Bitcoin 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result July 14, 2010 Articles for deletion Deleted August 11, 2010 Deletion review Endorsed October 3, 2010 Deletion review Endorsed December 14, 2010 Deletion review Overturned January 26, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed April 4, 2015 Good article nominee Listed July 26, 2015 Good article reassessment Delisted 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

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article Computing: Software / CompSci / Free and open-source software B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}} Cryptocurrency C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Cryptography: Computer science B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as High-importance). Economics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 October 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

	Other talk page banners
Merged articles

Hi @3df, with these edits you "Moved issues out of design section" (among other things). This results in the "Economic, legal and environmental concerns" now looking like a "Issues" or "WP:CONTROVERSY" or "Criticism" section, which is not ideal per WP:Criticism. I strongly advocate to move back technical discussions on privacy and transaction throughput back to the Design section where they belong.

By the way, "Alleged bubble and Ponzi scheme" could also be moved below or in "Use as an investment" (part of "Economics and usage")

On the other hand, "Environmental effects", "Price manipulation investigations", and "Use in illegal transactions" should stay in this section (that may be renamed "Regulatory response"?). Indeed, these concerns were not only technical, theoretical or academic discussions but had "real life" implications leading to regulatory actions around the world (for instance the 2y fossil fuel mining moratorium in NYS, or the US DoJ investigation or even just outright bans on Bitcoin use in some countries).

What do you think? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antoinee, largely agree with your comments. As for the criticism section, might want to think what is the contra-opinion to each. The economic and legal concerns could be contra weighted with actual use cases. For example the economists (often EU/US) say it is a bubble, however it is used in xyz cases & countries (often third world or stigmatized states). I think this is what your bubble and Ponzi to move to investment argues, which I support. There are a few editors (including on this talk page recently) that advocate strongly for inclusion of this type of criticism content, so we might try to find places to put where it can be given weight and also balanced for WP:NPOV. The environmental concerns are related to Bitcoin#Mining, maybe they should be added to that section instead of its own section. Proof of work is designed to consume energy to provide security, and that process results in greenhouse emissions (when the energy is fossil fuel sourced). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can only add "contra-opinion" if it is WP:DUE. For instance regarding claims it is a bubble, we have EIGHT Nobels behind it. A few anecdotal use cases, often reported in low quality sources, cannot be compared to these Nobels. As far as I know, Shiller 2017, already cited, is the one and only high quality academic RS arguing that Bitcoin is not a bubble. Still, I can try to merge it into "Investment".

Regarding environmental concerns, they are so widely reported in the media and in academic journals that they have their own article and therefore they may deserve their own subsection (as it is now). Also, I would be against including them in "Mining" because there are regulatory consequences of these environmental concerns. It's not just about "Design". There's an ongoing public debate about Bitcoin and its environmental footprint. It's worth being highlighted in a dedicated section. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need to refute that it is in a bubble, I think you maybe misunderstood my point. The bubble point is simply an opinion on the investment class, going along with all the other investment content such as ETFs, use by states for reserves, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point, indeed. Anyway, I merged the subsections in Bitcoin#Use_as_an_investment_and_alleged_bubble.

Another section that is unclear to me is "Price manipulation investigations". It mentions investigations from 2018: do we know their outcome? 5.5y later, these investigations must be finished. Did they lead to anything? If yes: we should mention the convictions (or settlement). If not: then the first paragraph is not relevant. (The second paragraph is still relevant as it describes academic research claiming that there is price manipulation). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coinbase settled for a small amount in 2021 before going public: https://siliconangle.com/2021/03/21/coinbase-pays-6-5m-settle-government-investigation-false-reporting a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its one of these: "Coinbase itself has not admitted or denied the CFTC’s charges." I think probably due for the coinbase article, but we couldnt really use this to bolster manipulation claims when a market maker settles a lawsuit without even admitting to the allegations. Probably cheaper to just settle it than to litigate. Just my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Antoine, I moved these sections because I'm concerned about the Design section being too long and going on too many tangents. Even what it's trimmed down to is a lot to take in, and it still has some critical omissions for lay readers.

About two weeks ago, I had been thinking of adding some sort of "technical challenges" heading, which could cover the scalability problem and perhaps other topics like chain forks and protocol upgrades. (Your recent work to the article has been very motivating, as the task of fixing it has seemed insurmountable for some time!)

These topics are less critical to understanding bitcoin than other things we could put in Design, but are nonetheless very important and still should be covered with some depth somewhere in the article. I fully agree that this issues heading is not their home either.

The idea is for Design to be a fast, comprehensive overview for lay readers, quickly familiarizing them with the subject so they can better understand the rest of the article. (That said, I'm also wondering if you think Wallets would be better placed with Usage.) 3df (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I see your point. Yes, "Technical challenges" could follow "Design". I also thought about moving "Wallets" to "Usage", but I'm not sure. Do whatever you think is best. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to be careful about the technical challenges. We could even wikilink to the Bitcoin scalability problem as these discussions and forks were proposed as solutions to the alleged scalability problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I initially created the "Technical challenges" section but then after cutting some clutter I realized it was so short that it did not deserve its own section and I re-integrated it as a sub-section in the "Design" section. The "Design" section is a bit long but I'm sure we can trim it a bit by cutting verbose. If needed, "Wallets" could move in "Economics and usage" as well. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these challenges should be integrated into the relevant sections, as you have done. Wallets could also be integrated into design section (it relates to the way bitcoin is built, technical workings). I think that it probably isnt best in the usage section, but that is just my preference. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I think the "Design" section looks okay now. History could still be improved, there's a bit of everything in it... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a lot of time to work on the article when I get home today. Currently, the article has serious omissions and does not have enough material for the "Technical challenges" section. There will need to be more writing before it makes sense to have, probably with sections about how important problems like Sybil, malleability and reorganizations are answered. I can write these sections. The Design section is also in very poor shape. It doesn't give an adequate overview of how it works, and refers to topics the reader hasn't been introduced to yet (for example, it is not obvious what a "bitcoin address" is until it is explained). I will focus on this tonight and tomorrow. 3df (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df I don't think the Design section needs to be expanded much. It's Wikipedia, not the Bitcoin wiki. The article is already long. If more details are needed, add the to a dedicated article (Bitcoin mining? Bitcoin protocol? Etc.). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm envisioning a Design section approximately the same size as what we have now, if not a little smaller, and a considerably smaller but also not tiny "Technical challenges" section. 3df (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df I'm not convinced "Technical challenges" as a separate section makes sense. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical challenges, is more or less a criticism section and thus we shouldnt do it. We can easily integrate this content into other technical sections. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not for it to be a criticism section; I don't think "technical challenges" is the right title for the section (if we even add one), which is why I keep putting it in quotes. I think I have done a poor job of explaining what I'm trying to suggest with it, because it would not be overly detailed, technical, critical or long. Here's what I wanted to address with it:

• Why was bitcoin able to work when its predecessors could not? Briefly, which problems did they have that bitcoin solved, and why/how? (could work much better in History section.)
• What happens if the network does not agree on the latest block?
• If bitcoin needs to be altered, how do its users reach a consensus?
• At what rate does the ledger grow, and why is that important?

Even if not all under one section, I do think we need to answer all of these questions (concisely!) in this article. 3df (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df Have you seen my message on Bitcoin protocol? It would be easier if you could create all these technical sections there first. Then we can see copy some part to here. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These would probably be better summarized from Fork (blockchain) and Bitcoin scalability problem. I think I'd like to come back to this later, though, once the rest of Design is better. 3df (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus" does not appear even once in the article: that's a problem indeed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the history sections be first. Rationale is that I assume that most come to the article to read the history, and fewer would come for design. All my own opinion. Wondering what others thought? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea, other articles seem to start with "History" as well: Ethereum, Internet (after a short "Terminology" section, not useful here), Pound sterling (after "Names", as well), etc. Please feel free to do this change. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that History should come first for this article (I initially proposed putting Design first). Bitcoin is in the weird position of being an advanced technology topic that has a mainly lay audience. The History explains things that would not make sense without the context of what bitcoin is and how it works (going into details about "blocks" and "chains" which would not be described until the Design section, as well as multiple types of forks which are not adequately explained anywhere yet). I think the History is actually considerably less important than the Design anyway – the most important information is going to include what mining and addresses are, not who Nakamoto is or how much was spent on the pizzas. 3df (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning could apply to Ethereum and Internet as well. And yet, they both start with "History". So this seems to be the practice? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Design section first would make a better, more digestible article. We should not make decisions only on account of precedent. Ethereum and Internet could probably also benefit from doing it like this, but they are not in good shape right now anyway. I gave Euro as an example in the 2021 topic. 3df (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally wikipedia is supposed to primarily cover the encyclopedic content at the expense of technical content. We can never be a technical guide for bitcoin, nor do we want to be. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we make Design more technical – it needs to be brief and understandable to a lay audience. I'm saying that:

• The history section contains jargon and scenarios that a new reader wouldn't understand without first seeing the design section, and
• what Bitcoin is and roughly how it works is more important to understanding it than its history.

The history section might be very clear to you and me, but most people are actually totally clueless about this subject, and can't be expected to automatically know enough about it to contextualize what's even happening. For example, the history section defines what the genesis block is, yet we don't explain anything about what blocks even are until Design. Then it talks about mining, which out of context could not be more confounding to a lay reader who has no knowledge of mining in a cryptocurrency context (knowledge we give them in the Design section). [And so on] 3df (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Key point is wikipedia articles normally start with history. Have a look at Microsoft and Oracle. To me Bitcoin, if we take a step back, is a technology story. People come to wikipedia for the story, its an encyclopedia. We are not a technical know how directory, aka WP:NOTGUIDE. I am not proposing removing the technical stuff, it is just of lower due weight in my opinion. I've moved history up per my proposal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule that Wikipedia articles have to start with History. I don't know if it's useful to keep showing each other articles which have a certain order, but HTTP and Logarithm seem to be okay.

I think your rearranging was premature, since my concerns haven't been addressed at all. Can't we talk about this first? Bitcoin is a technology, not a technology story. It's also such a confusing technology that some background would be needed before any story about it makes sense. It's so novel and uncharted to most people; they don't know all this. A concise technical overview of a technology, and where to put it in the article, has nothing to do with NOTGUIDE. This section is not a manual – it describes, quickly and encyclopedically, the nature of bitcoin. 3df (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df I'm neutral on this, because both options make sense. And because I don't think it's super important. People rarely read the whole article but skim through it or jump to one specific section. Anyway, if this is really important to both of you I guess and RfC is the only solution as I don't think you'll manage to convince each other... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linux, Gnutella, FreeBSD, etc are technologies that are open source like bitcoin. They all start with history, just like Microsoft and Oracle examples I already provided, as well as Ethereum & Internet provided by Antoine. We just follow norms of what other articles do, that is how wikipedia works. Be aware of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to talk about my concerns and how we are going to address them with the new layout and if this layout is worth using. Saying that I JUSTDONTLIKEIT completely misrepresents what I said. 3df (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: I propose that the WP:LEAD be updated to properly summarize the article, I thought I would make a new section here. We previously discussed this Talk:Bitcoin#"Excessively_dated"_content_in_the_lead.

I propose that the lead have 4 paragraphs, an into paragraph and then one paragraph each for each of the articles three main sections. I will provide a very general proposal below, as I think that might be the easiest way to start.

• Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person" -I just copied from existing text....
• Bitcoin#History. 'Bitcoin started in x year, a few things happened along the way, and today we are at the most recent event.' -We can just summarize what we have in the body here.
• Bitcoin#Design. 'Bitcoin is designed in x way and does y. "Its proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
• Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021.

Anyone care to expand from there? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal seems good to me, although the devil is in the details :) Feel free to be bold and implement it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender." => this should go in the "History" paragraph btw. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df: would you like to expand on the design paragraph? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there needs to be a design paragraph in the lead, as long as the first paragraph covers that bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralized cryptocurrency using a new type of ledger called a blockchain. I think these are all covered nicely. We could use this paragraph to cover the environmental effects instead. 3df (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a need to summarize the article as best as we can. I will add a sentence or two in the lead about design then. It would be undue to ignore the design and only cover the design's externalities. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf I agree with @3df that the design is already well summarized: we mention that it is decentralized, pseudonymous cryptocurrency secured by an energy intensive process called mining, with a ledger called blockain, and that the whole is open source. What else can be said?! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, I also dont see much to add. Maybe this: A new block is created every 10 minutes on average, updating the blockchain across all nodes without central oversight.

Any other comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reader has no way of knowing what block means in this context without looking ahead at the article. I don't think that sentence is needed 3df (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@3df Yes and the 10 min delay is useless and irrelevant in the lead. We could add "peer-to-peer" (with link) before "bitcoin network" and add the word "consensus" somewhe. That's it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 1

Please feel free to edit below. (We will delete the wikilinks at the beginning of each paragraph and the bullet formatting (they are just there for organizational purposes) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the lead you suggest is an improvement from the current one. Who cares about the 2 pizzas or Silk Road in the lead?! Why is there twice "Based on a free market ideology" and "Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal."? Where does "rogue governments" appear in the body? (I've just added peer-to-peer + consensus btw, poke @3df). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help with this, but I'd say the current lead is much better than this draft as it is now. The pizzas definitely don't belong in the lead. I don't think we need to mention SR or the Austrian economics. Actually, I don't think anything in the History paragraph of the draft needs to be in the lead. The one-paragraph-per-section model might not be the way to go here. 3df (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is not support for this (proposed change to lead), so i will drop. Appreciate both of your feedback. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person"
• Bitcoin#History. In 2010 Bitcoin was used for the first commercial transaction, two pizzas. Beginning in 2011 Bitcoin was used extensively on the Silk Road, a dark web marketplace. In 2013 various governments began to take notice and both China and the US placed restrictions on Bitcoin's use. In February 2021, Bitcoin's market capitalization reached $1 trillion for the first time.
• Bitcoin#Design. Bitcoin uses a blockchain and is designed as a peer to peer network. "The proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
• Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021. Several economists have reported that bitcoin is in a bubble.

Please reduce or limit the use of piping in the lead per WP:NOPIPE. Especially where text states bitcoin and links to cryptocurrency. This might have been mostly resolved, but wanted to document this policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9:, you reverted to re-add this the article, which I had moved to the sub-article so we have at least two sentences in the 2023 section. Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article? What is your explanation of which history remains on the main article and which history stays on the sub-article? Is this content you reverted particularly WP:DUE for some reason? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article?: yes, of course, that's how Wikipedia works: The most important content from the subarticles is repeated in the main article.

You did not provide any reason for removing this sentence, that's why I reverted you. Why do you think it should be removed? It's sourced in a good academic journal. And Ordinals are, I think, one of the biggest news events of 2023 for BTC (see Sotheby's recent auction and Bitcoin NFTs now above all other chains in sales volume. Of course these are not RS, just FYI.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell: In response to your revert, my concern is not with the proportion of the greenhouse matters discussed, it is with its placement in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be reserved for a basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Any remarks about mining or the environment feel tangential to bring up that early. They should be in the second or third paragraph in the lead. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 08:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per many prior discussions, the environmental impact is a major factor which defines how sources discuss bitcoin. To put it another way, few, if any, reliable sources provide an overview of the larger topic of bitcoin which do not mention this issue. Per reliable sources, being environmentally wasteful is part of the basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell your position on this is false and you have had many editors complaining about this. This is in violation of MOSLEAD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like @Grayfell: said this is important information to include and could be emphasized even further in the Intro. Recent research emphasizes this:

"The Environmental Footprint of Bitcoin Mining Across the Globe: Call for Urgent Action", https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003871 Uninspired Username (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of countless such studies. That particular study has been covered by a couple of science-journalism outlets, such as Discover Magazine. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion is irrelevant, as you already know. Reality isn't decided by the complaints of a handful of editors, and from past experience, most of those editors are citing unreliable pro-cryptocurrency nonsense for their sources -again, as you already know. Saying that this is "false" is ignoring what reliable sources are saying. Pretending this isn't a defining problem for bitcoin is neither appropriate nor wise. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything you suggested is false, Grayfell. I don't know what the history is here, but my concern was only with its mention in the first paragraph. First paragraphs are defining in Wikipedia's tone, so when I read the paragraph before, it felt like it was pushing some kind of POV. One can succinctly describe bitcoin without remarking on environmental effects, just as one can describe soft drinks without bringing up obesity, or tobacco without mentioning cancer. I think the current state is fine, though could use some re-org. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my personal opinion, we follow MOSLEAD, and this content has no business in the first paragraph. Your position that it belongs there is false. We are not debating the environmental content in the article body in this section, we are discussing your position relating to the weight you want to apply to it in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, it's goofy to give this such precedence How many industries, hobbies, or activities exist where we give their power consumption/CO2 emissions/etc in the lead? Video games? Pornography? Football? How many kilowatt-hours, tons of CO2, and/or gallons of water have sovereign states spent on shooting each others' citizens to death this year? Should that be in the lead of war? jp×g🗯️ 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]