Cryptocurrencies have seen a bitcoin boost this year. Thus, it seems clear that because Bitcoin collapsing cannot have any effect on the global market, it is too small to even collapse. There were a couple of reverts specifically https: We need to agree on the best way to introduce talks explain Bitcoin Cash. In the bitcoin hour, we talks Linux never managed to take over the desktop. We talk about how Ben got talks crypto and Dash in the first place, and then Ben fills us in on the plans for using the funds from his successful Dash proposal to reignite his bitcoin of talks the same kind of thought-provoking media content that has been disrupting bitcoin challenging mainstream media for years.
shadowclash bitcointalk scryptcch В»
Stock quotes by finanzen. Why does Bitcoin Cash have an official website in its EL section, then? Laurencedeclan used an external link to refer to the white paper. I added a wikilink to Bitcoin Cash at the end of the intro. Lee noted that the frenetic growth in cryptocurrency prices was also impeding their wider adoption as most people were using them as a speculative asset rather than using them to make real-world transactions. There are no competitors to that, because those forks are not bitcoin.
The same talk of Bitcoin talks in a bubble bitcoin been dogging it since lateand many time before and after that. Only the exchange rate to other things such as USD can have volatility. I do not doubt that talks interested reader can find talks information at the specific article. Business and economics portal. I talks this explains why the treatment of the available sources you propose above is bitcoin and not acceptable per WP: OpenMined will allow AI companies of the future to bitcoin models, have them trained on bitcoin data without compromising user privacy, and incentivise users to train their model.
luis ivan cuende bitcoin calculator В»
Many are calling Bitcoin a bubble because of its size, and the speed of its adoption. But as expressed earlier, Bitcoin is tint, and it is still in the early adoption phase. Potts goes on the explain why Bitcoin collapsing would not even scratch any of the global markets or lead to a bleed which would have damaging repercussions. At the same time, he is essentially confirming Bitcoin is too small, and too young, to be a bubble. Potts uses the analogy of Bitcoin being like email in , indicating its early adoption phase, he then goes on to explain: That would limit the fallout to the wider economy in a worst-case scenario.
But then again the exchanges don't require much overhead to run it, so if it fell they'd still be Okay," Mr. Thus, it seems clear that because Bitcoin collapsing cannot have any effect on the global market, it is too small to even collapse.
But when a business venture fails, it is not seen as a bubble, pop; it is something different. Perhaps the talk of bubbles needs to be left for now, while Bitcoin tries to catch up to markets that have, and can, pop, like the real estate market. Follow us on Facebook. We are considering your request and will contact you in due course. If you have any further queries, please contact:. Risk to the global economy The obvious starting point would be to discuss what would happen to all those who invested loads of money into Bitcoin if it collapsed.
Adrian Lee, a senior lecturer in finance at the University of Technology in Sydney, explains in an Australian example: Bubbles are for big boys Thus, it seems clear that because Bitcoin collapsing cannot have any effect on the global market, it is too small to even collapse. Bitcoin News Bubble Bitcoin Price. No matter how you feel about Digiconomist the other experts seem to roughly agree with him, so either way the paragraph is well sourced.
I posted this Wikipedia: Feel free to comment. The term "satoshis"is used twice, but never defined. Likewise, the term "network alert key" is not explained. This article scarcely mentions allegations concerning Bitcoin's bubbly nature.
Bubbles may of course be identified conclusively only in hindsight, but there have been serious voices raised that it is a bubble comparable to the South Sea Company or the Tulip mania. Removal of mention of this 3 December to a separate article Economics of bitcoin is misleading.
The watering-down of the Ponzi Scheme subsection also 3 December is likewise misleading. Should the lead section mention concerns about criminality and speculative mania? In other words, reinstate edits removed at Note My understanding is that the edits Cpaaoi wants to reinstate are the ones removed by edit [5] and edit [6].
Note Much of the discussion below seems to be digressing into whether or not bitcoin is a bubble. This question is irrelevant here. The question is whether this article should reflect what the majority of reliable sources are saying. Comment - invited by a bot. The survey section of an RFC is reserved for input and arguing against that input there is unnecessary and inappropriate.
Whoever closes this RFC will ignore those arguments and I hope everyone else does also. Please use this comment section to make points you don't feel belong in your own survey entry. The article on money is probably a good prototype for how to add such sections see money laundering. The new article on Cryptocurrency bubble is basically the same information already part of the article here. UNDUE , we also should add opinions with different viewpoints on these subjects.
I propose that another article be created that is focused on addressing the criticism of bitcoin. I believe this has precedent, essentially in allowing two different ideologies or opinions to develop their own respective articles with of course some wiki-linking.
This is also a service to the reader, as we do a better job at allowing a broader set of views to come into discussion, hence an overall improvement of WP: Various editors above have been tendentiously editing the article attempting to add a large range of content by notable and non-notable people that state that bitcoin is bad for various reasons, generally that it is a ponzi scheme, a criminal payment platform, or that it is a bubble.
I can say that these statements do in many cases come with sufficient WP: RS to be cited. There is also an opposite camp of editors that are repeatedly deleting this content.
For this reason I propose that the content be allowed to exist on a separate article s with this article carrying a summary of what the other article states. This approach works for well for BitTorrent which has Legal issues with BitTorrent to go along with it, similarly we have Water fluoridation which has Water fluoridation controversy , and I am sure we could find additional examples.
To accomplish this purpose, I propose to create a criticism of bitcoin article. North above asserted that legality of bitcoin is different from criminal use of bitcoin, and legality already has its own article Legality of bitcoin by country or territory.
To summarize, maybe a few of us should work on a re-org of this content in general, so that it is all based off the primary bitcoin tree with relevant sub-articles under it, making sure that critics, Ponzi schemes, criminal use, etc all get their own areas to be fully covered.
Just thinking out loud, happy editing. Maybe if we want to be really bold we strip the Bitcoin network article of all non-technical non-network content and use that content to create sub-articles that have sufficient content to be good stand alone articles.
I have created a sub-article using the section name Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns so that broader coverage can take place there. For now I have just copied the content, I suppose at a later date we can discuss what is moved where.
Please see these additional sources, in addition to User: I named this a broader name, as it seems the bubble is larger than others. Here is an interesting source [18] for those who wish to read anyhow there is plenty on this subject.
This edit [19] justified as "encyclopedic lang, and accuracy - this is not controversial" changed the formulation "have been leery of" directly supported by the source to "are aware of" formulation. I think that the biased treatment of the source is not neutral, and that it actually is controversial. That is why I reverted the text to WP: After finding out that the nonneutral treatment of the source was found controversial, the user started an edit war reverting the text to his own preferred variant again with this edit [20] using "encyclopedic style" as a justification this time.
In reaction to that, I mark the controversial text using a template, propose to revert the text to WP: Bitcoin does not have any volatility. Only the exchange rate to other things such as USD can have volatility.
This section needs to be revised. As far as aware, this is still in the future; as of 4 Dec, Bloomberg says we are still waiting https: Oh dear, oh dear. UK Treasury announces imminent restrictions. Should be mentioned, like predictions of CME directly above. We need to agree on the best way to introduce and explain Bitcoin Cash.
The current version is the worst possible version: I also think that the TechCrunch source is more reliable in this case. It is more correct to say a copy of bitcoin was created with different consensus rules. I would suggest something like this:. Bitcoin Cash limits the blocksize to 8 megabytes, allowing for more transactions and cheaper processing fees. I hope this explains why the treatment of the available sources you propose above is nonneutral and not acceptable per WP: I am not disputing that it should be included in the article.
Anyway, we are going off-topic now. I have quoted four sources above one of which is Forbes that refer to Bitcoin Cash as a "hard fork". This is clearly a majority of sources that do not refer to it as a split as that single Forbes source does. Does you have any objection to the following? On 1 August , Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork of bitcoin.
Better wording is welcome. The article claims that paying a transaction fee is optional. As of Bitcoin Core 0. Here is a source for bitcoin requiring a fee: In the Amount field, specify 0. Bitcoin transactions also require a fee. No Starch Press; 1 edition November 23, Language: It says "It is possible for a miner to accept any valid transaction without a fee.
However, the majority that require a fee can delay or ignore transactions that bypass the fee structure. Packt Publishing - ebooks Account October 30, Language: I take back what I said above where I implied it is obvious that bitcoin requires a fee, as apparently it does not, and my ignorance is in fact contradicted by the sources I love it when that happens. Maybe we need to be more careful about how we treat this topic, as it seems that indeed a fee is not technically required by the system, but is in practice generally necessary.
If I could edit semi-protected , I would change the 'might' to 'would'. I think that would be more educationally correct in an important enough way. Currently, the lead doesn't mention any criticism. Since there are concerns as adequately covered in the article proper, the lead should reflect this with at least a sentence or two for balance.
Yes, while there are no concrete and definite rules to the capitalization of Bitcoin, what should we follow? The differentiation of Bitcoin for the protocol and payment method and bitcoin in reference to the currency or follow WSJ, AP, and other sources stating to use 'bitcoin'?
Working on the basis that recent well-sourced clarifications on the energy consumption and pollution of bitcoin will be immediately redacted by this page's regular inhabitants, I'll save time by here proposing in advance to keep them - no doubt in preparation for opening an RfC about it. This article is full of techy terms that make it impossible to understand for the average reader. In particular the system of blocks and verification of blocks should be explained in plain English.
I propose we use the cryptocurrency infobox template once it has been sufficiently developed. The currency infobox is hardly sufficient to describe something closer to software than a traditional currency. This also reduces obvious properties of most cryptocurrencies that are not necessarily shared by physical counterparts, such as a decentralized structure and global access.
Laurencedeclan used an external link to refer to the white paper. Per Wikipedia policies, it is preferable to use a citation template instead of an external link, since:. The section on decentralization has been cut down [31] to a point where it's meaningless and resembles a failed sponsored ICO advertisement with textbook WP: I reverted just now as most of it is not WP: RS , such as medium, bitcoin. Only decent source in the mix was the techcrunch source, but if i left only that content it would not be encyclopedic see WP: I am not sure if this apparently IEEE source is a peer reviewed article, or if it is some opinion piece.
I think we would need to look at the original. Its an interesting subject in general, but needs to be explored with proper sourcing. As the DRN has asked for more discussion, I would like to bring specific statements to the table and request that Jtbobwaysf: FWIW I do not believe that material should have been removed. It is obviously factual. Can you please explain why you have deleted this part: The network verifies the signature using the public key.
I have a link to the source code as a ref. I don't know how to format this correctly because this is my first time editing wikipedia. Are you able to see it? Hello, I would like to add relevant information on this page on the legal subject. The watt is a unit of power. Power is a rate. You cannot consume a rate. A light year is a unit of distance, not time. This edit was justified as "this material was cited with a reliable source, per WP: Note, however, that the claim purportedly confirmed by the source is not a claim referring to the source—it is a claim referring to the decentralization of bitcoin.
A claim referring to the source could have been, e. If you read carefully, you can even find a wording that bitcoin. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bitcoin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Ask questions, get answers. Be polite , and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution Article policies.
Business and economics portal. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention. Computer science articles without infoboxes. Find tae for the biographies of computer scientists see Academic genealogy of computer scientists Computing articles needing images.
Tag all relevant articles in Category: Suggest more articles for the Collaboration of the Week Stubs: Merged articles Namecoin was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 13 December with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin.
The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history ; for its talk page, see here.
Bitcoinj was nominated for deletion. Bitcoin Foundation was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 11 December with a consensus to merge. Describe the energy consumption of Bitcoin transactions. Retrieved 13 August Retrieved 8 June The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Closed as "not introducing a violation of NPOV.
And no other open-source community run sites. Why does Bitcoin Cash have an official website in its EL section, then? If there is any neutrality in doubt, it is yours. I see that you removed completely any mention of Segregated Witness from this page, despite it being covered extensively in the news. I also see that you put back an extensive list of forks under the Reference implementation section, despite it being more appropriate under governance.
You also removed a link to the Bitcoin Core software from the External links. There are no competitors to that, because those forks are not bitcoin. Are you pushing some kind of anti-Core agenda.