Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Removing self-published sources notification

I would like to get rid of the self-published sources notification on top of the Bitcoin article.

Can anybody tell me what references should be removed/changed to achieve this goal? I have just reviewed the References section and it looks good to me. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How about 11, 12, 38, and 74, for starters? KLP (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, just to clarify, after the last changes in the article, here are the references we are currently referring to: 11, 12, 39 and 75.

Number 11 is a link to the VanityGen binaries. This software generates customized Bitcoin addresses as the one specified in the article.

Number 12 is the source code of that same program.

Number 39 is a directory of businesses that use Bitcoin. It is used to back the following claim: "As of July 2011, some small businesses have started to adopt Bitcoin.". Links are provided in that page to back the veracity of those assertions.

Number 75 is a list of contributors to the Bitcoin software. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and the veracity of this claim can be corroborated from the Commits tab of the Github source control system for Bitcoin: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

I am trying to understand what points of Wikipedia:SPS any of those links violate. I see no flagrant violation in any of them. Could you please point them out to me? --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Move to Bitcoin (protocol)

I undid the attempted move to Bitcoin (protocol) for the following reasons:

1. The move wasn't actually a move, the article was changed to a redirect to a copy of the article under another name. When a move is desired, Wikipedia expects the "move" function to be used, so the page history is kept intact, and so the talk page (and associated history) can be moved with the article. Those without access to the move function can request moves at WP:RM.
2. The current content of the article doesn't describe the protocol. "Bitcoin" seems much more appropriate title given its current content.
3. It does not appear as though there is new content written to replace Bitcoin, given that it was changed to a redirect, so there isn't really a purpose to having more specificity in the title. Wikipedia prefers concise article names: see WP:PRECISION.
4. If efforts are underway to make Bitcoin fill two articles - one describing Bitcoin and one more focused on its protocol - then an action to make both articles exist would be well done simultaneously, possibly after a proposal could be reviewed in userspace.
5. I see there is a Bitcoin (software) and Bitcoin (disambiguation). This isn't how one (or at least I) would expect to see a disambiguation page used. Several reasons come to mind, not the least of which being what is described as Bitcoin (software) is, as you know, more commonly called "bitcoin-qt" and/or "bitcoind". Assuming they met the criteria for notability (WP:N) independently of Bitcoin, I think most editors would expect to find articles about these software packages under those names.
6. If I could suggest a structure, it would be Bitcoin to describe the "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" (which would describe the protocol only in the abstract with a See also: Bitcoin (protocol) below the section heading), and more technical details about the protocol going in the protocol article.

Casascius♠ (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected (temporarily at least) the pages back to this article, because it's a pretty drastic change and was cut-pasted, and I think some sort of discussion should take place first. - SudoGhost 04:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I modelled it off of BitTorrent. Same structure. Genjix (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My only concern about even bringing up the protocol as an independent article would be sufficient independent sources for notability. It would be good to have so far as there is a clear distinction between the software written by Satoshi Nakamoto and the underlying protocol, particularly because there are now multiple programs using that protocol. Simply renaming this article is insufficient and really needs an article split instead. I've argued on this talk page that we need to go into the technical details in some fashion (reliable sources needed of course). If this move allows that to happen, I'm fine with it where I've tried to compare this to HTTP and other similar articles that do go into low level details about the subject matter.

The cut & paste was the wrong way to do this, so I'm glad that was caught. It loses the entire edit history and causes other problems even if good intentioned. I'm supportive of the split, provided we can find sufficient reliable sources and make independent notability on both topics. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

External link

Concerning the external link here, WP:ELYES does not apply: "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." (emphasis in original) That site is already used as a reference in the article itself, therefore the link doesn't belong both in the references and the external links secion. The links were removed per Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam, and that site is just one of dozens (at least) of similar sites that fulfill the same exact purpose, there's no reason why that one should be an external link, and the others should not. There are already similar sites linked at the Open Directory Project, or "DMOZ" in the external links, if this site is so essential to the understanding of the article that being a reference is insufficient, it can be placed at DMOZ. - SudoGhost 16:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, please keep in mind WP:STATUSQUO. There are currently no websites in the DMOZ that provide both historic and real-time statistics of the Bitcoin network. Just check it yourself if you feel like it.

The proposed external link honors point 3 of WP:ELYES. I have removed the reference in the article to that same link because it is not really a citation and it was placed absolutely out of context. It was added by an IP address with no other contributions.

Finally, many articles provide several external links by different websites and it has been no obstacle for their promotion as "Featured articles". In fact, I would say most of "Good articles" have several external links at the bottom of the page. Assorted examples of "Featured articles": Olympic Games, Battle of Moscow, Las Meninas.

By the way, I am not affiliated to any website, and I definitely have no relationship to the website I have reinstated. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELYES does not apply, read the top of WP:EL as was explained above: "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." Your link is already used as a citation in the article, so WP:ELYES doesn't apply to it. You also apparently didn't check DMOZ. There's at least one link there that is identical to the one you're placing on this page, why should this one be on the article and not the dozens on DMOZ? Every single link on DMOZ is a site "that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". There's nothing unique about this link, and nothing that the DMOZ links don't also provide. The article has been prone to spam, therefore all the links were removed and replaced with DMOZ, per Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. There's nothing so critically important about this one specific site that it absolutely has to be on the page, and provides nothing that isn't already present at DMOZ, and that's ignoring the fact that it is already used in the article as a citation, making its use as an external link doubly redundant (WP:ELPOINTS). - SudoGhost 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already said that I have removed the "citation" reference in the body of the article. I say it again because it seems I have not been able to get the point across.

The "citation" you refer to was placed by an IP address with no other contributions and it was not citing anything because the reference to the main page of blockchain.info was situated just after the following sentence: "Although the network makes the complete history of every bitcoin transaction public, it can be difficult to associate bitcoin identities with real-life identities". I mean, it was definitely located in the wrong place. That is why I removed it. So yes, point 3 of WP:ELYES does apply here.

On the other hand, answering your question, I definitely believe this page is as important or even more so, than most of the external links I have referred to as "Featured articles". It shows in real-time all transactions in the Bitcoin network, how many transactions are included per block and the pool or IP which resolved the block. It also shows orphaned-blocks in real-time and the current P2SH voting status in the Bitcoin network. These statistics are not specified in any of the websites currently in the DMOZ. On top of that, it shows all kind of historical statistics which are at the very core of point 3 of WP:ELYES.

It is my duty as an editor to keep up the status quo as per WP:STATUSQUO, especially because this website serves an invaluable purpose in monitoring the Bitcoin network and because it fulfills all requirements to make it in the "External links" section. --FrankAndProust (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Your external link is not a WP:STATUSQUO (which is an essay, not something that makes an editor "duty-bound"), reinserting your link is spamming. I don't know when the link was inserted, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was you who added the link initially, given your preference for it. The link does not satisfy WP:ELYES, and removing it as a citation so that you can use it as an external link (while somehow also having the gall to cite WP:STATUSQUO while making these changes) is disingenuous and wholly inappropriate. I'm going to assume you somehow missed this link on DMOZ, but your website is not unique in its purpose, and there's no reason to promote your link on the article, there's nothing critically valuable there. You know what would solve "these statistics not being specified in any way on any of the websites currently in the DMOZ"? Putting your link on DMOZ. Problem solved. - SudoGhost 01:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Turns out you are the one that inserted the link. You want the link in the article so badly then put it on DMOZ, but there's no reason that it gets to stay and everyone else's doesn't. Your link gives nothing unique that isn't already linked through DMOZ. WP:ELYES is "normally" not "definitely" can be linked, especially when there's already a link repository that duplicates the information in your link, and you're more than welcome to place the link at DMOZ. Oh, and can you please provide a diff for the IP's edit that inserted the link as a reference? - SudoGhost 01:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff for the IP edit that inserted the link as a reference:

I do feel you are the one who wants the DMOZ so badly. There are lots of "featured articles" and "good articles" in Wikipedia which may not totally comply with WP:ELYES. I have provided three examples in this same section. You may want to start with them. However, the external link we are talking about in the Bitcoin article does comply. --FrankAndProust (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What other articles have or do not have is irrelevant, those articles aren't being hit with spam and don't have DMOZ as a link. As for meeting WP:ELYES: It would have failed WP:ELYES if not for being a reference, but since I guess since it doesn't belong as a reference, we can agree that it doesn't belong as a reference, problem solved there. It is however a bit strange that you admonish the IP for using that website as a reference, when you yourself did the same thing on the Spanish Wikipedia, with the same link on the same article for the same exact information. However, now that it gets in the way of promoting it through the "External Links" section, you suddenly have an issue with it.

However, in the spirit of compromise, let's keep a site in the external links section. Since this website duplicates the website you've mentioned and was in the article before either you or the IP introduced the .info website, I'm going to compromise with you. Per WP:STATUSQUO, I'm going to undo the edit you did that originally introduced the .info site into the article, and restore the .com site, since it also satisfies WP:ELYES #3 and all of the other reasons you gave to keep a site in the external links section. That way we keep a realtime information link, stay in line with the WP:STATUSQUO essay you're fond of, avoid any spamming or the appearance of a conflict of interest, and satisfy WP:ELYES #3, per your arguments. If you disagree with this, then per WP:STATUSQUO you're more than welcome to try to establish a consensus to change it, but otherwise it looks like this is resolved. - SudoGhost 02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The website http://blockexplorer.com you have proposed allows querying for the funds of every Bitcoin address. It allows peeking at blocks too. Pages of this website also appear as reference numbers 5, 25 and 73 but since you have decided to add it to the external links section, I am not going to touch it.

However, I am going to add blockchain.info in the external links section because it provides the following extra features, which are essential to monitor the health of the Bitcoin network at any point in time: orphaned blocks, P2SH voting status, pools and IPs which resolved each block, unconfirmed transactions, strange transactions, rejected transactions, double spends attempts... It also supplies with historical charts, which are not reflected in the blockexplorer.com website.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is settled. --FrankAndProust (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

and with that, you've removed any doubt that your intention is to spam that link. By your own reasoning, you are not to reinsert that link under any circumstances without a consensus, per WP:STATUSQUO. This link does not provide a unique resource that is not already provided by the link already there, and by the many, many links in the DMOZ. Your actions have been for the sole purpose of promoting your site, and is not allowed under Wikipedia policy. You kept the link citing WP:STATUSQUO, but when it was removed under that same reasoning, you ignore it. When the external links were replaced with DMOZ, your link was the only one you replaced, arguing that it, and not the other, was somehow so useful that the article couldn't function without it, despite near identical links already present on DMOZ. When the presence as a reference was preventing it from being used as an external link, you removed it as a reference giving a very faulty reasoning, admonishing the IP that made the edit, which is odd given as you made the same exact edit on the Spanish Wikipedia.

Given your arguments for keeping the article, I replaced it with a near-identical edit, to satisfy your concern for the information being absent (despite the fact that similar links are already DMOZ, which is in the article), but because it isn't your link, you decided to continue to insert the spam into the article. It's clear that nothing short of this specific link is sufficient for you, despite any reasoning to the contrary, or compromise with appropriate links, which makes it quite clear that your intention is to promote this website specifically. This is external link spamming, which is vandalism according to Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 09:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making false accusations. This webpage is not mine. I don't own any website and I have no relationship whatsoever nor do I know who runs this website. I am keeping the status quo up. It is definitely a WP:ELYES and it provides several useful features as stated above, critical for the health monitoring of the Bitcoin network.

I would be glad if someone else steps in and gives any other feedback. --FrankAndProust (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of having a "relationship" with the website, your motivation is not relevant, your actions are. What I am accusing you of is repeatedly spamming the external link. You inserted the link, and it was removed. Therefore per the WP:STATUSQUO essay you keep referring to, "do not simply reinstate your edit". - SudoGhost 10:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what the problem was. The link that Frank posted was to the wrong page on the site, and was therefore fairly useless to the casual user. I have fixed this, so now the link goes to a more useful page. When you see the right page, its use is immediately obvious.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the issue is there are already websites with Bitcoin charts in the DMOZ link, I don't think this website is so essential that it gets to be the one external link that is an exception to the WP:SPAM guideline. Why would this one be an exception, where the three dozen other equally useful websites wouldn't be? The article will not fall apart and crumble if the link is placed on DMOZ instead of the article, because if it's just DMOZ, they'll see that the external links are there. But if it's DMOZ and another website because the person that placed it on the article surprisingly enough thinks it's a critical exception; that defeats half the purpose of using the DMOZ link, because people trying to spam their website will just go, "oh, well me too". - SudoGhost 10:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you think that the corrected link is spam. Perhaps you could quote the relevant sections of WP:SPAM here?

"Sometimes an article attracts so many improper external links that it "crosses the spam event horizon". Removing all the links and using the {{dmoz}} template to place a single external link to the appropriate DMOZ category can provide much-needed relief." (and "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.") - SudoGhost 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Before your edit of 01:20, 30 June 2012, the page had seven external links, and you changed that to two - and one of those was to one of those link pages that I avoid like the plague - it is not safe to click links on pages like that.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the number of links that were currently on the article that was the problem (although seven is a bit much, it's nothing crazy), it was the constant addition of links being added to the article. Also, link pages? Are you referring to DMOZ? - SudoGhost 10:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are continuing this. The wrong link has been replaced by a good one. There are not many links (though I suggest we delete the one to the link page). Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a "wrong link", and being a "good link" doesn't make it an exception to the guideline; that's what the DMOZ link is for. We don't remove all the links except the ones where the spammers continue to spam, that's the entire point of moving it to DMOZ. If the link is "a good one" then it needs to go on DMOZ, not here, per WP:SPAM#Dealing with spam. As for "the link page", I don't think you understand what DMOZ is. DMOZ is stricter than Wikipedia is with their guidelines, and is used by the big search engine directories short of Google (who used to use it until they developed their own). DMOZ has a template that is used on almost 6000 articles, it's a very reliable link directory that is often used in lieu of external link sections to prevent spam (it's harder to spam DMOZ than Wikipedia). If you're going to tell someone to drop a stick, at least understand what stick their holding, and don't stand there holding a different stick the wrong way. - SudoGhost 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following to try and solve this issue. Let's roll back to the status quo before all these edits and counter-edits started. This is the version I am referring to: Also, let's start a new section in the Bitcoin talk page and let's all of us propose which external links are proper and which are not. How do you feel about this? --FrankAndProust (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Organization

This article has a fair amount of repetition which is not uncommon in writing about the subject. Besides that, it seems haphazardly organized. I propose to reorganize the Network section to start from the core of the protocol, the mining hash problem, linking together blocks to form the blockchain, then adding transactions into that blockchain. From there it makes sense to talk about transaction fees, addresses and privacy.

In regards to the client section, a client is but one type of tool that might interact with the network and a client section should begin with what a client does for users in general. It makes more sense actually to make client a subheading of a software section and to do an overview of the capabilities and best uses for general cases of clients, servers and mobile apps. Not mentioning any names but helping to describe how each type of software fits into the system as it will be used by different parties.

I'm not asking that anyone tackle this personally but is "edit boldly" better or discussing how the article should flow here better? Also, Bitcoin is a very deep topic, is there any other article on a technology that can serve as a guide for a strong Bitcoin article? Statecraft (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for External links section

The purpose of this new section is to reach a consensus on which links should be placed in the "External links" section of the Bitcoin article. Here is my view on this subject:

The official Bitcoin webpage should be there as per point 1 of WP:ELYES.

• Bitcoin website

The blockchain.info should also be there as per point point 3 of WP:ELYES.

• Charts, Stats, API for the Bitcoin network

The blockhain.info website provides complete historical and real-time information of the Bitcoin network:

• Newly found blocks, the pool or IP which solved them, number of transactions in any block, amount of bitcoins in each transaction that arrived to the recipient and their fees.
• Plain text API for querying blockchain data: getdifficulty, getblockcount, latesthash... Firstbits for a Bitcoin address, and the Bitcoin address which resolves to the provided firstbits.
• Querying inputs, outputs, dates and final balance for all Bitcoin addresses.
• Unconfirmed transactions and its geolocation, orphaned blocks, P2SH voting status, strange transactions, rejected transactions, double spends attempts.
• Traceability of transactions by dendrograms, geo-distribution of a transaction or block throughout the network, possibility of querying transactions relayed by a specific IP address.
• Historical charts and stats: Total bitcoins in circulation, market capitalization, total transaction fees, cost per transaction, hash rate, pool hashrate distribution, average transaction confirmation time, blockchain size, largest transactions...
• Geolocation of Global Bitcoin nodes: Online now, Past 48 hours, Most Stable Nodes, Block Origins.
• Access to real time blockchain data via a low latency streaming socket using the Websocket API. It allows external applications, not only visual people, to access the Bitcoin network data.

All these features are essential to monitor the health of the Bitcoin network at any point in time. It also helps newbies understand how the web is directly connected to the Bitcoin network, which may seem an obvious statement, but it is not an easy concept to grasp at first by most people, even for those with some technical background.

There are other informative websites that have the quality to make it in the "External links" section, but the ones I have checked already appear as references in the article.

Any feedback welcome. --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist; DMOZ already satisfies all of your criteria listed above, with multiple links. It also has the added benefit of not having to worry about spam being inserted into the article by anyone, because if this link should be in the article, why not the 20 other identically useful websites? The logical thing to do would be to submit your link to DMOZ, that way not only can readers of this article benefit from it, it would be used in all of these search engines as well. - SudoGhost 19:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to give some time and see if we receive any feedback. Your position and mine are already well-known.

Whether those two links make it in the search engines or not because of Wikipedia is irrelevant. The key fact is they give real value to readers and the amount of spam in this article does not justify a single DMOZ, no other external link policy. I agree we should be more vigilant and avoid obvious spam but the amount of offending websites seen lately in the Bitcoin article does not justify such drastic measure. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand, Wikipedia has nothing to do with the search engine thing, adding it to DMOZ is what would make it more available to people searching for it, not Wikipedia. Also, the "real value" you allude to is not diminished if DMOZ is used, the links are still there, just on DMOZ (with the exception of your link, which you are more than welcome to correct) with the added benefit of being able to focus on the article, and not making the article into a directory of websites, no matter how useful the links may be. Let the actual directory handle that, that's what it's for. - SudoGhost 20:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to delete the link to the link page, and keep the other links. I do not trust link pages.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I admire the goals of DMOZ, and the determination of SudoGhost. Even so, I believe that Wikipedia is the defacto *replacement* for DMOZ. I know what DMOZ is, and have contributed to it, yet before clicking on a DMOZ link, I would look around the page for direct links, and may even skip the DMOZ link if nothing else appears. I believe the direct links listed above by FrankAndProust should be there, and also the seven that were deleted. Sanpitch (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

After having waited for proposals for 48 hours, I believe it is possible to find a common ground between all parties to solve this issue.

I acknowledge Toddy1's concerns about safety on directories such as DMOZ. Besides, the DMOZ solution should only be advisable on highly spammed articles. Bitcoin is not such case.

Sanpitch states he would like to have all external links back. blockexplorer.com and the Bitcoin wiki may be suitable candidates. However, some of the rest may fall under WP:ELNO because of WP:NOTPROMOTION. Besides, WP:NOTLINK must also be kept in mind.

SudoGhost's choice of adding a comment, only visible while editing, that urges editors to get their proposed external links validated in the Talk page first, looks like a valid deterrent to spamming.

So, here is my suggestion for the External links section. The XML comment would only be seen while editing, not in the article body.

<!--===============================================================================
     | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia         |
     | is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising.        |
     |                                                                            |
     | See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.         |
     |                                                                            |
     | Please propose additions or replacements on this article's discussion page.|
     ==============================================================================-->
* [http://bitcoin.org/ Bitcoin website]
* [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page The Bitcoin wiki]
* [http://blockchain.info/ Charts, Stats, API for the Bitcoin network]
* [http://blockexplorer.com/ Bitcoin Block Explorer]

Look forward to your feedback. --FrankAndProust (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with http://blockchain.info/ is that you do not get charts and meaningful statistics for the Bitcoin network. Instead you get "recent blocks - most recently mined blocks in the bitcoin block chain", which might be important to someone doing real time (second by second) monitoring, but is not what the user things he is getting from your description. I think the link should be http://blockchain.info/charts - that really does give the user some meaningful charts based on data.

I assume that API stands for "application program interface". I think that should be deleted from the description.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Toddy1. Here is the latest proposal which takes your feedback into account.

<!--===============================================================================
     | PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia         |
     | is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising.        |
     |                                                                            |
     | See [[Wikipedia:External links]] & [[Wikipedia:Spam]] for details.         |
     |                                                                            |
     | Please propose additions or replacements on this article's discussion page.|
     ==============================================================================-->
* [http://bitcoin.org/ Bitcoin website]
* [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page The Bitcoin wiki]
* [http://blockchain.info/charts Charts and Stats for the Bitcoin network]
* [http://blockexplorer.com/ Bitcoin Block Explorer]

--FrankAndProust (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this solution; let's use it. Sanpitch (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing

I know it has the too technical tag at the top, so it's obvious the article is too technical. It might help to have a clear explanation of what the hell the purpose of Bitcoins are in the lead in. I get the general gist of what it is in a physical/digital sense, but have no idea what it's purpose is or what the author of the network hoped to achieve with it. Livingston 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence is pretty jargon-loaded. Is it usual for the first sentence to sort of "go for the gusto" in terms of pulling as many big topics as possible or should it be a more gentle lead-in to the topic? I did make the first paragraph more of an overview of the topic and hopefully helped to clarify the purpose of the network. As time goes on, I don't think it's as relevant what the author hoped to acheive so much as what it is for people now. Statecraft (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the intent of the opening paragraphs is to provide enough information to the user for them to understand what it is without going into specifics such as implementation specifics/technical details. I believe the opening paragraphs do this in this case. Bitcoin's "purpose" is to be a decentralised currency, and as far as I can tell nobody knows why the original author wrote it. Supermadman (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about...

This article is not about individual Bitcoin software but the protocol and network as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 06:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

bitcoin.org role should be more visible

I have the impression that after the edits performed in the last few days, the current Bitcoin article describes bitcoin.org as an ordinary client provider of the Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind software. However, bitcoin.org also provides the platform for the open-source, public and collaborative development of the Bitcoin protocol. Modifications to the protocol are channeled via BIPs (Bitcoin Improvement Proposals) and implemented in Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind. There are other independent protocol implementations, such as libbitcoin and BitcoinJ, but as far as I know, both take Bitcoind into account.

I feel the Bitcoin project is not very different to the Linux project. Linux distributions (Ubuntu, Debian...) share the Linux kernel at kernel.org to provide compatibility and avoid serious bugs. Similarly, the protocol development at bitcoin.org provides the unity to avoid forks or denial-of-service attacks. In fact, the Armory client currently uses Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind, and Multibit is a thin (lightweight) client which does not fully implement the Bitcoin protocol.

For the reasons stated above, if nobody disagrees, I will add the "Infobox software" on top of the article, as it was a week ago. It reflects the current version of the Bitcoin-Qt software and points to bitcoin.org. --FrankAndProust (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin Protocol not Bitcoin-Qt

Please see Bittorrent for how network protocols are treated versus their implementations. Notice how even its "official client" is not designated an infobox. You are free to write about Bitcoin-Qt in the Bitcoin-Qt article.

This article is not about the Bitcoin project or software. It's about the network, currency and protocol alone. It is designed as a decentralized network and it is agreed that there is no central development by its current design and intentions. --74.192.133.197 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that both BitTorrent and Bitcoin are protocols for distributed networks. However, that does not mean that anyone can fork the protocol at will and still call it Bitcoin. There is a community that gathers together and make consensual decisions on the future evolution of the protocol. This is true not only for Bitcoin (bitcoin.org), but also for the Linux Kernel (kernel.org) and BitTorrent (bittorrent.org).

The Linux kernel Wikipedia article references the kernel.org website in its "Infobox OS".

The BitTorrent (protocol) Wikipedia article states in its body that the protocol is "maintained by Cohen's company, BitTorrent, Inc". The BitTorrent (company) article provides a external link to http://bittorrent.org. I believe it would have been cleaner if an "Infobox software" had been provided in BitTorrent (protocol) referencing http://bittorrent.org and http://bittorrent.com.

Unlike the Linux kernel and the BitTorrent article, there is no statement in the Bitcoin article that indicates that bitcoin.org provides the reference for the protocol. The infobox would sort that problem out.

Look forward to your proposal. --FrankAndProust (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Currency image

I know File:Bitcoin.png is by no means official, and, due to the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, there will likely never be consensus on a logo, but is that graphic not de facto the most common representation of Bitcoin? If not, we should not include it. —Wiki Wikardo 18:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It is the most used. I would say it is the de facto Bitcoin symbol. From what I have seen, some members in the community are trying to reach an agreement on a new logo but there is still no consensus. --FrankAndProust (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

POV/Neutrality

A link to one image or website implies a single, authoritative central source on Bitcoin. That is not neutral and many people in the Bitcoin community will contest it. Many developers and people who would like to see a Bitcoin fork when neccessary, will contest it.

For the sake of neutrality, we will keep things distributed and objective in this article.

Satoshi Nakamoto, the man who wrote most of Bitcoin's code was strongly opposed to Bitcoin being controlled by a single organization. He would not approve of an article that points to one authority.

The protocol development is meant to be distributed and Satoshi never intended there for to be one reference protocol. Community consensus should come from several types of development. Not just one.

I hope to see more voices soon.--74.192.148.147 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Satoshi Nakamoto thought on this topic, as he has sort of disappeared from the Bitcoin forums and stopped contributing some time ago. It has even been presumed that the name "Satoshi" was a pseudonym and not even his real name, so putting words in his mouth is just making stuff up that may or may not be true.

Regardless, the "bitcoin.org" website seems to be the one consistent location you can use for getting information about the main software package and software protocol, where almost all of the other sites have been disbanded or moved around from time to time. Far too many people were throwing just random links or trying to push their own relatively new websites on the link section of this article.

If there is a website that has relevancy to almost everybody using Bitcoins, is well maintained and is not just selling services using Bitcoins but offers something useful for anybody learning about Bitcoins for the first time, a link is appropriate. Too much other stuff has been put into that section where the easiest thing to do was to simply remove everything but "bitcoin.org" as a link. I don't have a problem with the current set of links, but I also don't want to see it get out of hand either... where I have culled links from there before. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We first need to acknowledge the difference between "protocol specification" and "protocol implementation".

There can only be one single Bitcoin protocol specification. It describes aspects such as the format of messages, when to consider that a block is valid or how to reach consensus among nodes on the next difficulty level. The authority on the protocol specification is what it is expected from bitcoin.org. This authority is not closed or arbitrary. It is public for anybody to join, discuss and collaborate.

There can be lots of different protocol implementations, all of them based on the bitcoin.org specification. For example, BitcoinJ is a limited compatible implementation of the Bitcoin protocol. Of course, anybody can create an implementation based on an incompatible protocol specification, but it wouldn't be Bitcoin. It would be something different.

On the other hand, Bitcoin-Qt/Bitcoind requires special mentioning because it is the software running on the hundreds of nodes in the Bitcoin network, performing tasks such as transaction relay and block validation. Bitcoind-Qt/Bitcoind fully implements the protocol and at the same time, it serves as the authoritative reference for the Bitcoin protocol specification.

I am trying to reach an agreement here. This is my proposal:

1) Adding the following "Infobox software" to the Bitcoin article.

Bitcoin

Initial release	January 9, 2009 (2009-01-09)
Stable release	0.6.3 / June 25, 2012 (2012-06-25)
Type	Electronic money
Website	www.bitcoin.org

Nomenclature convention

See this thread. KLP (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Let's use Bitcoin (singular, with upper case letter b) to describe the protocol, network, and software, and bitcoin(s) (singular or plural, with lower case letter b) to describe actual bitcoins, as generated by computers." --Mortense (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2) Adding this text to the Bitcoin Services and Clients subsection:

Bitcoin-Qt provides a graphical interface to Bitcoind in a single executable file. It fully implements the protocol, it helps to protect the network and it is considered the reference on which other clients are based. Bitcoin-Qt requires downloading the whole blockchain and storing it locally, so other client alternatives may be preferable for the casual user.

Various clients are available. Some are browser-based services not listed here.

Name	Website	Software license
Armory (client)	http://bitcoinarmory.com	AGPL
Bitcoin-Qt	http://bitcoin.org	MIT
Electrum (client)	http://electrum-desktop.org	GPL
Multibit	http://multibit.org/	MIT

3) Moving the complete "Infobox software" previous to 14 August to the Bitcoin-Qt article.

Please let me know what you think. --FrankAndProust (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees, I will commit the changes above in 24 hours. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold on one minute. You've been making some huge changes to this article, and 24 hours really isn't enough time to gain consensus. I appreciate your attempt to separate the protocol from the software (IMHO a long time coming and needed), but the reason I didn't do that earlier was because of a lack of notability for the software.... something that still is the case I should note as referenced in this AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoind

Frankly, I think all of the other articles from the Bitcoin (disambiguation) page should face a similar fate... indeed the only article that isn't facing such a threat of deletion is this article being talked about right now alone. If you can find enough information to create separate articles, meet notability requirements for those articles and make them something of a respectable article for Wikipedia, by all means make them separate. I just don't see the reliable sources, other than the fact that almost everything that has been discussed in the current sources being used is not really referencing the protocol but rather the Bitcoin software originally written by Satoshi Nakamoto. This is what you are calling "Bitcoind" (and perhaps that is even what the "Bitcoin community" may be calling it now).

Before you start making more drastic changes to this article, get those other articles up to speed at least with multiple independent 3rd party sources and don't go off trying to remake this article into something it isn't. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Robert. However, it wasn't me who took the first steps to separate the protocol from the rest of the Bitcoin software. It wasn't me either who created the Bitcoind or the Bitcoin-Qt articles. My changes are signed with my signature, not with an IP.

I agree there is no rush. We can wait and see what the rest of the editors say. --FrankAndProust (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I say proceed boldly: you don't need to wait for explicit consensus, unless absence of consensus is actually demonstrated. But as always in large edits, if you can clearly label edits, and try not to mix additions and restructuring into the same edit, and try to restructure first without erasing any text at least until well afterward (so whoever liked a particular phrase is less likely to want to revert your entire restructuring), and avoid rewriting the existing text (same reason), things are likely to go smoother. Anyway, I support merging bitcoin subtopics into this article, and making the software implementations a subsection of this article (possible only a very short subsection, if there isn't very much that is notably encyclopedic enough to say). Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"not real money"

I flagged this statement at the beginning of the article as a contradiction. At very least it needs a citation, but it is a contradiction because the article later contains a discussion of what kind of money Bitcoin is, implying that it is in fact money of some sort. --π! 21:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs to be changed because it's bogus and/or not NPOV. I was going to change it but I was trying to think of a better lede anyway before wasting time. Also, there are no "tokens". Bitcoin is represented as an allocated value, stored in the block chain, to public key accounts. One does not say, "how many bitcoins." One says, "how much bitcoin." How about something along the lines of:

Bitcoin is a distributed electronic cash protocol and virtual commodity. It is an online "currency" - bitcoin can be traded for goods and services at places that accept it. In addition, Bitcoin can be traded with other users for several fiat currencies such as the US Dollar. Cloudswrest (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's simple really, they're Autism Kroners by another name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.12.229 (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So-called "most powerful distributed" yadda yadda

This REALLY needs a reliable source before it can be re-inserted. The note that someone added even helpfully explained "hey this is an estimate and the hashing operation doesn't even do floating point operations"! The "citation" that Folding@Home is the "second biggest" did not at all prove that F@H is the 2nd biggest nor that Buttcoin is the biggest. The other citations were to non-WP:RSes.

Get some reliable media coverage to back up this claim or leave it out. Your Lord and Master (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Namecoin

namecoin is based on the bitcoin technology but there is no reference to it. I'm missing the aspect of the bitcoin technolgy to be something new that wasn't there before and therefore enables not just moneytrading but also building new bitcoin-alike technologies.

in this respect, bitcoin can be seen as a distributed tamperproof logic timestamp server that functions as a key-value store. how could that be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.211.18 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Namecoins aren't notable. They are not being included.--HowardStrong (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability only applies to whether an individual article exists for a given topic, not whether that topic is mentioned in the content of other articles: see WP:NOTABILITY, quote "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.".

But that doesn't even matter, because in this case, notability is already established by the fact that the Namecoin article exists. If you do not think that Namecoin is notable, then you should work to get that article deleted on that basis. Barry McGuiness (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Namecoin is based on Bitcoin technology, it is absolutely relevant to this article and should be included as a brief mention, perhaps in a section about such technologies that are based on or inspirired by Bitcoin. - SudoGhost 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is exchanged throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Russia.

The categories will stay accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)

The categories only include currencies exchanged within a geographically-defined region, not every medium of exchange excepted by anyone within a specific continent. – Zntrip 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a currency that is traded in those areas.--HowardStrong (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not a currency, it is a private scrip. It is not legal tender in any jurisdiction and is not issued by a monetary authority for the purposes of establishing the money supply of an economy. The fact that some individuals accept it for certain transactions is irrelevant. – Zntrip 03:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought currency was any medium of exchange.--HowardStrong (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Zntrip, if this is the edit in question. Bitcoin is not a "Currency of the Americas" or any other area. I have some won around here somewhere, if someone accepts that as currency it doesn't become a "Currency of the Americas". Beinng able to use unrecognized currency in private transactions doesn't mean it belongs in a given category like that. I also don't think it belongs in any of those categories especially when considering the nature of Bitcoin, which removes the need to tie it to any one geopolitical area. - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Scrip requires a peg, for example a merchant saying that they will sell goods at such and such ratio to the scrip, or a fixed exchange ratio to a pre-existing currency. Bitcoin is not pegged to anything, its price freely floats. Therefore Bitcoin is not scrip. Anonymous, 05:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.76 (talk)

• Comment - the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) calls Bitcoin a currency. Genjix (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no doubt that Bitcoin can be a currency/commodity by de facto. But it is not a token that gets passed around. It is quite literally brought into existence by a ledger entry secured by cryptographic hash which proves original ownership of a number value. Subsequent transactions subtract a number value and assign it to another account, again secured by a digital signature authorizing the transaction. Julian Tosh (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2012 (-8)

Most currencies don't use tokens and just adjust numeric values like you describe. In the case of Bitcoin, however, that is NOT accurate: Bitcoin uses "coins" which can be transferred either as a whole or by combining/dividing. There is no notion of accounts in the low level, that is just a high-level abstraction used by wallets. --Luke-Jr (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the three latest comments are relevant to the discussion. We are not discussing if Bitcoint is a currency or not; we are instead discussing if this article belongs in these categories. – Zntrip 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of the word "currency"

I would like to begin a discussion, which has taken place in several other sections, about the use of the world "currency" in this article. As I have previously stated, Bitcoin does not seem to qualify as a "currency". The term is used in economics to denote the medium of exchange that is a jurisdiction's legal tender and part of the money supply of that jurisdiction's economy. I would agree however that the terms "electronic currency" (as well as e-currency, digital currency, etc.) and "alternative currency" could be used on the article, as those terms convey different concepts. – Zntrip 23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like alternative currency or electronic or virtual currency seems to be what most of the sources seem to use, so it would make sense to use the same terminology. - SudoGhost 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was argued very well above that Bitcoin is agreed to be a general currency. Most currency is electronic anyways. 90% of the US dollar is. It's redundant and it implies Bitcoin is somehow lesser because it has no government issuing it. Bitcoin is medium of exchange, period, that is a currency. We are also seeing banknotes going around for Bitcoin, so it's not entirely electronic. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any such comment, but saying that currency is defined as a given definition (which varies, btw), and that you believe Bitcoin meets that definition, and therefore it is a currency, is WP:OR. - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency. Gold is a currency in the same sense.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-02/europe/31272985_1_currency-traders-forex/2

"Bitcoin poses a puzzle for regulators. It does not fit the UK Financial Services Authority's definition of e-money as it is not issued on the receipt of funds, according to an FSA response to a Bitcoin business that requested to be regulated in the UK.

But the creation of Bitcoin could amount to "issuing payment instruments" as long as Bitcoins in fact count as money, which is "if and when they become widely used", the FSA concluded.

A spokeswoman for the German Bundesbank told Reuters it was not classifying Bitcoins as e-currency."--HowardStrong (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a source, where did you get that from? - SudoGhost 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you not see the link above? Of course it's a source.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're not going to indent all of your comment, then no, it's hard to find stuff you link. However, that source doesn't support your claim at all. I'll ask again, do you have a source that support the claim that "the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency"? The only thing that source says is that it "could amount to "issuing payment instruments", not that it does or that this would be considered currency. - SudoGhost 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a pedant. I'll find a primary source of course but my claim was quoted right in the article of a reliable piece of journalism: It's not legally classified as a e-currency by regulators who have bothered to classify it.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to say something "clearly" calls something a currency, don't provide a source that says nothing of the sort, and then claim someone is being pedantic when they point this out, you cannot have it both ways. It's not legally classified as e-currency by the Deutsche Bundesbank, so this somehow means that it's a currency in the UK? I would love an explanation for how you came to this conclusion. - SudoGhost 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency but is being traded like traditional money, what else can it be besides currency? Could it be anything like the original tokens of value that were traded without governments? Weren't those currencies? It's not a matter of precision but logic. Z over here has a firm convictions that only government issued reciepts are considered money but history shows otherwise. And Bitcoin is showing not to exclusively be a e-currency. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Take the first part of your sentence: "it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency" and stop. Clarify that, "It is not being treated as a traditional e-currency by Deutsche Bundesbank". and that's what the source says. The source does not say "but is being traded like traditional money" and to claim that not being e-currency means that it is a currency is a false dichotomy. "What else could it be?" is not how Wikipedia provides information, you need a reliable source supporting your claim. - SudoGhost 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to the coins and Bitcoin dollar bills people are using. I am speaking in general about things that are attributable.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin, which I have stated. 90% of the US dollar and Euro exist electronically. It's an obvious truism for any currency. Should we start calling the US dollar emoney now?--HowardStrong (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

...and you need a source to verify those things. Please provide a source for your claim that "UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency", or anything else you just said. - SudoGhost 00:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment you had a source that verified that "the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin". So what? Even if that were the case (unlikely), that does not somehow mean that Bitcoin is a currency, nor does that mean that "we start calling the US dollar emoney", because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources used to describe the USD does not use this descriptor, so no, we wouldn't. We might mention in the relevant article that it had been referred to as "ecurrency" by a reliable source if prominent enough and relevant enough to the article, but that's it. - SudoGhost 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The only source is an email somebody forwarded to me. I am not going to go through the work of verifying that. What's for certain is that the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above. Additionally, the fact that these coins and bills exist, is testament enough that Bitcoin is not a strict e-money. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20125470-1/are-physical-bitcoins-legal/ That is the principle here: Bitcoin is not solely an e-money. Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That "the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above" does not mean anything. A source saying that Bitcoin isn't something does not in any way come close to verifying that it is something else. The fact that coints and bills exist also do not mean that it is currency. You cannot claim that "Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital." and then also claim that the USD is "ecurrency". Again, you cannot have it both ways. You can argue and speculate and draw whatever conclusions you'd like, but unless you have reliable sources that directly support what you're saying, it doesn't have any bearing on what the article says. - SudoGhost 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if a currency is traded physcally, it is generally a currency. I really don't care about winning arguments: The fact is Bitcoin is also a physical currency and that's attritable. To call physical objects digital and electronic is dead wrong. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A electronic currency is a currency. A banknote is a form of currency. The general term currency applies here.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source that backs up what you're claiming, you can state it all you'd like and draw all the inventive conclusions you'd like, but it doesn't matter, and will not effect how the article is written. - SudoGhost 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a inventive conclusion that Bitcoin banknotes and coins are traded and exist. It's already cited in the article. I can provide more citations. If it's attributable, it's encylopedic. Physical Bitcoins are physical currency.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How does this mean that Bitcoins are not overwhelmingly referred to as electronic/digital currency? It doesn't. The same way the USD having an electronic aspect does not mean it should be referred to as "ecurrency", the inverse is also true here for the same reason: we use what reliable sources use, not what we want the article to say. The article already details the physical notes, so you're arguing for something that's already there. That however, does not change what the WP:LEDE will say. - SudoGhost 00:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The article summary covers the topic as a whole, not just one aspect of it. Many sources may say it is a electronic currency but it doesn't cover its physical and overall use. Sources may shape content but they don't shape organization and categorization of the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Bitcoin exists physically has no bearing on whether it is a currency. Many alternative currencies exist physically. – Zntrip 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An alternative currency is a currency. Alternative is just a subjective label.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these coins exist does not mean the lede changes, unless you can provide a single source that says these coins are used with anywhere near the same frequency as the electronic bitcoin, it is grossly WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the physical notes. Not liking what reliable sources use to describe a subject does not mean you can change the meaning, you say "subjective", but it is a qualifier as required by a concise WP:LEDE. - SudoGhost 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we all agree that Bitcoin is an alternative currency. If so, why not just use that in the lead? – Zntrip 01:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the consensus agrees, that can be the title. Alternative is a more useful qualifier than digital which is so plainly obvious.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this proposal an hour. If nobody objects, I'll change it.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the sources in the article use "digital/electronic", and I don't see any that refer to it as an "alternative currency", it doesn't make sense to change the lede sentence in this way. It's fine to expand upon it in the article proper by explaining that it is an "alternative currency" by citing reliable sources, but it's inappropriate to ignore reliable sources and use a descriptor we feel is more appropriate. - SudoGhost 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several sources that refer to Bitcoin as an "alternative currency" (such as Market Watch). We could include them in the article. – Zntrip 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both terms could be incorporated in the lead. Example: "Bitcoin is an electronic alternative currency". – Zntrip 01:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's very excessive. It does not read well at all. I take back what I said: Both terms are very obvious. They don't even need to be mentioned. It's really all been about writing and the readability to me, not the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Both terms are used but of the two, "digital/electronic" seems to be much more common (even by the Bitcoin creator), and electronic is a more concise definition, since "alternative currency" means many many things, whereas electronic currency has a more narrow definition while lines up with Bitcoin more appropriately (as seen in the Electronic money article itself). - SudoGhost 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)