Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 14 May 2018

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for keeping Bitcoin in shape. you are an awesome wikipedian ! Wuerzele (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Ladislav, thanks much for improving and maintaining legality of bitcoin working with Fleetham, so it has become useful and reliable ! Wuerzele (talk) 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for fixing my style errors in History of Bitcoin I'll try to remember to use lowercase in the future :) Mbevand (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, problem, Mbevand, you are welcome. This is a matter of convention, and it looks that the competent sources (and WP editors) started to prefer uniform lowercase as described at Bitcoin#Etymology and orthography. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin energy usage

hi! can you tell me why you reverted my addition of 'Energy Usage of Bitcoin' to the Bitcoin wikipedia article? with the estimates i've seen (0.1% of world energy use) it is a very significant effect of bitcoin, so i think it's a significant aspect of bitcoin that merits mentioning it on wikipedia. should it be in a different form (not a separate paragraph?) i'm a relative wikipedia-edit newbie, so not sure how to form consensus on what should or shouldn't be in an article and in what form. Emileaben (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Emileaben. Sorry for my cryptic edit justifications. I will explain the situation further here. Bitcoin is a big article. It was even bigger in the past and the decision made was to split the article (you can find the relevant discussion in the Talk:Bitcoin archives), moving parts to the subarticles. Subarticles are: History of bitcoin, Bitcoin network, Bitcoin scalability problem, Economics of bitcoin and Legality of bitcoin by country or territory. In particular, the energy usage is covered in Bitcoin network#Energy consumption, where I also put your addition. Have a look, please. In comparison to other sources used in there, the source you found does not look as reputable, the estimate does not look to have any reasonable accuracy and the information on the method and who made the estimate are missing. It would be best if you were able to find a more reputable and thorough source. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav, you recently reverted my edit regarding the current energy consumption. Did you notice the new source (WaPo) I added? Do you find it objectionable? Smite-Meister (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Though I find myself generally in agreement with your crypto views, I believe some minor mention of energy consumption should remain on the Bitcoin main article page. This is balance of POV, if nothing else. If the point is falacious, I would love to know it, as it is one issue holding me back from invrsting. As a subtext of a subpage, energy consumption is somewhat buried on the last page, so to spesk. Beneficial to investors, probably, but not transparent. rags (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"I believe some minor mention of energy consumption should remain on the Bitcoin main article page." - that is what happened; the article contains the information. Do you suggest that you want to move it to a more prominent place? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency reversion

Hi, I see that you had revised my entry for the mining profitability issue. I'd like to discuss why exactly you disagree with a change in statement. There is already a discussion taking place here Litesand (talk) and here C.Fred (talk) with regards to this.

The old statement was "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger."

The proposed statement is "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable."

Let me know your thoughts and references, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litesand (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Litesand. Your edit I reverted was claiming that "miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger until mining is profitable". It was not just contradicting the cited source, it was also self-contradictory. Since you refer to logic, you should be able to detect that.

The statement you propose now is also problematic - it relativizes the status quo claim supported by several independent reliable sources and, in this sense, it actually contradicts the available sources. You have been warned that edit warring is not the way how the things can be improved.

Yet another note: if you want to improve wording of an article and your edit has been reverted, you should try to discuss the improvement you want to make at the article talk page, i.e. not here. Only if there is a consensus, you can proceed with your edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, thanks for the response and the warning, I suppose wiki is alive and well and I do follow the rules whenever possible. At the time it seemed a very innocent change – four words to clarify the expiration of the system’s maintenance mechanism. I can now see that it’s a very involved community and is also “on guard.” I am happy to contribute on better terms. Now, I asked you for specific source to reference, instead you tell me “many reputable sources.” This isn’t good enough. Here is the link to the word “until” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/until and it follows the logic pattern of “while” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/while I already agreed with another contributor that word "while" is better. The proposed statement still stands until there is a more solid logic to topple it - "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable." My goal with this change is to improve the old statement “Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger” The old statement implies that miners will continue working on the maintenance of the ledger forever. It is false by default, miners will only continue to support said ledger until they can continue to make a profit. Let me know your thoughts, thanks. Litesand (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you seem to not understand what was wrong with the wording I reverted, here is the explanation: per Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary, until can be used as a conjunction in the meaning "up to the point that". So, the wording I reverted was an equivalent of "miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger up to the point that mining is profitable". In other words, the sentence claimed that once mining becomes profitable, miners cease to have financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. That claim is, in fact, self-contradictory. I am at odds how you can request any "superior logic" from other editors without being able to impose the same criterium on your own edits. What is worse, though, is the fact that trying to enforce this faulty wording, you reverted the work of other editors four times in 24 hours, which is not allowed by Misplaced Pages rules. I see that you also have been warned by C.Fred that this behaviour is not tolerated here.

As to the wording you propose now - I observe that this wording ceases to be self-contradictory, but, as C.Fred informed you, it is likely that this relativization of the claim will not achieve consensus of other editors. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, the wording itself may have been misinterpreted, since my general assumption - mining is profitable since day one. The way to look at it is "until mining remains profitable" or "until mining is profitable" The meaning you imply would justify something like "until mining becomes profitable" and that is not what was actually said. Regardless, you seem to have missed my request for the actual reasoning to why you had decided to reverse my change in wording. The best way to continue this is I will open a new Talk section under the article and we can genuinely evaluate this change. You seem to focus on the idea of Wiki rules, that I agree with and have noted on the process since. As a novice contributor, my main objection to people reverting my edits was that none of them have provided a valid reference or have recommended something better. The fact is the current wording is seriously flawed and it needs to be looked at. Another fact is my logic is solid and I invite you to challenge it. Now when I am better acquainted with the process and the community here, I will forward you and C.Fred an invite to contribute to a new Talk section shortly. It is not my intent to violate the rules of wiki for some bizarre personal agenda, but it is my intent to clarify this issue since my claim is purely causation, not relativization. Thanks. Litesand (talk)

"my general assumption - mining is profitable since day one" - that, indeed is just your assumption. As far as I know, that claim is false. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

'The way to look at it is "until mining remains profitable" or "until mining is profitable"' - I do not find it reasonable to continue this discussion; you obtained an advice from another editor and I discussed your error above.

" Regardless, you seem to have missed my request for the actual reasoning to why you had decided to reverse my change in wording." - No, I did not miss your request, you seem to have missed my answer. The reason is that your wording was not reflecting the available sources and it was self-contradictory. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"The fact is the current wording is seriously flawed" - That is where I and other editors disagree with you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Another fact is my logic is solid" - in fact, your logic is not solid, as I demonstrated. The wording I reverted was self-contradictory, and it was contradicting the available sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, I find your comments just random and a form of nitpicking. Who are these "other editors"?. I have a consensus with C.Fred in exchange for modified wording into "while". Here is another source for your reference: that is now two solid sources I have provided to support my logic, against zero you had provided to support the current statement in the article. From (http://www.econinfosec.org/archive/weis2013/papers/KrollDaveyFeltenWEIS2013.pdf) “This mining equilibrium leads us to an interesting conclusion about Bitcoin: because mining resources must currently be purchased with currencies other than Bitcoin, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price of Bitcoin. Thus, if the Bitcoin price falls substantially, so too does the incentive to mine. This leads to the possibility of a death spiral in which loss of confidence in Bitcoin could cause the Bitcoin price to go down, a falling price lowers the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate, lower mining rate leads to the currency being easier to subvert, and this leads to a further loss of confidence in the currency.” Hence, my statement adjustment "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable" stands valid. Whenever miners run into an unsustainable loss, the security of the ledger will, in turn, get compromised and the current statement in the article does not account for this as an option. The current statement implies even if the mining in no longer profitable, the miners still have a financial incentive to maintain the security of the ledger indefinitely. I opened a new Talk section under the article with a concise proof to change the statement. Let me know your thoughts, thanks. --Litesand (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Ladislav, I find your comments just random and a form of nitpicking." - Thank you for presenting your opinion here.

"The current statement implies even if the mining in no longer profitable, the miners still have a financial incentive to maintain the security of the ledger indefinitely." - that is not what the statement implies, in fact.

"I have a consensus" - no, you do not. Read WP:Consensus for more informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"that is not what the statement implies, in fact." - exactly how do you come up with this? The current statement is "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger" OK, so you actually believe that this statement holds TRUE at ALL times despite third party sources claiming that incentive varies based on profitability of mining? I have a consensus with another user. I dont have consensus with you because thus far you had failed to address validity of my sources and present your own sources that can be evaluated. This is not an opinion, its a fact. Instead of clearly acknowledging and addressing issues such as "the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price of Bitcoin" and "a falling price lowers the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate" provided by third party sources, you keep hammering on the idea that miners have an incentive to maintain the ledger, without addressing these limitations. What exactly does it take for you to produce an actual logical argument with a reliable source as evidence? The current statement is overly broad and misleading, if you can't see this, well its not my problem. I presented you with solid sources and arguments, now since you disagree over the four words here, feel free to do the same in order to revert my edits. Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

"I have a consensus with another user." - this is not how consensus can be achieved in Misplaced Pages. Study the WP:Consensus article, please. Also, reading that 'Your statement, "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger until mining is profitable", implies that miners will not have a financial incentive to provide the service once mining is possible. I think you might want to say while instead of until; either way, you should get consensus about the condition before adding it to the sentence.' made by C.Fred clearly shows that you actually do not have the requisite consensus to add the condition to the sentence. Why do you claim otherwise remains unclear to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Litesand: You have my agreement that "while" is a better word choice than "until", but as Ladislav Mecir's opposition indicates, you have not achieved a broad consensus among all (or most) of the editors involved. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think I have a consensus with C.Fred because I implemented his changes into my proposal and I told him about it. He has not told me since that there is any other issues with my statement or that he object to it anything else. If C.Fred has another issue, I'd be happy to address it as well. I never said I have an overall consensus, obviously, or implied that I do. Now, I think my new Tab on the Talk (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cryptocurrency#Mining_profitability_as_a_requirement) is an effort to get consensus and I will reply to your comments there as well. The question now still stands: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger" do you actually believe that this statement holds TRUE at ALL times despite third party sources claiming that incentive varies based on profitability of mining? If you answer it as a YES, well, you are ignoring evidence that specifically states "a falling price lowers the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate" This isn't my own words, as you say, these are third party evaluation of the system. Sorry, you can't just ignore these facts, these must be addressed in this discussion. The statement "All rabbits are white" is ALWAYS false, when there is evidence that "some rabbits turn grey in the Summer." This is as simple as I cant make it. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The references to "superior logic" you made several times demonstrate that you think that your own logic is better than the citation of The Economist article, which confirms the current wording. No matter how hard you try to enforce your edit, it is a fact that your logic:

• can be classified as WP:OR when you are using it to "correct" actual statements made by existing reliable sources.
• is not as "superior" as you think when you are unable to detect that your claims are self-contradictory.

Last but not least, if you want to achieve consensus for your edit of a specific article, this is not the proper place. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the current statement does not have a reference to any article - someone just wrote it and erroneously. I disagree, my corrections are based on third party sources only and superior logic compared to the current statement. Yes, lets finish this thread and move to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Cryptocurrency#Mining_profitability_as_a_requirement). Please do not remove this thread for now, I'd like to come back and see this info later if needed. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fork (blockchain)

You have a message at Talk:Fork (blockchain)#Fix lede. Widefox; talk 12:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied there (ping has been broken recently, so I'm messaging you here each time). Widefox; talk 13:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Another message there. Widefox; talk 16:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I replied there. Regards Widefox; talk 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Cryptocurrency revision?

Hello, just a quick one...I’m quite new here and trying to get to grips with things. I see that some of my work on Cryptocurrency has been changed and there was one removal by you for promotion?

An entire section I wrote was almost removed but I can see that it was changed by others who added spam but it’s disapointing when my articulate and factual work is removed?

I’m trying to understand what I did wrong on this promotion deletion so I can be better at Misplaced Pages.

I haven’t gone on the page and just added a link to “my coin” like I’ve seen others do.

I added in 2 of the biggest Cryptocurrency lotteries I know of...I don’t see how it can be promotion when I wrote all the section and others and didn’t just come In and paste a link to self promote like others do?

Personally I don’t think it’s correct because I think it removes the balance of the section?

Just looking for some clarification if you don’t mind.

Regards, Dale Dalepusey (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dalepusey. Misplaced Pages needs verifiable information. That means, the information must come from a reliable source. In contrast to that, the source your deleted information cited was a self-published promotional website. Hope this points you in the right direction. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash

Please do not delete or remove content I am adding to the Bitcoin Cash article. Bitcoin is a decentralised cryptocurrency as indicated in the infobox. Removing that word because it is not in the reference is extremely poor editing. There is no question that Bitcoin Cash is decentralised. Please stop disrupting other editors who want to build an encyclopedia.

I have also asked you not to remove content because it is not sourced. Please add the citation needed template and wait a week or two for other editors to find sources. Please stop trying to control Bitcoin-related articles to match only your preferences. It is entirely inappropriate.

The chart provides a useful comparison between currencies. It is good because the various forks can cause confusion. The chart provides clarity. You removed it with the suggestion that some of currencies do not exist. Which ones don't? It is not up to you to determine what is notable for inclusion in the article, unilaterally, especially when the article needs expansion.

I am going to re-add what you have removed because none of the reasons you have provided for their removal are valid. You seem to rely on confected reasons to remove content. This to me indicates strong bias. As I have suggested in the past, I recommend you keep that in check by not editing Bitcoin-related articles, especially if you have an investment in it. - Shiftchange (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Several notes:

• "Bitcoin is a decentralised cryptocurrency as indicated in the infobox." - you seem to be confused:
  • The article you edited is about Bitcoin Cash, not about bitcoin.
  • "There is no question that Bitcoin Cash is decentralised." - I do not suggest that there is a question whether Bitcoin Cash is decentralized. As far as I know, cryptocurrencies are decentralized in general. I am just sure that the term "decentralized cryptocurrency" does not represent the cited source. It does not seem to represent any other source either.
  • "Stop disrupting other editors" - this is an error from your side. I reverted your edit misrepresenting the cited source to WP:STATUSQUO. If you revert it again resorting to WP:EDITWARRING, I will not revert it to WP:STATUSQUO any more. Let me just warn you that such an approach is not welcome.
  • "I have also asked you not to remove content because it is not sourced. Please add the citation needed template and wait a week or two for other editors to find sources." - In this specific case the text was sourced. Your new formulation obviously misrepresented the cited source, which is why I reverted it.
  • Yet another point is that the formulation you used could be characterized as WP:SOB.
• "The chart provides a useful comparison between currencies." - I read (in a reliable source) that, e.g. a "Segwit 2x" cryptocurrency was cancelled, i.e. that it does not exist.
• "I recommend you keep that in check by not editing Bitcoin-related articles, especially if you have an investment in it." - You seem to be able to recommend me what to do. In intellectual sense, I do have an investment in bitcoin, since I read a lot of articles on it, investing my time. That however, does not preclude me from editing the Misplaced Pages article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think I am confused about the subject of this article? I know what this article is about. Just because I use a term interchangeably doesn't mean I am confused. The decentralisation characteristic is important because some other currencies have centralisation; Ripple for example and Bitcoin Core under Blockstream. Every word used in Misplaced Pages is not required to be represented in a source. Is it? Please stop making up use cases for our policy that suits your preferences. Every word need not be sourced. We write in Misplaced Pages voice. We do not just copy. Decentralised is used in the infobox so there is no contention as to whether or not it is accurate. You display a misunderstanding regarding referencing. References support statements, not full sentences. I am trying to build up our encyclopedia with information that you remove. When you do this, remove other contributors valid content, it is poor behaviour. I am going to disregard WP:STATUSQUO because it is not policy or guideline.

I can agree with not linking decentralised. Why didn't you try to formulate another sentence with some of Bitcon Cash's other key characteristics as well as the word decentralised instead of removing it? This is what I will do. Yes, the New York Agreement failed. However this page indicates B2X has been reactivated and it is listed here. Not every thing shown in an image, diagram or chart is required to be notable. Another example of your manipulating our policy to suit your preferences. If any information in the chart is out of date or inaccurate then that is valid reason for its removal. It is not me that is making the recommendation regarding COI, it is Misplaced Pages. Of course, we have no way to prove it otherwise, however I would find it difficult to believe someone who has edited only Bitcoin-related articles for years has no investments in it. I, on the other hand, am willing to declare that I have no financial interest in Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash, no crypto assets and in fact no financial assets at all.

Please consider stepping back from this and being less controlling. As you would be aware there is a concerted disinformation campaign on this subject. I am here to ensure Misplaced Pages isn't infested with the same bias and that it stays true. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

"What makes you think I am confused..." - the five points I listed above.

"currencies have centralisation; Ripple for example and Bitcoin Core under Blockstream" - I read in a source that Ripple is not a cryptocurrency. Bitcoin Core is not a cryptocurrency either, it is a client software. As far as bitcoin goes, the significant majority of sources claim that bitcoin is decentralized. You seem to share that opinion according to the last edit you made.

"I am going to disregard WP:STATUSQUO because it is not policy" - I do not think you get far with editwarring.

"Not every thing shown in an image, diagram or chart is required to be notable." - well, the article is about Bitcoin Cash. It makes sense to compare it to bitcoin, since it is a bitcoin fork. I think that the table presents a lot of unrelated information. Also, a significant part of the table looks inaccurate.

"I would find it difficult to believe someone who has edited only Bitcoin-related articles for years has no investments in it." - I do not edit just articles on bitcoin. I edit articles about: cryptocurrency in general, virtual currency, digital currency, money, digital asset, blockchain, set theory, alternative set theory, new foundations, ordered pair, Cox's theorem, Bayesian probability, linear regression, least squares optimization, BFGS, order statistics, Gauss distribution, Cauchy distribution, Laplace distribution, natural numbers, etc. What you find difficult to believe is not relevant.

"I, on the other hand, am willing to declare that I have ... no financial assets at all." - like you do not have any bank deposit? Interesting.

Regarding your claim that you do not have any financial interest in bitcoin ... and, in fact, no financial assets... Am I to understand that you consider bitcoin a financial asset? In contrast to that, some sources classify bitcoin as a commodity. You also seem to be convinced that bitcoin is a currency. I do not think it is a currency, and there seem to be many reliable sources disputing such a classification. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Templating regulars?

Re – have you heard of WP:Don't template the regulars? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he knows what is the matter in this case. He tried this particular edit for the second time after finding out at the talk page that the consensus is different. That is why he knows well that his attempt is unconstructive. Shall I look the particular discussion up for you at the talk archives? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No thanks. Just pointing out that a reasoned statement like you just made for me might be more productive. But "he knows..." is probably not the best way to approach it; maybe there is another reason not immediately apparent. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Using talk pages

The comment you made here was bizarre, unsupported, and amounted to personal attacks on other editors.

If there is evidence of off-WP posts recruiting people to come here to lobby for "Bcash" please post that on the Talk page, and be careful not to associate any user with that post.

If you continue making edits like that you are likely to end up topic banned.

Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Bitcoin Cash that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)