Talk:bitcoin

Page create
Made this page as it was a quick and easy one to start off with. Please level (harsh) criticism at my talk page so I can improve. AbstractBeliefs 15:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Bitcoin" (digital currency, software, peer-to-peer network) a proper noun? It seems, judging from the Wikipedia article, that there is some confusion, also regarding "Bitcoin" vs "bitcoin".--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it was uppercase first letter, but it is possible for a proper noun to be all lowerase - facebook in its logo is all lowercase, for example. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This page was initially uppercase (check the logs - moved from Bitcoin), but Leftmost (#wiktionary@freenode.net) advised otherwise. Either way, added some links to clear it from CFI. We should decide sooner rather than later on upper vs lower. Personally, I'm for upper. AbstractBeliefs 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bitcoin isn't a trademark, but a currency. Like other currencies (dollars, euro, pounds), it most likely isn't capitalized. Additionally, usage seems to support lowercased. —Leftmostcat 16:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our three references do not support lower-cased at all. Equinox ◑ 20:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV
Also, I've nominated this page for verification, with regard to CFI. AbstractBeliefs 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June 2011–February 2012
I found bitcoin on Wiktionary:Requested entries (English). I thought this would be a simple page to start off with, and created it.

Spoken with various users, including User:Leftmostcat, and one of the key issues is whether this meets CFI right now, mainly that bitcoin is new, and is still in the sink or swim stage, and so could disappear.

Any comments? AbstractBeliefs 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very honest of you to nominate your own entry, I commend you on that. Regarding the nomination itself, 'created in 2009' so yeah I'd imagine citations are quite hard to come by. There's a chance that even if it fails now, if the concept remains in use then it might meet CFI later on (2012 or 2013, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I chose to nominate it purely myself. Leftmostcat suggested it, and I chose to do this myself as it would just be more experience. The two things I'm looking at are CFI, as above "right now". I'm sure in the future this *will* be an interesting topic so long as it doesn't go belly up, as well as the stylisation of "[B|b]it[C|c]oin" AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be citable on usenet, I think. We need to consider whether "bitcoin" is a common misspelling in English of "Bitcoin" or "BitCoin". DCDuring TALK 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of some thought. There's a brief discussion on the talk page. Main issue here though is CFI. Depending on if you have free time, would it be possible for you to pick up one or two older, well discussed threads on Usenet? And if you don't have the time, possibly point me on? Thanks AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Of the current references: the Guardian article takes pains not to use bitcoin as a common noun, only using Bitcoin in the manner of a trademark; and Forbes and SmartMoney use it freely as a common noun but always capitalised (a Bitcoin, Bitcoins). As yet we have no valid citation for a lower-case bitcoin or bitcoins. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RfV February 2013

 * Moved from WT:RFD.

Somebody flagged this for quick deletion citing a lack of proper references. However, I have in fact cited two notable and reliable publications indicating the use of this word. In the case of reliable citations, I believe this word should be kept. --Neoconfederate (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I can provide more notable references upon request. There is a television episode from The Goodwife that covers bitcoin exclusively. There are numerous mainstream publications that can be used as references. --Neoconfederate (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WT:WFW, in particular the section "How we provide references and citations". 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the formatting of the citations. --Neoconfederate (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if they are actually proper citations, though. Are they from a source that Wiktionary considers durably archived? 02:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, check the links. Reuters, Bloomberg, Wired and CBS broadcasting provide widely syndicated and archived materials. These materials will be available on the internet archive and their respective websites indefinitely. These are major media companies. The first two are highly relied on in the financial community. --Neoconfederate (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not actually an answer though. I specifically asked if they were from a source that Wiktionary considers durably archived. Sources that are maintained by a single party, or that can be removed by their maintainers at the request of a third party, are not considered durably archived. So none of those sources are reliable as long as they are the only ones that own/maintain the material. As far as I know, the only online source that is currently considered durable enough is Usenet. 02:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The CBS source is durable enough since it is not online. Television shows are not revised on the fly and are available on DVD. I can provide durable copies of the online material from The Internet Archive since they provide all revisions of the material. --Neoconfederate (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Internet Archive isn't considered durable either, because they do on occasion remove material when requested. Durability for our purposes means "no single person, entity or event should be able to prevent Wiktionary users from viewing the source". I think some people have said in the past that it can be interpreted as something like "has to be able to survive a disaster, either natural or man-made". So if a meteorite could hit our source and wipe it out, or if a government or corporation with a problem could get rid of it, it wasn't durable enough. 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely this is an issue for RFV, then, not RFD? Furius (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree... I've moved it. 02:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Three durable sources: The Goodwife (Season 3) on DVD is a durable source. I've quoted from it. I've also added an issue of Wired Magazine. I will be adding an issue of Forbes Magazine as well. --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added the applicable ISSNs for the published materials. If there are no more questions, this should be considered verified by all objective measures. --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bitcoin for Dummies" The Goodwife (Season 3). CBS. 2012. DVD. "..but I’m ready to rule. Bitcoin is a currency.”


 * Wallace, Benjamin. The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin, Wired Magazine, Dec. 2011. Print. ISSN: 1059-1028. "...a man named Satoshi Nakamoto posted a research paper to an obscure cryptography listserv describing his design for a new digital currency that he called bitcoin."
 * "Nakamoto himself mined the first 50 bitcoins—which came to be called the genesis block—on January 3, 2009."


 * Greenburg, Andy. Crypto Currency, Forbes Magazine, April. 2011. Print. ISSN: 0015-6914. "'Bitcoin is designed to bring us back to a decentralized currency of the people,' says Andresen, a 44-year-old software developer and entrepreneur..." --Neoconfederate (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to cite things is through Google Books (singular, plural, and singular), or Usenet via Google Groups (here,, here, and a reference to bitcom mining here). I would say there are enough cites without resorting to wikilawyering other sources into CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * RFV Passed: The sourcing issue has been resolved. --Neoconfederate (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "a new digital currency that he called bitcoin" fails the use-mention distinction: can we get a better one? Equinox ◑ 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note Reopened by User:-sche. Still not satisfiably attested. Equinox ◑ 15:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the challenged citation is from an article on Bitcoin. Click through and you'll see numerous better citations. Naturally enough, the article opened with mention, giving a definition of sorts.  But the rest of the article is pretty much all use.


 * I added two citations from The New Yorker, two articles posted on-line earlier this month. Note that Bitcoin Magazine is a genuine real-world hard-copy mostly-monthly magazine, for sale in better Barnes and Nobles everywhere and from Amazon.com.  Curiously, the website doesn't seem to acknowledge its paper version, but it definitely exists. (There was also a NYT op-ed on Bitcoin from Paul Krugman the other week.)


 * If you look on Amazon.com, you'll find several titles containing Bitcoin. (Plus Bitcoins for sale.)


 * For what it's worth, Parmy Olson We Are Anonymous (2012) has several mentions of Bitcoin. Choor monster (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Alt forms Bitcoin, BitCoin also require removal if this fails. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Passed. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RFV discussion: December 2017
Rfv-sense: A decentralized digital currency.

I doubt this is a proper noun, especially written in lower case letters. I think the term can be used as a countable and an uncountable noun. Merge senses and label as both countable and uncountable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * cited. If you wish to reclassify it as a noun, that is a separate issue. Kiwima (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)