Talk:Bitcoin

Second Paragraph. So, um, what is Bitcoin again?

I'm not a crypto bro and have little interest in cryptocurrencies apart from in passing - like most people I would suspect. So, I came here to get a grasp, but I have no idea what this paragraph is saying - or trying to. This might be useful for someone with a knowledge of cryptocurrencies but trust me, for someone of any intelligence it's incomprehensible gobbledygook. And I say this with all respect to the authors

"Nodes in the peer-to-peer bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger, called a blockchain, without central oversight. Consensus between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on proof of work, called mining, that secures the Bitcoin blockchain. Mining consumes large quantities of electricity and has been criticized for its environmental impact." PythagorasDyscalculia (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, and you're not the first person to comment on this issue. If anything, you're being too generous. The first paragraph is no gem of clarity, either, and the rest of the article follows. The article is bogged-down with misused buzzwords and jargon. Attempts to fix this have met with tedious resistance.

Obviously the article should explain the technical details of how this works, but there are much better ways to do this. The technical details should provide context for what it does and why it exists, which isn't ever really satisfactorily explained despite the article's length. This would be a much more useful approach for disinterested readers.

Any explanation which avoids providing this context is going to end up confusing and frustrating to readers. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The paragraphs however do a good job of wikilink to the relevant articles that users can navigate to. Of course many of those topics are novel, but as long as we wikilink to them we are ok. We are not going to be able to explain everything in the first paragraphs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to simplify the language and add some detail, whilst still trying to keep it succinct. The article does already have relevant sections that go into more detail on the mentioned concepts, such as the Mining section. Do note that it's not entirely reasonable for readers of Wikipedia to expect simplified explanations of things in the lead section of popular articles, or indeed in general — this is still an encyclopedia. In general, we do have the Simple English version of Wikipedia for that; please see simple:Bitcoin. JivanP (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2025

I would like to append an addition in the "Units and divisibility" section to include "Bits" or, secondarily and lesser-named, "µBTC". The text should be placed after millibitcoin and before sat (satoshi) because of the already present pattern of descending value. The Bit is becoming increasingly used as a denomination of Bitcoin in small-medium transactions and it is unfortunately absent on the Wikipedia page for Bitcoin. An "official" source can be found on Bitcoin.org here [1] and the excerpt reads:

"Bit is a common unit used to designate a sub-unit of a bitcoin - 1,000,000 bits is equal to 1 bitcoin (BTC). This unit is usually more convenient for pricing tips, goods and services."

Bits are already a unit in Bitcoin-Core and other wallets, mining software/websites, and exchanges.

EDIT: Clarification and typo.

Rhysb2102 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done:

Which reliable source says this is "increasingly used"? Bitcoin.org being 'official' is a distraction. The sources for "millibitcoin" and "satoshi" in the body of the article are reliable and independent. Please also review Bitcoin#Use for payments. Per that section, "prices are not usually quoted in bitcoin and trades involve conversions into fiat currencies." Adding yet another unit to the infobox would be adding bloat without adding clarity. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

"BTCUSD=X" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect BTCUSD=X has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31 § BTCUSD=X until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 22:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto

Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? It’s a combination of corporations Samsung SA, Toshiba TOSHI, Nakamichi NAKA, Motorola MOTO. 2603:7081:5F0:950:B160:EE59:162A:584 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Source? Selfstudier (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2025

In the "Recognition as a currency and legal status" section of the article, the second paragraph begins as follows:

"The legal status of bitcoin varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another."

I think the law has evolved in several important respects and, now, this sentence can be qualified. I would suggest the following edit:

"The legal status of bitcoin varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another. However, a growing number of jurisdictions have recognized that bitcoin constitutes personal property that can be owned, transferred, and used as collateral for legal purposes." RomanLegalScholar (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The legal status question is usually taken to mean the existence of a regulatory framework for cryptos, including bitcoin. See Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory. Currently, although there is such a framework in the EU, the US and UK (for example) do not as yet have such a framework and other places have patchwork/ad hoc regulations in place so personally I think it is a bit early still to modify the sentence in general and specifically only in respect of property rights, which is just one element. Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Regulatory framework is different from private law.

The Regulatory framework covers things such as securities regulation and commodities regulations. It is the body of rules through with national authorities determine what is and is not permitted.

Private law is the body of rules governing interactions between private parties and it includes contract law, tor, property, agency law and others.

The current statement in the article "The legal status of bitcoin varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another" applies to BOTH regulatory framework AND private law.

Though it is true that the regulatory framework remains in flux in many jurisdictions, the private law framework has become clearer and, in some jurisdictions, quite defined. RomanLegalScholar (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 19:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I think RomanLegalScholar (talk · contribs) request is generally reasonable. Please see if you can find some more sources, the main issue here (aside from the WP:OR musings of Selfstudier), is we need better sources. I would look for things like wsj, bloomberg, fortune, etc. Normally we are only using these top shelf sources on this wikipedia articles. However some type of academic source if the author is notable (eg if they have a wikipedia themselves) can be used in the article. Bitcoin is widely viewed as property and used as such in multiple jurisdictions, we just need a couple of sources to state that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with the view that WSJ, bloomberg and fortune...are better sources than academic literature when it comes to legal matters.

Having said that, here are sources supporting my suggested statement that "a growing number of jurisdictions have recognized that bitcoin constitutes personal property that can be owned, transferred, and used as collateral for legal purposes" with particular reference to the private law statutes enacted in the USA.

Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/perfecting-digital-assets-theres-no-control-without-power-2023-05-19/

National Law Review: https://natlawreview.com/article/securing-digital-bag-newly-promulgated-ucc-article-12-and-amendments-to-ucc-article

Bloomberg law:https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XD31ROM4000000/banking-professional-perspective-uniform-commercial-code-amendme

coindesk: https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2022/10/28/why-crypto-needs-ucc-article-12 RomanLegalScholar (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding the same US centric material into the Blockchain article doesn't seem to make much sense either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the edits seem to have been reverted over there as well. However, they edits over there were a bit different from this article, which sought to take a more NPOV position on legality. It is indisputable and non-controversial that various jurisdictions have various opinions and treatments of bitcoin at this point in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

interesting discussion about a sentence that I wrote 11 or more years ago. I am no legal scholar, and if RomanLegalScholar has well sourced insight into how the regulatory status has evolved, to improve on the matter, by all means, please go for it! Agree with Jtbobwaysf there.

I do think legal status is different from "regulatory status", which is why it is split off in Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory and not (yet?) contained therein, Selfstudier.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, they are related things, see https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/cryptocurrency-laws/ "The regulatory treatment of cryptocurrency varies across jurisdictions, with legal considerations encompassing anti-money laundering compliance, securities laws, taxation, and consumer protection frameworks...Crypto regulations are the legal rules and guidelines that are present and issued by governments to shape how digital assets such as virtual currency operate. These laws have varied approaches across nations." Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: How about you propose a summary of that source you provided. I think we are splitting hairs here. Seems either way the opinions on it are varied. But if you have some nuance you want to communicate, please suggest it. To my limited understanding regulations normally (at least should) come from the laws that created them. But if you have something you prefer here, please state it. There are three editors at this point in time that are apparently not opposed to an update. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, with respect, the wording presently used "legal status" is very broad. It encompasses BOTH regulation AND private law.

While the international landscape continues to be very fragmented regarding regulation, there is increasing alignment with regard to private law matters.

For example, Unidroit has approved private law principles for digital assets in 2023 (https://www.unidroit.org/work-in-progress/digital-assets-and-private-law/) that specifically recognize that digital assets "can be the subject of proprietary rights" (principle 3); ownership in these assets can be transferred (principles 6-9); they can be used as collateral (principles 14 - 17)

The edit I proposed initially that a growing number of jurisdictions recognize Bitcoin as "personal property that can be owned, transferred, and used as collateral for legal purposes" really does not seem to be a) controversial b) a big leap. The reference I originally provided is to an academic paper that contains a wealth of references to primary sources. RomanLegalScholar (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Logo image description

Hi @Wuerzele, I see you've reverted my edit of the image description, which was from "Official logo from bitcoin.org" to "Commonly used logo of bitcoin", with the reason "sugg. description less specific and less precise". However, I maintain that it is the previous version that was less precise. There is no official bitcoin logo, bitcoin.org is not the official website for bitcoin, and the logo isn't even "from bitcoin.org"; it was created by an anonymous forum user and over time became commonly used, which is why I believe "Commonly used logo of bitcoin" is much more accurate. AVDLCZ (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

+1 a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

AVDLCZ,interesting. The description has been there for 11 years- Please back up your above claims. Also when you start a new section make sure that refs from other sections dont travel into it.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The existing description is not sourced either, so I might just delete that if I don't find a good source for the origin of the logo. Apologies about the refs, but I simply used the "New section" button and from the edit history my edit doesn't appear problematic—it may be that talk pages and refs simply don't play too well with each other. AVDLCZ (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Aside: a455bcd9 (Antoine) are you the same as AVDLCZ ?--Wuerzele (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Why are you accusing me of sockpuppetry @Wuerzele?! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Wuerzele (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Answer my question. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wuerzele a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires civil interactions. "Answer my question" is not a suitable demand. Also, the "WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS" section in the header at the top indicates that behavior has to be particularly clean on this page. You were asked a question which you did not have to answer. You answered. You were thanked for the answer. That's the end as far as an article talk page goes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq. Just thought WP:AGF meant we don’t throw sockpuppet accusations mid-debate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 I didnt accuse you of sockpuppetry, and I am sorry if you understood it that way; some people DO have two accounts! BTW Johnuniq wrote to you , that " Answer my question is not a suitable demand." Wuerzele (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I thanked. I wasnt thanked- this is getting very confusing- I didnt accuse anyone. Wuerzele (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Let's please move on and forget all this. Johnuniq (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)