From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010 Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010 Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010 Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010 Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015 Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015 Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015 Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


" Spergerrand" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spergerrand 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/2024 March 15 § Spergerrand until a consensus is reached. Duckmather ( talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
( non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy ( talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Context

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Grayfell ( talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell ( talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No - ( Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No - ( Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No - ( Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. The Savage Norwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

Please remove this sentence: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]

and replace it with this one: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]

Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph. Vgbyp ( talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{ Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan ( talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"...requires increasing quantities of electricity"

This passage is misleading: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using [...] mining, that requires increasing quantities of electricity". Its reads like the increasing electricity consumption is a requirement of the protocol, which is false. It requires electricity, the demand of which is increasing due to factors outside the protocol. I don't know how to reword it. TarkusAB talk/ contrib 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC) reply

checkY This was addressed. Thank you! TarkusAB talk/ contrib 06:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ TarkusAB: I think that we should probably do it without piped in text in the lead, given that it seems the statement still is there about the increasing quantities of electricity. Maybe there is a way to re-word the sentence and just link without the piped in text? I did this diff to eliminate the piped in text. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ A455bcd9: you reverted the edit with your editor summary stating "The topic is important and should be linked in the lede. It could be linked in a different way though." Please note that I didnt remove the link, I just removed the piped in text. Please offer something else. You have two editors here that are/were concerned about the piped in text claim. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Doesn't the current version solve the problem? (if there was any) a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply

community tab on right side under bitcoin

There should be a community tab somewhere. Should link to bitcointalk.org, reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ and any other big communities. Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u ( talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) reply

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. WE don't link to social media, discussion forums etc. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Should have treasuries tab somewhere

Should include Bitcoin Treasuries tab by listing them all Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u ( talk) 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC) reply

No. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I removed the link, maybe an SEO link. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=1222340710"