Web browser mining cryptocurrency bitcoinlitecoindogecoinethereumzcashbitcoin cash
42 comments
Setting up bitcoin wallet
The sentence is supported by references to two sources as seen above. The problem is that performing a Ponzi scheme is a serious crime. As such, an accusation should be at least supported by a reliable source referring to a person who is responsible for such accusations. Since such a reference has not been provided, I consider the statement unsourced regarding the question [ who? I am reopening this discussion to point out at this specific flaw. Since there obviously is a disagreement and an edit war going on related to this "information", I want to see the response of Wikipedians whether this practice is really in agreement with Wikipedia policies.
Ladislav Mecir talk Thank you for the discussion. Due to this finding I see it so that one of two possible actions has to be taken:. I vote for the deletion. I think it's a true and verifiable statement that "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme. That same camp of sensationalist haters also likes to call it a pyramid scheme. If anything, Bitcoin could be accused of being a pump and dump scheme http: Nevertheless, the "Ponzi" word gets bandied around enough in legitimate sources that it should be included here along with perhaps "pump and dump" and "pyramid".
On a personal note, I think it makes the critics sound stupid when they say that, so the fanboy part of me doesn't really mind the accusation. So-called "physical bitcoins" like those formerly produced by https: My Secret Santa gave me one for Christmas, and I was pretty excited about it. But they don't play a substantive role in the Bitcoin economy. The most notable thing about them is that the media loves to include an image of "physical bitcoins" in articles about Bitcoin, which I wish they wouldn't do.
I'd support putting in a few words that say something along the lines of, "Physical bitcoins are a curiosity that the media loves to show images of", but no more. You two seem to want to keep the current section about "physical bitcoins" despite the fact that three of us other editors have attempted to remove it.
Please take a moment to comment on my comments above, and address my concerns below. However, it is still possible that the creator of physical bitcoins hold the private keys, most of the benefits modern cryptography like bitcoin provides.
Above all, as I requested repeatedly in this old thread on the subject Talk: Then, having established their overall notability, if you want to include content about security or lack thereof, you'll need to establish with reliable references that theft from physical bitcoins is a notable phenomenon.
Images of physical bitcoins are ubiquitous in media coverage of Bitcoin. Editor HLachman wrote above: Also, it should be outside the "valuation" section, because, while it's natural that the reader who wants to find a valuation estimate will look in a section called "valuation", the reader who wants to know, qualitatively, "what kind of money is this", might not think to look there for that.
I would suggest that this material be somewhere under "Economics" maybe a "Characteristics" section, or "Monetary characteristics", or "Characteristics as a currency". However, in my opinion, we should not forget about experts not classifying bitcoins as money and other authorities see the "Reception" section, where alternative classifications are listed.
We could add in the external links section the website http: What do you think? UPDATED Users were able to track and trace the theft, although the thief made efforts to launder transactions through a process called "tumbling", designed to make individual coins untraceable by removing the history of wallet addresses that once held them.
Beckett zero talk What you mean by saying: That's not a reliable source. I disagree with it, what could a better source than the client website downloads itself? Just for the record, here's a link to it Wikipedia: I'll do you a favor and quote the relevant parts. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.
All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable.
The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material. As suggested, I added the "citation needed" template to that sentence and left it there for weeks. It's not a reliable source or for that matter even a non-reliable source that supports the statement. I've challenged the verifiability. The statement needs a reliable source.
Until it has one, it's subject to removal. Please don't put it back in until there's a reliable source. We are considering how to appropriately represent economics questions like, what kind of money is Bitcoin and related financial analysis questions like valuation estimates.
Bitcoin has been under scrutiny by financial journalists, notable economists, financial analysts, investors and researchers trying to determine its possible future value. Financial journalist Felix Salmon used the chart plotting bitcoin market capitalization as the primary reason see also technical analysis to forecast: Economist and Professor John Quiggin citing the analysis in a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough and evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset see also fundamental analysis forecasted: The below was modified from the above proposal made originally by Ladislav Mecir and changed with input from same and user HLachman.
Also, the entire Felix Salmon of Reuters bit was removed. Notable economists and pundits, financial analysts, investors, and researchers are in a mad scramble to determine the possible future value of bitcoins. Economist and Professor John Quiggin stated that in the long run, the value of bitcoins would be zero but hesitated to put a specific date to this forecast.
I added the text per my last proposal, it looks as the consensus exists. If there is a proposal to move the section elsewhere, please discuss it here. Economist and Professor John Quiggin citing the analysis in a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough and evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset forecast that "bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when. To be able to discuss the above point 1 proposal I started a separate section for the classification purposes below.
Economist and Professor John Quiggin evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset forecast that "bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when. Thanks for the input. Finance Professor Mark T. Comment - A bot randomly invited me to participate here. However, I think this discussion is improperly designated as an RFC since there is not clear request but to this outsider's view some disorganized proposals.
The RFC statement itself is a vague introduction to general problems, nothing we could interpret as a request. I suggest you remove the RFC tag, continue this useful discussion among yourselves and call on the rest of us when you have something specific on which you'd like our opinion. I removed the RFC tag as requested. Seeing the above Mark T.
Williams quote went unopposed, it looks like a reasonable addition to the section. The article needs a transparent conceptual qualitative explanation of the theory on which Bitcoin is based. I have never seen such an explanation and I do not believe that there is such an explanation.
If there were such an explanation, the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin would be the place for it. I was hoping to add the recent California Assembly Bill that affects cryptocurrency, but see that the page is protected.
Here's the link to the bill. It still needs to pass the senate. Should this info go here, or on the cryptocurrency page? Refactored by Chris Arnesen We need to add content about mining. Of course it'll needs good citations from reliable sources. The mining section still needs expansion. Doesnt anyone read this important topic?
To the editor who made recent changes to the mining sub-section of "block chain: I found your edit made it less easy for me to understand mining than before. Fleetham , you reverted a whole day's of earnest work! Instead of thanking me for improving a site that was filled with terribly constructed sentences, poor visual text appeareance too many empty lines breaking teh textup and poor sometimes illogical or duplicated flow, you deleted everything with the reason that I " introduced grammar issues.
See quote "allegedly allowed the also arrested Robert Faiella " No, the lack of one letter e is a typo, not a grammar issue. You could have corrected that, too. If there were other issues you could have pointed them out, discussed on the talk page etc, but a complete revert of such a big edit is inappropriate.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I will revert your other massive revert as well.