRL-005) without the first. I look forward to feedback from User:David Eppstein! Fireice (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

As I can see that things are heating up with other editors, please note that I haven't made any edits to the article. I would much rather hammer out a compromise that leaves us with a good WP article Fireice (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I am very appreciative of how you are approaching this. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I used unfortunate wording in the first paragraph. Can we move the discussion to [5] ? Fireice (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason not to keep firmly to the Wikipedia sourcing rules: WP:RS, WP:V, third-party, as mainstream as possible.

In the specific area, we need to be super-careful because crypto sources are largely advocacy and hype - they look like specialist-topic press, but are very aspirational, prone to stories about things that don't actually exist at all yet talking about them like they do, etc. So keep it as absolutely as mainstream as possible.

Primary sources should be kept out of it as much as possible. This is not the Monero wiki, it's Wikipedia. If a fact isn't noteworthy enough to be in verifiable third-party Reliable Sources, it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia.

This is the same standard that got me multiple personal attacks from Ethereum boosters, but it made those articles much better and less ad-like; this is the same style of abuse that Jytdog is getting from Monero boosters in turn. It turns out offsite abuse from advocates trying to increase the value of their holding isn't actually a reason to loosen Wikipedia sourcing requirements, and may in fact be a reason to tighten them - David Gerard (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Hi.

In this part: "runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, and FreeBSD", "Mac" should be "macOS" And in: "for the financial gain of the malware develope.r", "develope.r" should be "developer."

Thanks. Wrapash (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

somebody did this. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Oposition to Sputniknews

I'm referring to this Special:Diff/808654580 by Jytdog. Sputnik is a government backed international English language broadcaster. While it has faces criticism in its coverage of the geoplitical topics, this is a purely technical subject matter. Please outline how in your view it does not meet WP:RS. Thank you. Melmann^(talk) 07:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sputnik is garbage like RT. We can do way, way better. It is a waste of everybody's time to argue over just how shitty a source is. Raise source quality, please. Do you want people to read this article and think "Oh, this is such a piece of shit cryptocurrency that people have to scrape the gutter just to find sources?" That is what I think when I find Sputnik cited in Wikipedia --desperate editors. Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:AGF. As you've failed to offer any meanignful opposition aside from unsupported opinion I will be reverting your change. Please be aware of the WP:3RR before making further changes. Thanks. Melmann^(talk) 07:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with good faith, it has to do with source quality. There is no reason to scrape the gutter with a propaganda rag. I appreciate your effort to cite policy but see WP:CLUE. Aim high, please. Really, we could get into hours of bullshit argument about whether Sputnik is just barely good enough maybe to use. What is the point? And please be aware, if you are following the "rulebook" so closely, that it is BRD, not BRd(a little)R. You will be very unlikely to get consensus to use trashy sources here. And I mean it, you will need to go to RSN and get consensus if you want to use Sputnik and everybody there will groan and say "Why are you insisting on your low quality refs? Why?" Jytdog (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with propaganda? The Sputnik link is used to source the statement that Monero does not have a hard block size limit like most cryptocurrencies. Do you seriously suggest this is made up by Russian propaganda? Is there *any* doubt at all that Monero has a flexible block size? I think not. Therefore I find the argument that Sputnik is garbage to be misleading and suggest to restore that part of the article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 15:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not what i am suggesting. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on content and source quality

Should the edits reverted by Jytdog be entirely removed or should WP:ATD be followed and article content and sources allowed to continue improving and developing? Secondarily, is Sputnik a valid source for technology topics? Melmann^(talk) 08:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a badly framed RfC. WP:CLUE is knowing what works. This RfC doesn't work.

On the first question, it is not reasonable to require people to go dig around in the history to try to find out what you are talking about. We haven't even begun to discuss the other problems with the edit, as well. We were just talking about the first most obvious problem with it. RfCs are used when things have been talked through and there are clear outstanding questions.

As for the second question, this is why RSN exists. At RSN, you are required to present the content and the source for consideration, and you have not done that here.

The whole thing is a mess, unfortunately. Please withdraw it and deal with things like we should do. RSN is the place for source disputes, and as mentioned we have not even started talking about the rest of your edit. Jytdog (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Concur - take it to WP:RSN. If you can't find high-quality verifiable third-party reliable sources for a claim, then it's quite likely that claim does not belong in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• user:Melmann for the edits -- if you mean Special:Diff/808654580 by Jytdog -- that seems a lot to do all at once, and pulls from Wired, CoinDesk, InsideBitCoins, BitCoinMagazine, CoinSutra, etcetera and I'd suggest do it in bits rather than all at once. In the context context used for Monero block size remark, Sputnik News would seem a RS. You might also look to other sources for additional block size info since that seems an important characteristic with Monero and the cryptocurrency community. Perhaps something like this Cryptocompare article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Monero sources (Singapore and ZCash papers)

I am making a new section because I want to shift everyone's focus slightly. I want to examine the applicability of the Singapore paper to WP in particular [6], [7] combined with the ZCash paper [8]

Would you all be amenable to having the article sourced from both of those papers combined? There is a lot in both that can be used both to describe the general workings of monero, weaknesses (I'm not planning on glossing over that part, given that this is the focus of both papers) and strengths.

I absolutely sympathise with the fact that it is hard to keep a level head when you have abuse being hurled at you - I get that a lot from the Monero community too. I am trying to hammer out something workable - I think we have the sources to do it if we can sit down and think constructively. Fireice (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the interest in the article seems to have died down and I couldn't get any feedback/guidance here, I referred a proposed edit to WP:RSN. Fireice (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2017

Under the "Problems" section, change "Th esecond threat," to "The second threat," to fix a spacing error. Ivantam (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Done –72 _(talk) 12:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Including a brief mention of related supplementary projects by Monero developers; Kovri and OpenAlias

I'd like to source some input from the community on whether we should include a brief mention of Kovri and OpenAlias. For those not familiar, Kovri is a C++ implementation if the I2P protocol anonymity layer under development by the Monero devs. The end goal is enabling Monero transactions without having to broadcast your own (or remote node's) IP address. OpenAlias is a project to simplify use of unwieldy cryptocurrency addresses by offering a human readable alias in a decentralised and secure manner. I think it's notable because it claims to be a solution to Zooko's triangle. Both projects are developed primarily for use with Monero, by Monero developers which may make them relevant. On the other hand, neither are only usable by Monero and are designed to be usable by projects and technologies other than Monero. Perhaps a solution would be to give them a section within Monero article until they can be spun out into their own articles (if ever)? Melmann^(talk) 10:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Do not understand why something is considered spam

Could anyone explain why this edit was made, removing so called "spam"? [9] I am not sure why citing the New York Times mentioning a Monero-based project as one of only two praiseworthy projects in 2017 in the entire cryptocurrency space is considered spam, other than that it does not help further the narrative that Monero is strictly for "illicit use" that this wikipedia entry seems to be trying to claim (seemingly in violation of the impartiality goals of Wikipedia). Just trying to learn how this works, as I am inexperienced in this. - Ndcro (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Scaling problems.

Monero suffers even worse from the scaling problem, because the block size is significant larger than other coins. The size is 12k bytes per transaction due to more advanced signatures, compared to 200 bytes with Bitcoin. I would suggest to entirely remove the word scalability from the introduction. The official Monero whitepaper does not even mention the word scalability, so it definitely is not a core focus of the project. Initramfs (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does "cryptojacking" redirect here?

I entered "cryptojacking" in the search box, expecting to find an article about malware that mines cryptocurrency. Instead, I got the article about Monero. "C̶̶̶r̶̶̶y̶̶̶p̶̶̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶c̶̶̶u̶̶̶r̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶n̶̶̶c̶̶̶y̶̶̶" "Cryptojacking" appears nowhere in the Monero article. So, why the redirect? SlowJog (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

'Cryptorags' & forum references

The current version of this article contains a lot of references to 'cryptorags' including CoinDesk, Cointelegraph, CoinCentral, The Merkle, CoinWire and Unblock, as well as a reference to the cryptonote forum. Are these types of reference acceptable? @Jtbobwaysf: @Jytdog: @Retimuko: Technoir2 (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Technoir2 (talk · contribs) Forum posts have no place at all and should be deleted without question 100% of the time. Relating to this article there is not yet a fixed blanked policy on sourcing relating to these low quality cryptorags as you mention. There is a policy on Bitcoin Cash due to heavy promotional edits and the IOTA article got killed entirely. I would say we editors are still trying to figure out what to do. I personally would like to keep one or two of the cryptorags, such as CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, but other editors want to delete them all (I think I am in the minority here.) But to answer your question I think editors just patrol and try to apply WP:RS policy at articles where there is an obvious problem (at least a bigger problem than other places). There is so much work to do at wikipedia, take a look at this article PLDT, note all the unsourced promotional content. I think cryptocurrency gets more focus today as it probably gets a lot more hits as well as editors are interested in it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

PLDT? Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) Technoir2 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Was just giving PLDT as an example of an article that probably doesnt get much editor patrol eyeballs and hence suffers from sourcing and content quality issues. Doesnt really relate to Monero. Jtbobwaysf (talk)

COI disclosure of OSNF2P

Hi guys I'm kind of new to Wikipedia and got a notification I had to disclose a COI. Not sure if this is the proper way to do it, but: - I used to be an active member of the Monero community (2017/early 2018) - I no longer have a stake in Monero - I am no longer part of any Monero initiative/group/etc I've moved onto other Cryptocurrencies but just wanted to clean up the Wikipedia page before I went. I know a lot about Monero from my interest in it in the past, but no longer have much to do with it these days.

Hope that clears some stuff up. I made a lot of edits past couple days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSNF2P (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to segregate description of controversies

This articles contains some purely descriptive content about the history and design of a cryptocurrency, which is well suited to Wikipedia's encyclopedia remit. However, there is also information about controversies (seemingly two types: (i) differences of opinion among developers of this & other cryptocurrencies, and (ii) controversial uses of the technology such as money-laundering and surreptitious mining on other people's computers). It is right and proper for Wikipedia to dispassionately document the existence of controversies (provided adequate sources are available), but the article would be easier to follow if controversies are separated out from purely descriptive material. A common technique in Wikipedia articles is to use a subheading (Views or Controversies or Critics etc.) to delineate such material. This makes it simpler for writers to be objective when describing non-controversial parts of the subject, and focuses their minds on the extra diligence that's required to be balanced while writing content for the controversial parts.

I therefore suggest that the History of bytecoin part be renamed Relationship to bytecoin and that the controversial parts of that history (a code-fork prompted by allegations of a secret pre-mine, if I'm understanding correctly) be moved out of history and into a new Controversies section, along with the reference to bytecoin's response. The new Controversies section would also be a more logical place to put some of the material about surreptitious javascript mining: that would allow the Implementations section to be made less confusing by limiting it to a survey, plain and simple, of what implementations exists. The fact that some implementations have been used in more controversial ways than others is logically separate from the fact than multiple implementations exist. Also, the money-laundering controversies seem to be implementation-agnostic, so it's a little confusing when the layout of the article creates an unintended connection. Disclaimer: I'm not a cryptocurrency trader, and my use of jargon here may be erratic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.105.198 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Following on the the above suggestion (which I made from a different computer), another controversy is now causing difficulties: the new content about use of Monero by white supremacists. I therefore invite editor Drmies to study the above suggestion. The problem with having a white supremacists section is that it's really just one example of use by controversial entities, with the white supremacists' motives for using monero being exactly the same as a tax evader's motives. I think having a Controversies suggestion would accomplish Drmies 's entirely reasonable objective of recording controversial uses, without unintentionally insinuating that there's some sort of affiliation between the subject of the article and one of the many entities that uses the subject of the article in a controversial way. As it stands (i.e. the white sumpremacist section being separated from other controversies), there's a risk of sliding into polemic, which is not what wikipedia is for. As an analogy, I don't think anyone would want a paragraph on anti-semitism to go in the wikipedia article on bacon, but that article does have some relevant information about cultural/religious considerations.94.117.63.144 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you making a proposal to make sub-sections? If I read this correctly, seems that approach seems totally normal. Also the "ties to white supremecists" content looks pretty outrageous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In general it is a poor idea to split off controversies. see WP:Controversial articles which recommends this; one of the reasons is that this fragments the story, and things that happen lose their context. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have struck my comments below per the policy noted by jytdog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at whether or not a different layout can made it less confusing (I'm trying not to get involved in the content at its atomic level since I'm not an expert). The guidance that Jytdog has just linked to is useful for contributors to this article, as is the observation about fragmentation; but I was actually thinking of this guidance, so perhaps I should use the word Criticisms rather than Controversies. I agree that fragmentation is bad, but fragmentation is what's already happened! Examples of controversial uses are sprinkled haphazardly through sections that are trying to be be straight descriptions of the anatomy/history of the article's subject, so perhaps the Criticisms examples here are a useful model (save for the depressing inevitability of wikipedia wahabbis indiscriminately misapplying WP:INDISCRIMINATE...). I agree with Jtbobwaysf that a ties to white supremacists heading is pretty weird, but has a previous editor stumbled into this by accident? Was the intention just to provide an example of a use of Monero that has been criticised, and if so, would it solve the problem to defragment the various controversial use mentions into a single section? (Whether you call the heading Controversies or Criticisms is a minor technicality that can be handled seprately from the text under it.) {Same author as 94.117.63.144 above}88.145.105.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Just to clarify, I'm using the word criticism in its strict sense of being both positive and negative; but the Wikipedia custom is to use the word Reception in this context and to reserve Criticism headings for negative criticisms. In the present context, Monero seems to have been positively criticized by e.g. white supremacists & tax evaders, and negative criticized by the opponents of white supremacism & tax evasion of the basis of those positive criticisms, at the same time as being positively criticized on anti-surveillance grounds by people who don't necessarily agree with white supremacists or tax evaders. Since Wikipedia's role is neutral about everything (including white supremacism, tax evasion and Orwellian states), the word Reception may therefore be a way out of a semantic quagmire.

First, please remember to sign your comments with four ~. I am ok to change to criticisms. Whatever can be done to expand the nature of the section to be more inclusive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion (I will go ahead and implement it if no-one objects), it to bring back the Illicit uses sub-heading that somehow got transformed into Implementations. I'm not quite sure how ransomware is an implementation (as opposed to a use) of cryptocurrency. Fireice (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the above suggestion for a Controversies/Critcisms/Reception subheading, and I'm probably thinking along the similar lines as Fireice (i.e. encyclopedia content on [contentious] uses of a technology being logically separate from encyclopedic description of the technology itself). So, if Mr Fireice is ahead of me in this endeavour, perhaps he should go ahead, while keeping an open mind about the exact wording of the subheading itself. The difficulty with illicit is that it's conditional on who you are and where you are: consequently I was exploring other words, like controversy, reception. In recognition of Wikipedia's neutrality, I'm leaning towards an Alice-says-this-whereas-Bob-says-that style, which might affect what works as a heading. Wikipedia's neutrality isn't compromised by documenting white supremacists being an example of an interest-group that says one thing about Monero while some other interest group (e.g. the EU's TAX3 committee) makes an opposing case. The conclusion to the Reserve Bank of St Louis' recent essay is a useful example of an even-handed discussion of the controversies associated with Monero (except they've exercised their right to state their opinion, which Wikipedia doesn't want to do!). Perhaps the St Louis essay should be cited: as a Review, it's the kind of source that fits Wikipedia's remit. Possibly the same goes for the TAX3 study. 88.145.107.64 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with NPOV Policy Jytdog, please correct me if I'm wrong, but WP policy on NPOV necessarily includes leaning on the side of wider consensus as to avoid creating an impression of a debate where there is none (Creationism is a good example here). If we go by dictionary definition of illicit [10] - "Breaking social norms" - we will describe the consensus on white supremacy, malware and malicious browser mining. Fireice (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fireice, I think you're addressing Jytdog rather than me above, but your observation about debate where there is none is a helpful criticism of the idea I was exploring. Where there is a debate is the argument made on behalf of the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis versus the argument made on behalf of the EU's TAX3 committee (reasons not to ban versus reason to ban). I agree that it would be a mistake to present the likes of electricity theft & incitement to violence as being some kind of serious debate taking place within social norms, and my slight misgiving about the word illicit relates to lesser things like different age limits for alcohol buyers in different jurisdictions. If those corner-cases aren't covered, then illicit works in the subheading (until someone throws a spanner in the works with stuff about cannabis). The wiktionary entry for illicit is quite entertaining! 88.145.107.64 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I was talking to you, just asked the more senior WP editor for advice. Out of those two sources only TAX3 mentions Monero, and only for general description while dealing with cryptocurrencies as a whole. As such I don't think those are suitable for a Monero article. You can use them in more general article like Cryptocurrency. Also please increase the indentation (add an extra ":") when you reply to someone please. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Fireice (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, should have said which parts I was referring to. Last para. of St Louis review says "History and current political reality show that, on the one hand, governments can be bad actors and, on the other hand, some citizens can be bad actors. The former justifies an anonymous currency to protect citizens from bad governments, while the later calls for transparency of all payments." I assume this is a reference to Monero, but if your involvement in other cryptocurrencies informs you otherwise, fair enough. The TAX3 review (typeset page 58) does explicitly take a position on Monero: "If cryptocurrencies are used for criminal purposes, it is therefore not the technology that needs to be addressed. On the contrary, it is the illicit use that should be targeted. Exceptionally, however, an exception can be made in well-defined cases, such as the mixing technique used in the context of Dash and Monero's RingCT, stealth addresses and Kovri-project" and on page 84 "To mind come the mixing process attached to Dash's feature PrivateSend and Monero's RingCT, stealth addresses and Kovri-project. In essence, these features are designed to make cryptocurrency users untraceable. But why is such degree of anonymity truly necessary? Would allowing this not veer too far towards criminals? Imposing a ban for such aspects surrounding cryptocurrencies that are aimed at making it impossible to verify their users and criminally sanctioning these aspects seems to be in line with the Council's conclusions...". Overall, the problem with the Monero article is that it reads like a manic argument between a libertarian polemicist and an authoritarian polemicist, and the zeal of the polemicists (both sides) has annoying side-effects for those of us who just want detached information about the architecture, developmental history, uses (good, bad & ugly) and regulatory environment. You mentioned the wacky classification of covert mining as an "implementation", and that's a representative example of what I'm talking about — nobody really wants that kind of disjointedness, and it's why the article needs to be subdivided in a way that defuses polemicism. 88.145.107.64 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In the TAX3 quotes I still don't see anything that can go into illicit use section. Regulatory interest might be notable but precisely for the reasons you stated I want to keep that section specific in scope and to the point. Fireice (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There might be a COI with the "ties to white supremacists" change. Fireice is working on a direct Monero fork and competitor, "Ryo".

References

-- 185.69.244.30 (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi! All WP-notable (Ryo isn't WP-notable) currencies that I own or helped to develop are declared on my user page. Actually I forgot to Dash (I contributed to that too). Fixing Fireice (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is generally a bad idea to single out "controversies" and the like. The white nationalist uptake after they were denied access to other payment platforms is part of the history of this cryptocurrency. Also, independent reliable sources all say that illicit use has been a key driver of Monero's growth and market cap since the beginning, and having the history all continuous shows this. This is perhaps som ewhat unhappy to members of the Monero community but that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Reformatting of "implementations" to "illicit uses"

This is a continuation of the previous section that got a bit crowded. As I said before, "implementation" is not a correct term to use here. Monero is an implementation of a cryptocurrency. Wannacry is not. It uses a cryptocurrency. Fireice (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it needs improvement. The wannacry thing is an event and should be moved into the history. But please suggest changes here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. If we do that what do you think should be done about the other two illicit uses described? (stealth browser mining and app mining) Fireice (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Those also happened in time and can be incorporated into the history. I was starting to do that the other day and got distracted. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I will let you develop the article then. I have a question regarding COI, while letter of the law states "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly", it doesn't say I must not. Is that what you take the spirit of the law to be? My concern (from my previous experience of a complete lack of feedback on RSN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Monero_(cryptocurrency) ) is that I might struggle to find non-COI editors that want to touch this topic with a barge pole. Fireice (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It could get messy, trying to fit on-going phenomena (stealth mining etc.) into a list of events. Specific instances of illicit uses (e.g. wannacry laundering actions) are indeed events, but the existence of an unknown and ever-changing number of secret mining processes over an extended period with an unknown start-date is difficult to slot into a temporally linear narrative. The other problem you run into with putting usage events into the same History section as technological events is this: it creates an impression that the developers have amended the code-base in response to those usage events - if that happened it should be stated explicitly with secondary sources (which would presumably reference code-commits as their primary sources) and if such sources aren't available it shouldn't be insinuated. (This anomaly probably came about by accident, from the article's quirky structure, but it's unfortunate because it conflates development history with market history, and that's a speculator's POV that Wikipedia shouldn't be plugging. Actually, quite a lot of the article reads like an attempt to pump up the exchange-rate by plugging black market utility., and Fireice's suggestion will restore some balance.) 88.145.107.64 (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

responding to F. Everything that is good in WP, is there because people did what they should do. Most of the bad stuff, is from people doing what they can do, but not what they should do.

responding to the IP - the content should make no WP:SYN suggestions. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer a yes or no answer instead of riddles Fireice (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog I have re-done the parts of my edit that you don't appear to object to. With regards to your idea of merging everything into history:

• "In general it is a poor idea to split off controversies. see WP:Controversial articles which recommends this", I can't find that recommendation. Can you perhaps point me to it? Are we talking about WP policy or your stylistic preference here?
• "Those also happened in time and can be incorporated into the history. I was starting to do that the other day and got distracted." is fairly eyebrow-raising as those are ongoing problems. What point in time would you pick for them? What about if we want to expand and describe their ongoing impact? Fireice (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • About where the splitting controversies off thing is, sorry it is in Wikipedia:Criticism.
  • please also see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Can you answer the questions from my comment that you replied to, as this will enable me better to have an idea of your vision for the merged section? So far I'm fairly confused as to how an ongoing problem can be incorporated at a particular point in time. Fireice (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Something like this would work. I have self reverted to see if folks are OK with that, and to respect the GS, since how to discuss this appears to be controversial. Jytdog (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy with this version (apart from the typo). Note that I started the other section to separate the discussion about the blurb and the body, since now you have raised an objection to both. Fireice (talk)

Jytdog] [11] Can you please explain your objection to this edit? Fireice (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The content overemphasizes negatives. Procedurally it was overly bold. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason I added it is because of stylistics (Rule_of_three_(writing)), and those were three most important issues there, I think. How do you feel it should be balanced as not to overemphasise the negatives? Fireice (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I offered my version above.Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That version is a wholesale revert of the blurb. If you feel there is no way to balance the edit above, can you explain your reasoning? Fireice (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "blurb", much less "wholesale reversion" of it. Do you mean the "implementation section? If so, what i did was incorporate it into the history, which is what i said i would do. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the dictionary definition [12], but let's say introduction so we don't argue on semantics. Just in case you are still confused this is the edit making it [13]. I assume you referred to this edit when you said "The content overemphasizes negatives. Procedurally it was overly bold." If so, can you please address "The reason I added it is because of stylistics (Rule_of_three_(writing)), and those were three most important issues there, I think. How do you feel it should be balanced as not to overemphasise the negatives?", the edit that you made deals with another section entirely. Fireice (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I know what a "blurb" is for pete's sake. are you talking about the lead? See WP:LEAD. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

You are indeed correct. AFAIK they are synonyms. Just in case you are still confused this is the edit making it [14]. I assume you referred to this edit when you said "The content overemphasizes negatives. Procedurally it was overly bold." If so, can you please address "The reason I added it is because of stylistics (Rule_of_three_(writing)), and those were three most important issues there, I think. How do you feel it should be balanced as not to overemphasise the negatives?", the edit that you made deals with another section entirely. Fireice (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

a "blurb" could be any bit of content anywhere on the page. Somebody who brags on their ten years of experience should be able to use basic terminology in WP. You have exhausted my patience for now. I will come back to this later. Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm the contributor of the earlier suggestion (Talk, not Article), which Fireice] seems to developing into something more fine-grained that my rather woolly stream-of-consciousness stuff. From my perspective as a non-contributor to the Article itself (apart from 2 secondary sources that I added where previous editors had forgotten to source their statements), it looks like you need to bring in another editor who is less personally involved. Your assertion that the article "overemphasizes negatives" matches my perception, so I am puzzled by you hostility to Fireice's effort to develop a structure that opens up the possibility of a more balanced article. Fireice's last edit, when viewed in isolation, doesn't remove the negativity, but equally it doesn't increase it either (it just re-locates it on the page). It's pretty clear to me that he is trying to open up space for any less negative events/receptions/whatever to be documented on the same footing, so it's a little worrying that your objections revolve around him personally rather than around his text. This is what logicians refer to as the ad hominen fallacy: we're all susceptible to it, and I encourage you to pause for reflection. I've just had a look at Monero's code repository (challenging for me as a non coder!) and I see that someone using the name Fireice has donated code from his own project. If that's the same person (I've no idea, never met him!), it means you're on extremely shaky ground accusing him of taking sides. I recommend that you hand over to another editor who does not share your apparent desire to pump up the price of Monero through black market advocacy (and I hope my impression here is wrong). Since your aggressive behaviour has compelled me to move beyond cautious suggestions, I will not be making any contributions to the article or talk until other editors have reviewed the situation. 88.145.104.127 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. See your talk page. We are probably going to need some form of DR if we cannot agree on how to handle the stuff about "illicit use". But it ~appears~ that Fireice was more or less OK with my test edit to blend the content.. Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• I support jytdog's suggested edit above. I don't see how malware running on a website should be called an implementation nor should it be called an illicit use. Illicit uses of the currency should be when Bob buys drugs from Alice with it. It's a WP:FRINGE mining theory to argue that a website running malicious code to covertly mine coins when Bob visits Alice's website is called an implementation. If you want to explore this fringe mining POV, then add a section on that over on some mining article (e.g. Cloud mining), but not on this article (which would imply that malicious code is an implementation of this monero currency and not an implemenation of another coin like bitcoin). This whole fringe treatment is an obvious NPOV issue and lacks any merit. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the "implementation" wording. I think we managed to hammer out an agreement on that section (merge into history). The only open issue is having a balanced lead / blurb. Fireice (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, i have hacked down the lede a bit as well. Is that better? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking good, can you perhaps review this edit [15] I think having three issues listed together sounds better - Rule_of_three_(writing)? Perhaps the next paragraph can be removed then to keep balance. Fireice (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Against this change. This has been touched in the history section already. 185.69.244.16 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The point of lead is to introduce issues discussed later. Fireice (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)