Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ladislav Mecir (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 9 December 2014 (→Illegal in Iceland - really true?: response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 14 2011. The result of the discussion was DELETE.

Refuting arguments made in the recent AfD

I'd like to refute a few points made in the recent AfD (see the merge post by Dingo1729).

In reply to I'm not human: Firstly there are cryptocurrencies that implement an inflation based system, PPCoin and Novacoin (via proof-of-stake) are two examples, they have no real limit on the number of coins. Namecoin is also different, as its primary purpose is not as a currency, but as a decentralized DNS. Secondly, I see your concern that makes it harder to make sure that people are pushing crap, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't remove articles/content out of fear of scammers/advertising, it's why Misplaced Pages has people checking articles to avoid these problems. As for your claim that digital currencies all share very important features, and face many of the same issues, this is true, but there are also many differences. For example, most other digital currencies are centralized, and hence are easily closed down or subject to rampant inflation from the central authority. Cryptocurrencies have neither of these issues, they have other worries instead such as a 51% attack, whereas a centralized non-cryptocurrency lacks this problem. The severity of issues is also completely different, the double spend attack trivial for a centralized digital currency and barely needs to be mentioned, the double spend attack for a cryptocurrency is far more complex and would need a large section dedicated to it.

Cool. I certainly understand your points. I was just thinking that it was not needed to have two articles at this same time. I won't be doing much (if any) editing on this page (I don't do much editing anywhere actually, so don't think I just don't like this page), but I'll keep an eye on it to make sure that it doesn't go to hell or whatever.

Also, I didn't think anyone actually used NameCoin at the moment (I certainly don't, nor do I see it as a good and useful tool). I didn't know that PPcoin and NovaCoin implemented inflation (when I made the comment on the AfD page), it's good to know. One less argument that anti-cryptocurrency people can use. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Dingo1729: As far as I can see, though Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article, this should not be done here. Whilst Duplicating these issues would be a problem, but that's not what would happen, although in name both articles would have the same issues, their approaches and severity of issues are completely different. For example, with a centralized digital currency, the double spend problem is trivial, they simply check a central list before allowing any transactions, it barely needs mentioning. For a cryptocurrency, solving this problem is very difficult and requires an advanced proof-of-work scheme with a block chain, and would preferably have a fairly large section dedicated to it. If anything, having all these issues side by side in the digital currency section would probably cause more confusion than just linking the reader to a new page, where they could (if they wanted to) read about the issues facing cryptocurrencies only, and not have to read about problems which are not relevant for cryptocurrencies. I wouldn't want readers to have to sift through information about digital currencies in order to find what they actually want to read (presumably they want to read about cryptocurrencies if they visit the cryptocurrency page). With regards to your claim that The fact that the articles do not yet cover these very important technical issues is no reason to make this split, I agree with you here, but this is irrelevant and not why the article should be separate. It should be separate due to its notability, the fact that it is different from a digital currency, and the fact that the major issues facing cryptocurrencies are different from the major issues facing all other digital currencies. I also agree with Mark viking's statement that organizing only by functional requirements is too broad a brush to paint the fundamental distinctions between these different types of currency (as far as I can see, this is not a strawman). Cliff12345 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it's really worth our time to continue this discussion, however I would point out again that, for example, the digital currency article needs to explain why non-crypto currencies need a trusted central authority. The crypto-currency article needs to explain why non-cryptos need a trusted central authority and to what extent cryptos avoid this. The same duplication with privacy. The same with double-spending. The same with forgery. The same with theft. Let's just see whether the articles develop into anything better than the current "wow isn't this cool" stage which has no idea of the motivation or the problems which the different schemes are trying to solve. I'm not planning on doing any editing here. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there are other articles I'd prefer to work on, so try developing these. If you're right and there's not too much duplication then everything is fine. If there is too much duplication then merging can always be revisited as an option. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that we can always reconsider if duplication becomes a serious issue. Cliff12345 (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Major markets

I have removed this section for the following reasons: 1. It doesn't even list Mt Gox (so therefore can't be a list of all the major markets). 2. There is no indication of how or why these markets are major. 3. There are no references beyond the name and URL (see 2. above, and 4. below). 4. It seems rather scammy. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the section is back however without the random spamvertising and with more sensible content VinceSamios (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The First cryptocurrency?

Sorry if this isn't the correct course of action - this is my first activity contributing to Misplaced Pages.

I'd like to dispute the claim of Bitcoin being the first cryptocurrency. It's widely cited the Bitcoin shares similarities in terms of features to David Chaum's eCash, or DigiCash. That was a currency that made heavy use of cryptography and blind signatures to provide anonymous transactions, outlined as early as the end of the 80's and implemented over the 90's. However, it had a centralised issuer, but still allowed an offline mode. I would class this as at least partially distributed.

I don't doubt Bitcoin is the first fully distributed cryptocurrency.

I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum.

Thanks

Again, apologies if this is the wrong approach.

ItsDom (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite what the name suggests (a currency using cryptography), a cryptocurrency needs to meet other criteria such as decentralized issuing, and acting as an alternative currency. Were Ecash and DigiCash currencies of their own, or did they simply help anonymise transactions in currencies such as $ and £?

Also, Misplaced Pages isn't really built off of original research, it generally relies on the sources linked in the article (to stop people adding unsourced and possibly incorrect information). In this case the sources generally seem to indicate that Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency.

However, I do agree with this statement "I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum." (I'll try to add some information to the article about this when I get a chance, but feel free to add information in the meantime).Cliff12345 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to the formal definition of cryptocurrency - I don't think there is one. So how do we go about forming one? As a PhD researcher in the field of cryptocurrencies, I'd like to reiterate that personally, I don't think a cryptocurrency has to be distributed. By that logic, PPcoin isn't a cryptocurrency because it uses centralised checkpointing. As well as that, some of the other PoS coins have centralised initial distribution, yet these are still cryptocurrencies. I describe such systems as partially distributed cryptocurrencies, similar to Chaum's (as it offers and offline mode) as opposed to a fully distributed cryptocurrency like Bitcoin.

Regarding sources, Andy Greenbergs book "This Machine Kills Secrets..." describes Chaums work as a cryptocurrency.

digiCash and eCash could probably be also described as electronic cash. The original paper by Chaum describes a system that can use any denomination. He uses the term "coin" regularly. Whether eCash was used to anonymise transaction in other currencies was entirely up to the issuer (described as the "bank" in his paper.) Technically, Chaums solution offers very VERY similar features to Bitcoin - the fact that it may have only been used at a rate of 1 coin = 1 USD is irrelevant in respects to if it's a cryptocurrency or not. E.g. I could fork Bitcoin, modify it so that I distribute the coins (e.g. all coinbase tx go to my address and I redistribute,) call them ItsDomCoins and say 1IDC = 1USD. I think that the majority of informed people would still says ItsDomCoin is a cryptocurrency, just not a fully distributed cryptocurrency.ItsDom (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note the distinction between digital currency and cryptocurrency. I would have preferred there to be only one page at this time, but the vote was otherwise. I think that there are a lot of issues with regards the terminology. These things shall all fall into place eventually, but at present... **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not answering my issues. You said above "In this case the sources generally seem to indicate that Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency." Yet the only source provided for the definition (which is what I'm contesting) is a link to a magazine article. Nowhere in that article does it give a definition of cryptocurrencies. That's like reading an article about a border collie that describes it as black and white and then saying a dog is only a dog if it's black and white. When you look at more widely circulated definitions of a cryptocurrency, Chaum's definitely falls within the definition.

I present to you 1 definition of cryptocurrency with another example reference to it:

"Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that is based on cryptography. Cryptocurrency uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit. Public and private keys are often used to transfer the currency from one person to another."

I present to you a reference to a book in which David Chaums eCash is referred to as a cryptocurrency (digiCash fits in with the above definition also)

Furthermore, I get the feeling that you may not have actually looked at the sources you're defending that backup the definition of cryptocurrency provided on the wikipage at the moment:

What is currently there as a definition is problematic because the references to back it up are misquoted, misleading and misrepresented:

1. Reference doesn't at all claim to be presenting or defining a cryptocurrency

- Even if it were, it doesn't at all mention the definition on here that has been "extrapolated" from it.

- In fact, the only thing that resembles a definition in that article is "a cryptographically secure and anonymous currency that doesn't take a cut from transactions (like, say, Amazon's virtual currency) and remains independent of any single, central authority."

2.Reference provided to supplement the definition of cryptocurrency, again, doesn't even mention the word cryptocurrency in it.

3.Reference doesn't provide a definition of a cryptocurrency, in fact, it just links to another page for a definition, which provides the following definition:

"Cryptocurrency is a type of digital currency that is based on cryptography. Cryptocurrency uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit. Public and private keys are often used to transfer the currency from one person to another."

4.Reference provided to supplement the definition again, mentions the phrase "crypto currency" once, and that's in the title. Then it goes on to talk about Bitcoin.

5.Reference doesn't provide anything that even remotely resembles a definition of a cryptocurrency.

Many of the sources used in this page are talking about Bitcoin, but are being used as though they're talking about cryptocurrencies. You're using features of a single instance to define characteristics of an entire class (like a dog must be black and white because collies are.)

So I ask again, can we please put a more valid, accepted, referenced and generally accurate definition about cryptocurrencies, not a definition that's merely an individuals interpretation of several articles on the subject of Bitcoin.ItsDom (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no official definition of cryptocurrencies (dictionary definition), or authority to define it, so it makes sense to define the word based upon how it is generally used and explained. If we search the term cryptocurrency on the internet, we see that almost every time the term is mentioned, it is either referring to bitcoin (for example: this, though they also seem to imply that cryptocurrencies are peer-to-peer), to bitcoin based currencies such as litecoin (for example: this or this), or to properties that only currencies such as bitcoin/litecoin have. Although most of the pages don't explicitly define the term (a few do, which I will discuss below), or actually say that DigiCash is not a cryptocurrency, they talk about the topic as if bitcoin based currencies are the only cryptocurrencies, and they discuss properties that only bitcoin based currencies have (decentralization). Though the word cryptocurrency may have previously included others such as DigiCash, it now seems to almost exclusively refer to bitcoin based currencies (perhaps due to the recent rise in value of bitcoin).

Taking a definition you posted as an example:

However, because it is not tied to any country, its value cannot be affected by a central bank.,

Bitcoin and litecoin would meet this requirement, but ItsDomCoins or DigiCash wouldn't, as firstly, by being tied to the USD, they are tied to the United States, and secondly, if ItsDomCoins (IDC) were traded at 1 IDC to 1 USD, then printing of large amounts of USD by the central bank would affect the value of IDC. If we look at the second explanation on that page (though it is not meant to be a formal definition), cryptocurrency is described as an attempt to bring back a decentralized currency. I wouldn't consider DigiCash to be decentralized if it relies on a central authority at any point, because although in some cases is can be used without a central authority, we could say the same about banknotes (but USD is clearly not decentralized). It is also stated that a crytocurrency is not affected by a central bank.

Reference 1 (page 2) is another example, as it notes that many think that:

the key point of cryptocurrencies—nobody is in control and they are completely decentralized

Again, supporting the point that cryptocurrencies must be decentralized, and so ruling out DigiCash. Although this source doesn't actually claim this directly (indeed it doesn't have any special authority to do so), it is noting that a substantial number of people consider this to be the key feature.

The sources above and in the article also indicate that cryptocurrencies rely on cryptography to a certain extent, to it seems sensible for the article to mention cryptography and decentralization as the defining features. I suspect this is the best that we can do (base the wikipedia definition off of the common usage of the word and a few websites' definitions of the term), as there aren't really any special sources which could provide a precise definition.

Because no other currencies before bitcoin meet this definition, it follows that bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency.

The later references (such as references 4 and 5) in the article are not there to define the term, they are there to note that cryptocurrencies generally have no inflation. I think you're right about references 2 and 3 though (something such as the technopedia definition or reference 1 seems like a far better choice). I think the references used to be more appropriate for the text (albeit not perfect), but the text was since edited, without the references being corrected (if you agree with my explanation, then I will try to update the references to better justify the text). Cliff12345 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The methodology you suggest (searching for cryptocurrency and see that most reference Bitcoin) I feel is flawed. There was a time that when if one searched for "tablet" 95% of results would be about the iPad, yet the first accepted mentions and references of early tablets on the wiki page is actually other companies (Microsoft, Nokia.) If you ask most people what the first tablet computer was, they'll say the iPad, same way if asked most people what the first cryptocurrency was, they'll say Bitcoin. That's because most people don't know about what was before Bitcoin or the iPad.

I suspect a lot of people do not know about Chaums work. And the most common mention of the word cryptocurrency with Bitcoin seems to be by the mainstream media, which aren't exactly renowned for fact checking;)

As I suggested, Chaums eCash needs a central point of control for checking signatures, but this can be done in a decentralized offline mode. A lot of the PoS cryptocurrency systems require initial distribution of shares which happens in a centralised manner. PPCoin admits on it's own website that it is not currently fully decentralised, yet that is still classed by many as a cryptocurrency.

I'll agree to keep going down the route of the current definition. However, personally, I believe a more suitable definition would be more along the lines of "A system of exchanging value, the core functionality of which relies on cryptographic algorithms (or exchange of cryptographic keys/signatures) to offer security (particularly against double spending), privacy and typically some level of decentralisation." This definition would encompass Chaums work, and Bitcoin, and PPCoin.

I believe that if a country forked the Bitcoin code and adopted it as their state currency yet gave themselves the ability to determine coin production rate, people would still consider it a cryptocurrency. All the altcoins are is basically where someone has done that (forked the code, a centralized person has determined the new production rate, and then released the new code.)

Perhaps maybe some distinction of the technical definition/connotations and the idealogical definition/connotations is needed as I think that maybe partially where or why we're disagreeing.(ItsDom (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

The difference between your iPad example and the cryptocurrency example is that the meaning of the word "tablet" hasn't really changed due to the iPad (the word has simply become more popular), hence calling the iPad the first tablet is clearly wrong. On the other hand, the usage of the word "cryptocurrency" appears to have shifted from not necessarily being decentralized, to necessarily being decentralized.

My point about the decentralized offline mode is that a currency would need to be decentralized in both production and transactions to be considered decentralized. For example, the US dollar is centralized in terms of production, so I would consider it centralized as a whole, even though it has a decentralized mode for transactions (federal reserve notes). I see what you're saying about PPCoin, it's on the borderline between centralized and decentralized. I suppose the difference with PPCoin (I haven't done much reading on PPCoin, so I'm not aware of all the details) is that it's not really dependent on these checkpoints any more (they're only kept to avoid forking of the block chain while the currency is new), they could be removed with little effect on the currency.

If a country created their own Bitcoin style currency, I wouldn't consider it decentralized if they controlled coin production rate. The altcoins were, in a sense, centralized before being released, but once released, their creators have no control over coin production, hence the altcoins are now decentralized (whereas the countries would maintain control after release).

Maybe we could mention in the article that "cryptocurrency" originally referred to something similar to Chaum's work, but that recently the media seems to have taken the word to mean Bitcoin/Bitcoin copy. Cliff12345 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sitting on the "doesn't need to be decentralised" side of the fence. The defining feature of a cryptocurrency is that value is transferred through the signing of an address with a private key, reassigning value to another users public key. But I've created another discussion topic for "Defining Cryptocurrencies" VinceSamios (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've worked in digital cash for about 20 years; it's clear that digital bearer token money (i.e. Chaumian blinded money) could be used to represent arbitrary assets. There is a difference between distributed and centralized systems, and right now the only really viable distributed model is blockchain based, but the distinction shouldn't be "cryptocurrency vs. non-cryptocurrency", but "blockchain-based cryptocurrency vs. blinded token cryptocurrency". They're both distinct from account-based money.

There are ways in which blinded money is actually *more* cryptocurrency than blockchain money -- by eliminating the historical record of linkability inherent in the blockchain or account-based systems, blinded tokens are inherently fungible, which supports negotiability and finality.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this article; move it en-masse to "blockchain currency" or merge with bitcoin and then redirect cryptocurrency to digital cash? Ryan (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As an expert on cryptography and specifically the underlying systems employed by Bitcoin; i can say without a doubt that no concurrency ever existed before Bitcoin. simple as that, basic digital currencies like Ecash were certainly not cryptocurrencys!

The very first use of the underlying cryptographic messaging system was by the British military, the first use of that system as a form of currency was bitcoin.

Do your research on how Bitcoins protocol actually works and you'll never feel the need to contest this fact again. 27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 (talk)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ecash
2. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bIaZf663Z2cC&pg=PT66&lpg=PT66&dq=cryptocurrency+chaum&source=bl&ots=3YEmHbYf_y&sig=qr4USBVUOnSewQzQiNMMvLAHnKs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wxbIUeh4jbGEB8u3gOAH&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw
3. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.26.5759
4. http://www.techopedia.com/definition/27531/cryptocurrency
5. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178245.0
6. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bIaZf663Z2cC&pg=PT66&lpg=PT66&dq=cryptocurrency+chaum&source=bl&ots=3YEmHbYf_y&sig=qr4USBVUOnSewQzQiNMMvLAHnKs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wxbIUeh4jbGEB8u3gOAH&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw

Inclusion of death section

I noticed that a recent edit added a "death" section in the list of cryptocurrencies, but I wouldn't have thought that this made much sense, as cryptocurrencies (due to their decentralized nature) don't die suddenly, they are more likely to slowly decline and gradually become inactive, hence the original "inactive" section. The same goes for this section here. Cliff12345 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this now, an admin has deleted the page which held this content. Cliff12345 (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think long term this is still something we will need to discuss... Although arguably an inactive cryptocurrency isn't noteworth and therefore hasn't really got a place on wikipedia? VinceSamios (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

An inactive cyptocurrency may still have historical relevance. As such, they would still have a place on Misplaced Pages. (Or do you think we should remove the articles about the Ottoman Empire?) Probably should be considered on a case by case basis. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

history of cryptocurrencies

An early attempt was made in wikipedia User:Bank_of_Wikipedia but it was not sanctioned by the project. All data from this project has been deleted by wikipedia administrators. Do you think this should be mentioned here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.50.141 (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the "Bank of Misplaced Pages" ? If you could provide a little more detail, we'd be better able to discuss the pros and cons of its inclusion. Chris Arnesen 17:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All data of User:Bank_of_Wikipedia is gone. This bank was created here, in wikipedia. So no other reference can be found. Maybe administrators can still undelete bank's logs, so that we could see what this bank was about. Bababow (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you show us where this data is/was, it seems unlikely that administrators would delete it. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as i know, there is no other place where this data was kept, except wikipedia. And as I can see administrators deleted almost every trace of it. As we cas see here the announcement that the project was not sanctioned was made 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC). By following (in history) the quotes of Bow bank account, we arrive to Bank of Misplaced Pages that was created 2007!!!! A total distruction of evidences, in this place that it is supposed to keep them! And the reason? Just not sanctioned, with no other references. Bababow (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael Nielsen on Bitcoin

Michael Nielsen wrote an excellent piece on How the Bitcoin protocol actually works which could be used to expand this (and the Bitcoin) article. DarTar (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Blogs generally aren't accepted as sources. They might if they are by an expert in a popular publication, but these may still come under fire (no guarantee). Thanks for your effort. It is acceptable for Wikiversity, instead. - Sidelight12 08:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Defining "Notable Cryptocurrencies"

We need to define this category as a few people have been adding coins presumably in an effort to manipulate the market.

The definition needs to be: Cryptocurrencies that coin a complex novel aspect (unique, new, different).

• Bitcoin is novel because it was the first
• Litecoin is novel because it uses Scrypt
• Namecoin is novel because it is designed as a peer to peer DNS system
• Peercoin is novel because it introduced Proof of Stake
• Dogecoin is... arguably novel... because it was based on a meme...

I'm questioning whether or not Dogecoin should be in the list, but even myself as a major anti-scamcoin advocate, I have to give Dogecoin the credit for its (absurd) ingenuity in branding.

VinceSamios (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple has been added - I'm inclined to suggest it may be notable enough to retain. VinceSamios (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple isnt a traditional cryptocurrency. And dogecoin wasnt the first coin made for a meme. It should be removed. NataliWinehouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ripple is a cryptocurrency, even if it doesn't follow the Bitcoin model.VinceSamios (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that whatever the definition of a "notable cryptocurrency" is, in each case it needs to be demonstrated using verifiable, reliable sources. The *coin project pages do not count as such. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• http://coinmarketcap.com/ isn't a good source for inclusion. As for sites that only focus on altcoins, nothing has emerged as reputable yet. A reputable newspaper or magazine works. Anything in http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513661/bitcoin-isnt-the-only-cryptocurrency-in-town/ is good for inclusion. PCWorld has an article on an alternative coin, but unfortunately why should something that dumb be included in this article (consensus might help with this). There was a reputable source here before, I don't know where it went, also there is a new york times article about altcoins. A coin doesn't have to have its own page to be included, it just needs mention once in a reputable source (to have its own page it needs more reputable sources). - Sidelight12 04:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not just mentioned, but covered in some detail. A passing mention is not enough to claim any kind of notability. Smite-Meister (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Passing mention in a reputable source is usually enough for inclusion, but it'd be best that accepted list items be somewhere in between using passing mention and detailed mention. Notability is for a topic to have its own page. We shouldn't have a page for every currency listed; this is where the list gives relief. - Sidelight12 01:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable means (to me) either having a significant position in the market - something top 10 market cap (for how long, I think VertCoin made top 10 for a day within weeks of launch, and is back at top 20 now), OR technically or historically interesting. Just appearing in the press might not be enough to make a currency notable. However, a wider list is probably of value, maybe as a sub-page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.238.193 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur with market size being one of the potential defintions of notability. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with alot of things mentioned here, i also feel that NXT should be included on this list as this coin was a the first significant crypto that wasn't simply another "altcoin", NXT is probably also noteworthy of its own article also, which i will look at creating sometime soon.Nzoomed (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Defining "Cryptocurrency"

It seems there is some lack of clarity in what is actually a "cryptocurrency".

My view:

• A cryptocurrency requires its units to be defined by cryptographic hashes
• A cryptocurrency is not linked to anything else of value (somewhat debatable)
• Transactions in a cryptocurrency involve transfer of ownership by signing with a private key, to a recipient public key address

For debate:

• Can a cryptocurrency be centrally controlled? My vote, Yes.
• Does a cryptocurrency require the ability to be transferred directly between parties, without a third party? Possibly not, but that would be an interesting cryptocurrency (arguably an escrow based cryptocurrency is entirely plausible) - my vote, No.

Not required:

• Anonymity /pseudo-anonymity
• open source

What is NOT a cryptocurrency

• A reference to value which is only encrypted while it is communicated (ie. bank communications which are encrypted)

Please expand VinceSamios (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Dogecoin

It was not the first cryptocoin started after a meme. Look for Anoncoin and MEMEcoin. Both of which predate dogecoin by many many months.

Some proof https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=260311.0 This crypto is based on a meme and was released in july 22nd

NataliWinehouse (talk)

Dogecoin has been restored. It should be included in the list. It's sufficiently notable. Chris Arnesen 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete It is not the first meme cryptocurrency and is quickly becoming irrelevant. It has also been described as a Pump_and_dump scheme and a joke. http://thebot.net/cryptocurrency/241542-why-dogecoin-suck/

"value of money supply"

Given the ridiculous volatility that Bitcoin sees daily, this should be removed or at least replaced with some sort of range or annual average or something like that. Same goes for the other cryptocurrencies, I suppose. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, adding a measure of volatility for the same interval besides the value alone would help this article be something other than an advert. Someone not using his real name (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting idea for the value of money supply (and for any articles dealing with currency of any type) would be a bot that updates conversion rates on a regular basis. I don't have the skills to write such a bot, but it would address the issue of volatility. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a steadfast policy against including real-time or frequent, automated updates like this to Misplaced Pages articles. I've only read that in discussions, and don't know where to point to a policy, but it seems like such an obvious idea for so many articles (stock prices, sports standings, current weather, etc.), that it sounds like it has to be true or somebody would have done it by now.

Maybe range from the last full year and last full month would be an appropriate compromise, to offer a sense of the volatility and recent range, without without requiring frequent updates. For example, $1.5b–$12.3b in 2013, $5.5b–$10.2b in February 2014. However, finding a verifiable, published, reliable source for a range of our choosing would probably be difficult. Agyle (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Crypto Question - New Standards

Let's state the obvious: Ever since Bitcoin hit the scene, people have loved using, exchanging, and creating cryptocurrencies. There are also a ton of these various altcoins. Some, like Peercoin, Namecoin, Dogecoin, and Coinye West are among the few lesser altcoins that have met notability standards and then gone a little beyond in some cases, like Litecoin. However, most of these brand new and existing lesser altcoins are also getting articles when in fact they don't meet or barely meet any standards at all. Five subjects regarding cryptocurrency, with admittedly me being the prime nominator except for a few articles, are taking place right now, almost all of them are hitting the same arguments, and almost all will surely get deleted without any improvement within the next few days.

"Well, why don't you improve them, you big deletionist meanie?"

Because you really can't, regardless if you're digging hard for sources other than blogs and forum posts. Because of the influx of altcoin articles being created and nominated, several editors have raised the proposal of new standards, or at the very least an essay serving as a basic viewpoint specific for all of these coins during various deletion discussions. I'm starting this to ask for the community to have a discussion on the willingness to propose such standards or viewpoints. Hopefully, the end result will end in a productive discussion. Citation Needed | Talk 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of those cases when a trend has become popular and numerous products have come to existence. As a consequence, new articles are being created individually and added to lists (often for promotional purposes). Inevitably, this means way more AfDs and reverts on the topic. With a quick, narrow-view reaction, this will indeed seem like "deletionism" or some other judgmental label. Whereas in fact, all the discussions and edits are generally based on our guidelines and policies as well as good sense and editorial judgment. I understand the frustration of new users, especially if it happens to be the same person AfDing or reverting. But I cannot see any faults in Citation Needed's edits and efforts to follow procedure. Removing non-notable entries and AfDing non-notable currencies is completely warranted per WP:V/WP:N. I strongly disagree that we need any kind of new standards to make exceptions in this case. New editors often approach their topic of interest with different views than is adopted throughout Misplaced Pages, and I don't see any convincing arguments for making this particular case an exception. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is the thing. I don't think it's a trend like say when My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was the hot ticket and every male from the ages of 18-56 were storming in to create an entire WikiProject and articles relating to bronies, fan-fictions (I'm guilty of this one), and pony conventions. Actually, I think bronies are a bad example because it turns out that it's still kicking after four years. Some of these coins have been around well into when Bitcoin was considered the only big player in the crypto market, and Bitcoin was well into 2007-09. My personal opinion: I think WP:N should have a bit more categories specific to subjects like high schools, internet memes, and if this goes at it's current rate, currencies (especially those of a cryptic nature). These coins are only going to be pumped out and eventually dumped out onto the mainspace as time goes on, and eventually we're going to see coin discussions at least every week on AfD. Citation Needed | Talk 14:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • But what exactly are you proposing that N doesn't yet cover? Topical notability guidelines usually add common "extra" reasons for keeping articles, not remove them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Many of these nominations will almost always mention market cap. I'm not saying that we should remove any article below a set market cap (say $8 mil), but a set cap expectation should at the very least serve as to a gauge of how well many of these altcoins are really doing, sorta like an Alexa rank. I realize Alexa rankings don't constitute notability, but it should serve at least as a check to see if it's worth bothering to even look for sources or if we should just speedy/AfD the coin. Another one to look at is if the coin is just a generic Scrypt/SHA coin with no notable improvements or notes, or if there is a special aspect to the coin (Dogecoin is based on a meme, Litecoin transactions are speedy as fuck because it's scrypt-based and the first one to be so, etc). Basically, all these considerations would make it easier to not waste the time of potential Wikipedians in participating in daily coin deletion discussions over at the AfD process. Until then, we don't have a bot to close discussions or archive stuff (at least I don't think we do), and it ends up simply wasting the time of administrators or other users when these discussions almost always end in no concensus or delete. Citation Needed | Talk 15:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It costs about $10 to create a new alt-coin, and plenty of mug journalists prepared to write about them. My personal criteria when voting on keep or delete is novel development. Ie. is it just a copy, or does it contain novel features. This isn't a normal wikipedia policy, but a good rule of thumb in my book when it comes to cryptocurrencies. VinceSamios (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think ease of creation is an important issue, but I strongly disagree with inventing a new standard of “novelty” to justify WP articles, or Citation Needed's idea of a mininum market cap. “Novelty” is like saying only YouTube videos that are “good” should have articles. If a service with novel features is ultimately deemed significant by reliable sources, then it will meet WP:N, without the need for new and different criteria. Same with market cap; it's completely arbitrary, and in practice is unverifiable through reliable sources for most currencies.

As an example of ease of creation, and abuse of novelty & market cap, I am now thinking up a new cryptocurrency...ok got it, AgyleCoin uses the novel idea of being a single coin, identified and authenticated by a random number I've memorized, which I'll only sell for $50 billion...where's my article? At that price it's over five times more notable than BitCoin! ;-) --Agyle (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why is WP:GNG not a good enough standard for this? Ramaksoud2000 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• I have removed the RfC tag as Citation Needed appears to want to make an addition to the notability guideline to make things that pass WP:GNG non-notable. This isn't how notability works. Ramaksoud2000 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You removed the RFC tag however was there actually an issue of contention among editors, and if so, was that resolved? An editor obviously felt the need for a Third Party review so I'm wondering if the editor that requested it legitimatly did so or not. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Rather than having a single test for inclusion, why not have multiple tests. Market cap is important. New features (if adopted by others) may be important. If a currency dies, then historical relevence is important. Perhaps the method of its death. (If one grew very large and died because it turned out to be fraudulent, that would be a valid reason for inclusion.) I'm sure there are other reasons a currency would qualify for inclusion. --Fredrik Coulter (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ripple

People keep removing references to Ripple (payment protocol) from the page, claiming that for whatever reason it does not fit into their personal definition of cryptocurrency. Misplaced Pages is about sources, however, and they more or less consistently describe Ripple (XRP, really) as a cryptocurrency. If you disagree and can justify your position, please discuss it here before editing.

Then there is the matter of the table of notable cryptocurrencies. The current choice of fields pretty much defines "cryptocurrency" as "bitcoin clone", since many of the fields do not make any sense in any other context. This seems rather inappropriate. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The '% change' field should also be removed from the table. Misplaced Pages is not set up to provide up-to-date stock/financial information, and any such claims without real time data are misleading/unencyclopedic. The source for these valuations is also of somewhat dubious reliability.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Smite-meister, looking at the Ripple (payment protocol) and Cryptocurrency articles at the moment, I don't see any reliable sources supporting that, so it seems to be fair game to be challenged or removed. Ripple seems like a cryptocurrency to me, but I'm unable to find much RS support for that. I found no academic journals, and only one academic book that uses three terms ripple, xrp and cyptocurrency (unfortunately of unknown context), which is not unexpected given how recently the topic has arisen. Two NY Times articles, this and this, mention cryptocurrencies and mention Ripple, but discuss other currencies as well, and don't make an explicit connection. An article on seattlepi.com does say it's a cryptocurrency, and that seems like at least a medium-quality source, in the absence of other sources to the contrary. Can you cite any other reliable sources?

• Vega, Danny (4 December 2013). "Ripple's Big Move: Mining Cryptocurrency with a Purpose". Seattlepi.com. Hearst Seattle Media, LLC, a division of The Hearst Corporation.

–Agyle (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a few:

• http://www.psmag.com/navigation/business-economics/what-comes-after-bitcoin-future-of-cryptocurrency-61660/
• http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513606/big-name-investors-back-effort-to-build-a-better-bitcoin/ (just a content tag, but still)

Additionally googling "ripple cryptocurrency" yields loads of borderline sources like tech blogs and opinion pieces like the seattlepi.com one you linked, originally from here I think. Since we are not trying to establish notability here, just solve a nomenclature issue, one reliable source ought to cut it. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Though note that the technologyreview.com article does't use the word “cryptocurrency”; it's only used as a "tag" for search purposes. The psmag.com cite doesn't make the link in a concise way, but it does talk about XRT and other currencies over several paragraphs, then refer to them as cryptocurrencies. It also makes the point (as do other sources) that the term "Ripple" refers both to a system used to trade different currencies (sometimes referred to as the Ripple network or "ecosystem"), and to a currency itself (also called XRT); that could be why someone challenged its inclusion in the article in the first place. Given that the term itself is ambiguous, the ambiguity and intended meaning should be covered in the article. A couple other notes on covering Ripple, especially if the coverage is going to be in that table: the founder was previously listed as Ripple Labs; there are three individuals generally credited as founders, Larsen, McCaleb, and I don't know the third...and there's also the founder of its much earlier precursor, RipplePay, who has also been referred to as Ripple's founder. The Ripple/XRT currency is from the more recent incarnation of Ripple, so RipplePay can be pretty well ignored, but it should at least be clarified, since different reliable sources refer to different individuals as founders of Ripple. DogeCoin, for all its absurdity, is a much simpler currency to cover encyclopedically...4 days from inception to release. :-) ––Agyle (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ripple has radically changed their protocol between versions. Version 0.1 was very far away from being a cryptocurrency. There was nothing resembling a distributed blockchain for starters. But version 0.6 seems to have all the essential features found in other cryptocurrencies, especially a distributed blockchain and distributed consensus versus double-spending. So the question to be answered from reliable sources isn't whether Ripple is a cryptocurrency, but in what ways is it one and when did it become one. Mercury's Stepson (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cryptocoincharts.info a reliable source?

I'm removing information that was referenced as coming from Cryptocoin Charts. I don't think it meets the standards of WP:RS; it just seems be one guy's web page, of no more reliability than a blog post. What do others think, on its meeting WP:RS? ––Agyle (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO it doesn't, the only reason it's being used so much is because it is convenient. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Coinwarz, Dustcoin, and Coinchoose reliable sources?

I'm removing references and data supported by those references from Coinwarz, Dustcoin, and Coinchoose, as they do not seem to meet the standards of reliable sources in WP:RS. Most of the references and information in this article seem to rely on websites like these that anyone can publish, and many contain contradictory information. Context matters for a source, and it's a subjective call, but just being "the best source I can find" doesn't mean it's good enough to be relied on for an encyclopedia. I'd appreciate hearing from others, on either side of the "reliable source" question. ––Agyle (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would go as far as to consider CoinDesk a reliable source for cryptocurrency-related subjects, and that's pushing it a bit. These three sites could be possibly used to cite trivial or technical statistics like market cap and price, but that's really it. Citation Needed | Talk 12:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is a question about reliability of a given site or source, I'd suggest opening an entry at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get the input of experienced editors.Dialectric (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Dialectric, appreciate the suggestion. If there's no disagreement it won't be needed; just getting a feel for whether that's the case.––Agyle (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation Needed, I agree on CoinDesk being a bit of a stretch, though it seems to be a professionally run company with editors; clearly weaker than the NY Times or an IEEE journal, but usable for uncontroversial facts within the context of digital currencies. One thing that struck me is that they provide current market data only for Bitcoin, and they cite the three sources they average for their quote so it's verifiable in some sense, which sets it apart from the other sites I've seen used for market quotes in Misplaced Pages that simply list data. CoinDesk would certainly be able to quote other currencies, and the fact that they don't leads makes me suspect that they consider the other data not reliable or meaningful to publish, which raises the question of why Misplaced Pages is publishing it. ––Agyle (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Planning on removing algorithms from table

The current table of notable cryptucurrencies lists hashing algorithms for the currencies. The cryptocurrencies all use different crypto algorithms for different purposes; bitcoin does a double sha256 hash (sha256(sha256()), or sha256d) for blocks, and ripemd160(sha256()) for asset definition addresses, and elliptic curve DSA with secp256k1 on signatures. Info on different crypto approaches (slower, faster, more memory-intensive, etc.) seems better suited to the non-space-constrained text of the article. Let me know if you disagree. ––Agyle (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing uncited data from notable currencies table

I previously removed unreferenced and not-reliably-sourced data from the "notable cryptocurrencies" table. YubbaDoo restored the data without providing citations. The terms "difficulty adjustment", "blocks", and "hashing algorithm" are not mentioned in the article, and including them in the table without explanation is rather vague; as I noted above, at least some of these cryptocurrencies use more than one hashing algorithm. But at the very least, citations from reliable sources are required to verify information added to the article. ––Agyle (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of the data is correct so adding or requesting reliable sources is better than deletion. YubbaDoo (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to omit info than to have wrong info, but we've gone back and forth five times on the same data, and I don't care to engage in "battle". The entire section has a request for references, which seemed preferable to cluttering the table with 50 individual requests. ––Agyle (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing Quark from notable coins

Quark was recently added by Maqayum, reverted by Dialectric with the comment “revert unexplained addition of Quarkcoin, redlink coin previously deleted at afd as non-notable - discuss on talk before re-adding”, and the reversion reverted by Maqayum with no comment or discussion in the talk section. It is not a notable cryptocurrency. It occurs among examples/lists of new coins in a small number of articles, but I can find only one article specifically about Quark from a (questionably) reliable source:

• Buterin, Vitalik (17 December 2013). "QuarkCoin: Noble Intentions, Wrong Approach". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd. Retrieved 22 January 2014.

Note that what looks like an article on the Wall Street Journal website is an unaltered corporate press release; it is included on other websites as well, and does not established notability. I'm going to revert the reverted reversion, but if Maqayum ignores Misplaced Pages norms like other contributors to this article, we'll just have to live with more bad info. ––Agyle (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agyle, sorry I did notice the notability issue before adding it. I did not know, that others have added it, and have been removed. Maqayum (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"It occurs among examples/lists of new coins in a small number of articles, but I can find only one article specifically about Quark from a (questionably) reliable source:

• Buterin, Vitalik (17 December 2013). "QuarkCoin: Noble Intentions, Wrong Approach". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd. Retrieved 22 January 2014." It is a critique article, does not validate the QuarkCoin is non-noticeable. I can give you lots of coverages about Quark. It is interesting Dogecoin has not attracted any criticism which is just a copycat of Litecoin and some viral marketing behind it.

• The list is for notable coins only with articles, and the definition for "notable" is that, which Misplaced Pages follows -- notability, as in -- covered in-depth by multiple reliable independent sources. It is especially improper to add it if it was previously deleted at AfD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Maqayum, I really don't have anything to discuss about Quark Coin; nobody's making arguments about the merits of intricacies of the currency itself, merely about media coverage establishing notability for an encyclopedia topic at this point. ––Agyle (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agyle, Thanks, please see below the notability discussion for Quark Maqayum (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the decision by Dialectric to remove Quark from the list on the basis of being non-notability. I would like to remind that Misplaced Pages's definition of notability is not limited to just a number of mainstream media articles. Quark has one of the most vibrant communities of users with tens of thousands of users and there are more than 50,000 wallet addresses that contain more than 0.1 Quarks. That being said, there are also plenty of mainstream media articles and articles from other reliable sources that talk about Quark:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9106132/those-bitcoin-weirdos-might-just-be-right/

http://bitcoinprbuzz.com/bitcoin-alternative-quark-qrk-increases-in-value-50-in-the-last-week-featuring-accessible-cpu-mining/

http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/12/qkc-vs-mec-wdc-ftc-pts/

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/34947-what-comes-after-the-bitcoin-bubble-bursts.html#

http://www.businessinsider.com/9-alternatives-to-bitcoin-you-probably-havent-heard-of-2013-11

http://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-competitors-what-you-should-know-about-6-alternative-cryptocurrencies-1540168

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/62041-10-Bitcoin-like-Cryptocurrencies-

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/10/are-the-days-of-cash-numbered-these-companies-hope.aspx

http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/bitcoin-rival-mintchip-pilot-currency.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/01/10/are-the-days-of-cash-numbered-these-companies-hope/

http://www.coindesk.com/alternative-cryptocurrencies-thrive-bitcoins-shadow/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/79017/bitcoin-vs-dogecoin-which-one-is-really-worth-more

More articles can be found if you took the time to do the research. Please read the articles that I have listed. What all these articles have in common is that when they refer to a list of notable cryptocurrencies, Quark is always mentioned in such lists!

I believe that I have made the case that that in all fairness Quark has long earned its position among the notable cryptocurrencies, and an objective Misplaced Pages article on cryptocurrencies and their current state should reflect that.

I look forward to you either reinstating Maqayum's changes to that list, or providing a well supported argument that would refute my and Maqayum's and my arguments. --matrixfighter (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The removal was not solely based on my decision, but on WP policy. Quark was found to be not notable in a recent articles for deletion discussion - afd of Quark Coin on 26 December 2013. If you want to have it in the list, you will need to go through a deletion review, and make your case for the article's undeletion/Quark's notability there.Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Matrixfighter, as I noted, several sources include Quark's press release or include Quark among lists of Bitcoin-alternative cryptocurrencies, which you've listed, but those don't establish "notability" required for a standalone article in the specific sense that Misplaced Pages defines it (see WP:GNG for general notability, or WP:WEBSITE for website notability). Contrary to your "Quark is always mentioned in such lists," Quark is included in exceptionally few, and hundreds of counterexamples could be listed. I found one article that was specifically about Quark Coin. While inclusion in Cryptocurrency has no strictly defined criteria, it should probably be notable in that standalone-article sense, unless it's to illustrate a specific important point that can't be made another way. ––Agyle (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

From WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This single article (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments) satisfies the notion mentioned the premise above. Now one should not argue details of algorithm used in hashing, block numbers etc., it should/must be assumed that readers have idea how Cryptocurrency work. Some of the article mention Quark along with Bitcoin. For example Inc. magazine mentions "Bitcoin, Ripple, Litecoin, Quark are the names of just a few crypto-currencies." What that means is that Quark is a term that writer thinks the readers have significant knowledge about it. That may cover significant notability. For example Inc, magazines mentions Krugman thinks "Bitcoin is evil". Should they have to mention in details what Bitcoin is and Who is Krugman. Is not it the Irony, people who don't know Quark should check Misplaced Pages (encyclopedia) for details. Another irony- this article mentions CatCoin, Coinye West, should they be notable mention as Cryptocurrency? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/19/dogecoin-coinye-catcoin-a-dummy-s-guide-to-cryptocurrencies.html. It is no brainer what is the intention here. Inference, intention, proposition matters in these notable articles for notability checking; not the detailed mention (eg. CatCoin). --Maqayum (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Maqayum, the Guardian article has only one sentence about Quark Coin, then says "there are over 60 different altcoin currencies". That is not “significant coverage”. The Inc. article mentions Quark to illustrate that there are many cryptocurrencies, and does not assume readers are familiar with it. The afd of Quark Coin last month decided 5-to-1 to delete. (Note: do not edit that page; discuss the topic here.) You're also asking about other issues; let's focus on the issue of including Quark among notable cryptocurrencies. ––Agyle (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agyle, it discuses what are other major cryptocurrencies and dedicates a paragraph on Quark "Another altcoin in its infancy, launched in 2013, Quark coin takes the security elements of the cryptocurrency very seriously employing nine separate rounds of encryption using six different algorithms." This is the biggest difference of Quark with other cryptocurrency. As the article's main purpose is to discuss other major Cryptocurrencies besides Bitcoin and mentioned Quark as one of them, describes what is difference about Quark. The last mention of 60 other cryptocurrencies are just mention. For example, a writer is discussing precious metals, he discuses Gold, Silver, Platinum, Titanium; he will discus what precious metal is, why it is precious, then discusses one by by one, final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!), will not repeat the common features. There are other 60 metals that are precious, he will just mention their names. The sequence and structure of the article is enough to declare Quark as notable, main topic of the article with other cryptocurrenies there. But there are couple of more recent articles like Guardian (which is older) that mentions Quark more elaborately (notably) , http://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-competitors-what-you-should-know-about-6-alternative-cryptocurrencies-1540168 is the recent one. By the by, the I am in talk with administrators about undeletion through WP:DR --Maqayum (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That “one paragraph” is one sentence. WP:GNG says “‘Significant coverage’ addresses the topic directly and in detail....” The “list” articles do not address Quark in detail; they mention it exists, among a list of a few other cryptocurrencies, and spend one or two sentences briefly describing it. ––Agyle (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you miss the point why it is one sentence--"final metal Titanium has all the qualities but what special about it (also recently discovered!) needs fewer sentences, will not repeat the common features." Please understand the main topic of the article which is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of them, it is as good as Litecoin as the coeverage. It is not about Bitcoin or, Litecoin solely, all the coins here has of equal importance- due to article type. Another example- IBT writes "Another bitcoin alternative, Quarkcoin, calls itself “the elementary currency,” says it is faster, more secure, and easier to mine than other cryptocurrencies. According to BitInfoCharts, Quarkcoin is the fastest, as it only takes 0.5574 minutes for a transaction to be confirmed. Quarkcoin also has the distinction of being the most-mined, as 548,325 blocks have been created in just over six months." Again the main ‘Significant coverage’ is alternative Cryptos- Quark is one of the six currencies, what do you suggest here? That one article from IBT is enough to have ‘Significant coverage’ at least of my bias. After all, we are all biased (see List of cognitive biases). It is very hard to change one's bias. --Maqayum (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but having checked every link, I don't see how any of the articles are even minor coverage, let alone "significant". In hundreds of AfDs, I have never seen such coverage considered to be anything but trivial. This is a textbook example of not passing the bar. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

HELLKNOWZ   "I don't see how any of the articles are even minor coverage, et alone "significant". What do you want- are you kidding? Article "Bitcoin Competitors: What You Should Know About 6 Alternative Cryptocurrencies" and discusses Quark along with other five. What is the main topic of the article- Bitcoin or, alien invasion! Sorry, for being emotional, but I can see it but I cannot change others biases (see List of cognitive biases). --Maqayum (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not kidding or biased, I am explaining how GNG works in practice. The topic of that article is "Bitcoin Competitors" and it lists 6 examples. Quark is one of them, but the amount of material on Quark specifically is trivial. This is not what "significant coverage" asks for -- the guideline clearly says "addresses the topic directly and in detail". It does not address Quark directly other than the 3 sentences. Same is true for all other sources linked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What are the percentages of lines of total lines mean significance or, trivial? There is no such thing. "addresses the topic directly and in detail". How does it not address directly and detail? It does not discuses PeerCoin more than 2 lines. Number of lines to find the significance is not a proper interpretation at all. Also, one should not repeat the arguments common to all, write one sentence to make major significance is quite possible. Finally, for details how Crypto works (1000 lines, or more) is not the intention of the article (people are free to read Bitcoin's white paper), the details (differences) of Quark is explained. --Maqayum (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The article's topic is cryptocurrency, not alternatives to bitcoin. I have read your suggested references; we simply disagree on the interpretation of "significant coverage" and "in detail". ––Agyle (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Guys now I have to discus difference between cryptocurrency and alternatives to bitcoin which are essentially same lol. I will make another article "Alternative to Bitcoins", you guys are welcome :P I and others (I will bring more biased Quark supporters?!?-- humor intended) to make more supporters--"Then we simply more than agree on the interpretation of "significant coverage" and "in detail"". Finally, are you guys serious to see a DOGE on here?! Cheers! --Maqayum (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this being discussed here when WP:DR is the correct venue if one disagrees that a deleted article is notable? AfD was closed and local consensus on this page won't overrule that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is being discusssed here because information about Quark was being added to a list of "notable cryptocurrencies" in cryptocurrencies. The article's deletion was brought up as one example to illustrate that it is not considered notable under Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. ––Agyle (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That was rather rhetorical question. As I said, this discussion cannot overrule AfD or the consensus that only notable currencies are included. If the proponents want to show the topic as notable, they need to do this in the proper venue. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing Megacoins from notable coins

I'm removing Megacoins from the table of notable cryptocurrencies. I can't find any articles about the currency in reliable periodicals, or inclusion in any non-self-published books. The term "mega coin" does appear in other contexts (e.g., minting a single ultra-valuable "mega coin" was floated as a solution to the US debt crisis a couple years ago), but not about the recently created cryptocurrency. ––Agyle (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

comment search news headlines in google. both Megacoin and Worldcoin made first search on news. with Megacoin hitting it strong. (though MEC has low trading volume so moves will be amplified) i will make a suggestion below, i wish to discuss. WintersEnding (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I see much of the market cap is outdated, would like to contribute. meanwhile, let me update individual pages of the coins then. MatthewBuchwalder (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

comment: this article appears to be inaccurate on more than 1 count. i came in to see wikipedia has to say and was disappointed. can i recommend adding a 3 tables? first by notable ones. another full list with market cap and trading volume info. last table for dead cryptos. as it stands now the notable list is not only misleading, it also seem arbituary in picking. I will edit when the protection ends. WintersEnding (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not simply add other currencies when the protection ends. This is against the consensus. We currently only include notable entries as defined by Misplaced Pages -- see the notability guideline of how we decide this (market cap or similar info ins't relevant to that). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

comment very well. though pls note i suggested that after reading the talk page here, and i find the talk discussion highly biased, not up-to-date, and no offense intented, but some people are making rather uninformed suggestions, or highly suspecious actions that appears to be purposefully misleading. Crypto is a rapid developing market, and followinh wikipedia notability rules might create gaps from reality, reality being that the media is very slow in inaccurate in describing the market. as such i see people purposefully using that to their advantage/intent of obscuring info. which i thought is highly against wikipedia's rules and intentions. as such you can keep notabke crypto on one table as ur consensus comes to, but to be informative, i suggested adding 2 more tables as i described above. am i making sense? or is that still wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WintersEnding (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

WintersEnding, you're making sense, in that I understand exactly what you're saying. Covering your specific points:

• Regarding Misplaced Pages lagging behind "reality", WP is not a news source reporting minor day-to-day developments, but an encyclopedia that tries to report on topics that are judged notable. See WP:NOTNEWS.
• Regarding inaccurate content: mistakes do happen, quite often; you can correct them, or just mention them in Talk and others can review the issue. If your correction is disputed, discuss it in Talk. Your own corrections should be supported by reliable sources.
• Regarding purposefully misleading content: if it cites no reliable source, just remove it, or correct it and cite a source. If it is supported by reliable sources, I'd suggest discussing it on the Talk page, and depending on the circumstances remove the misleading content even before it's been discussed.
• Regarding allegations of conflict of interest and abuse of Misplaced Pages procedures: I've seen allegations that some people are promoting one currency over another, because they contributed to the Dogecoin article but judged another currency to be non-notable; if that's what you're talking about, it's not a conflict of interest or an abuse of Misplaced Pages's rules. There has been substantial criticism from new Misplaced Pages editors interested in cryptocurrency that the satiric Dogecoin is included as a notable cryptocurrency. I think this stems from unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. I would sincerely suggest reading and rereading WP:N.
• Regarding addition of tables about trivial currencies: There have already been tables that included trivial currencies, and the consensus in the past has been to remove them. Standards are probably applied more conservatively and strictly in this area than they would be for a list of imaginary unicorns, for example, because of clear profit motives in promoting certain currencies. Personally I think the current approach is a good one, listing notable currencies essentially based on Misplaced Pages's general notability guidelines that are used for notability of any topic.

––Agyle (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A Cryptocurrency Approved by the Banking System?

Bitcoin Magazine ran this article which talks about a possible asset backed global cryptocurrency that would seek to be approved within the banking system. Link to article is: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/9900/global-bankers-cryptocurrency/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.238.252 (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It has interesting ideas, but it reads like an informal editorial or opinion piece (it uses first and second person, for example), rather than discussing encyclopedic facts. If the author were independently notable, the conjecture might be notable (e.g. if Alan Greenspan had written the same piece). ––Agyle (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability Question

What are the current guidelines used to determine a coins' notability. There seem to be new altcoins arising on a weekly basis an notability should be assessed when creating new articles for them. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the notability guideline. In short, multiple reliable independent in-depth sources covering the coin. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it's gotten so easy that there are at least a dozen new altcoins created every day; new ones are added to this article every week or two, and it can take a couple weeks or more to have their articles removed from Misplaced Pages. Hellknowz is right, general notability guidelines are the basic standard, or in some cases the company-specific criteria may apply (WP:CORP). If you want an example of what it takes, the currency should have several articles specifically about that cryptocurrency in strong reliable sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and respected academic journals or IEEE/ACM-organized conference proceedings. Weaker sources like The National Enquirer or NBC News, new industry-specific sources like CoinDesk or Bitcoin Magazine, and even small local newspapers are also considered, but the source and quality of the coverage are weighed along with the amount of coverage, and if there are no strong sources that provide significant coverage about a topic, it's got an uphill battle meeting Misplaced Pages's notability standards. Criteria some people have suggested, but which are not supported by Misplaced Pages's guidelines, include the number of supporters/users of a currency, the value of a unit of the currency, or an estimate of "market capitalization" of the currency if it could be traded as a liquid asset. Personally I don't consider those factors whatsoever. ––Agyle (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Digital currency

Substantially duplicative content: The article content of digital currency seems to be more-or-less a slightly smaller duplicate of cryptocurrency. Even if digital currency turned out to be a separate subject, its current article content is still a large bulk of duplication that should be in either one article or the other. (Ripple (payment protocol) is mentioned, but it also appears in the cryptocurrency article and is also covered separately in electronic money instead.) Closeapple (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering that most of the "real" currency today is in the form of bits, "digital currency" is a misnomer as it actually refers to cryptocurrency. This article should be merged into cryptocurrency or just be deleted. 93.172.134.112 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do-Not suggest systemic changes such as this without doing alot of research, In this case you clearly have not done that.

Digital currencies are a very large, very important and very different thing to cryptocurrencies, they in no way necessary overlap and there is absolutely no reason to merge their two wiki pages, nor will there EVER be a good reason to delete the digital currency page.

Digital currencies include anything from the 'gold' in world of warcraft to american dollars and are defined simply as "any form of currency system implemented digitally". Cryptocurrencys on the other-hand are cryptographic messaging systems which use irreversibility in mathematics to implement a distributed verifiable (usually digital) currency... Just because something is a Digital currency certainly does not mean it is a Cryptocurrency.

Any similarity which exists between them in your head is meaningless and trivial, they are not to be merged.

And finally; @Closeapple your response is so wrong that i actually feel sick, bitcoin is the NAME of an advanced and specific cryptocurrency it's not the term we use to refer to all coins which are implemented using binary digits, it's certainly not a misnomer ! and at Misplaced Pages; ridiculously ideas like that are best left inside your head.

Electronic money is another thing again, please just don't post about crypto-anything until you fully understand Public-key_cryptography because you'll just embarrass yourself.

Finally; i intend to remove the 'merge suggestion' within a week unless someone comes up with a reason for merging the pages which is both logically valid and technically grounded.

27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 (talk)

N Opposed. I feel the topics are better treated as two articles. A proper treatment of cryptocurrency, and even this article's half-baked current coverage of the topic, includes signficant detail (history, technical underpinnings, weaknesses, etc.) that are irrelevant to non-cryptocurrency digital currencies, and merging Cryptocurrency into Digital currency would imbalance/dwarf the coverage of the topic of digital currency. Merging Digital currency into Cryptocurrency would simply be wrong, since many digital currencies are not cryptocurrencies. I disagree with 93.172.134.112 reasoning for deletion, i.e. "digital currency" should be deleted because it's a misnomer. (Whether it is a misnomer is a matter of opinion; it's in widespread usage the way the article is using it.) Agyle (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose Although currently the largest and most talked-about digital currency is a cryptocurrency, this might change. As has been already brought up, digital currencies is a larger category, which also includes centrally-backed online currencies like Liberty Dollars and credits like in-game money and Microsoft Points and Amazon Coin. Cryptocurrency is a very specific type of digital currency, and due to the complexity of the topic it is best treated in an article of its own. --hydrox (talk) 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose Keep both articles. Improve Digital Currency. Have a short sub section on crypto on the Digital Currency article - link to this as the main article. Add section on Digital Currency article about how some traditional physical currencies have become partly/mainly digital (since the 70s?).Jonpatterns (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently my merger request has been misinterpreted. To be clear: My proposal was to remove the more-or-less duplicate content from Digital currency because it was already in, and about, Cryptocurrency. It is not a request to terminate the Cryptocurrency article.

• The problem is that most of the content in the article Digital currency was actually duplicate content of Cryptocurrency and was actually about cryptocurrency, not digital currency in general.
• Therefore, I nominated Digital currency's content to be merged into Cryptocurrency; not because they are the same topic or even should be the same article, but because the existing content of the Digital currency was really about Cryptocurrency, and there was substantially nothing left in the Digital currency article other than that.
• The "clever" merger function in Twinkle gadget, which I used for this nomination, seems to have posted this talk section with the misleading title "Proposed merge with Digital currency". The cut-paste duplication in Digital currency is what I am proposing be merged (or simply removed since it's pretty much already in Cryptocurrency).
• As for 180.216.42.3: I have no idea what that anonymous IP is thinking. He seems to be speculating in his own head and then blaming me for the thoughts. I know that something being digital currency does not mean it's cryptocurrency; it's previous editors of the Digital currency article who didn't seem to understand it, not me, which is why I was proposing the content merger. I didn't respond to anything until now, didn't mention Bitcoin, certainly didn't confuse the name "Bitcoin" for all digital currencies, and didn't embarrass myself by claiming that someone that had already had PKI encryption and signing keys 15+ years ago doesn't understand public-key crypto.

The Digital currency article, if it remains, needs to be about digital currency in general, not just a repeat of the cryptocurrency subtopic. Almost every source reference in the Digital currency article says "Bitcoin" in the title. That's a bad sign. --Closeapple (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What you're proposing is effectively like a deletion of Digital currency. One of the steps WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion, which I think should be followed for this situation, is "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Two things I think everyone can agree on is (1) the Digital currency article is bad, and (2) it can be improved. I think that's another reason to oppose the merger. Agyle (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

After web-searching a bit I notice many sites using Digital Currency synonymously with Cryptocurrency and even Bitcoin.

I've found a page called Electronic money. This also potentially has an overlap with Digital Currency.

Question, where does computer game money fit in, for example the Cubit of chesscube?Jonpatterns (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Game money is almost always owned by the game's developer/publisher, as in, the player doesn't own any virtual currency in it, even if they spend real money to acquire it. So it doesn't fall under any money or currency definition. That's probably the main point -- the person actually owns the crypto or digital currencies they have. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No content merger is required !, if there is problems with the digital currency article; then just go fix it, leave this page alone!... there is absolutely no logical connection between Crypto and Digital currencys, they should not be merged to any extent.

If CloseApple is having a problem with the digital currency article, i suggest CloseApple goes and fixs it... and i strongly suggest he leaves the Cryptocurrency article ( a highly complex programming subject about which he clearly knows nothing ) alone.

( obviously the merge has not been deleted yet as discussion continues; however there is an overwhelming 'Nay' rough consensus emerging so unless relevant new information is brought to the discussion i intend to remove the merger request in 3 days (17/3/2014).

I know that no-one has directly suggested Bitcoins are a bad or limited example, however to be clear All Cyptocurrencies are DIRECTLY based upon the group sourced protocol Bitcoin, which is also by far the most well documented CC-protocol; and the fundamental crypto-scripting feature of Bitcoin is what every other coin builds it's unique features upon ( including highly complex coins - like the decentralized DNS namecoin )

203.59.228.97 (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose As there are many more types of digital currencies than cryptocurrencies, I oppose merging this to cryptocurrency. The opposite is an entirely different question on which I have no opinion. --Chealer (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - looks like most people oppose the merge. Maybe we should remove tag, someone has already removed the merge tag from Digital currency.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm also fine with removing the {{mergefrom}} template now that most of the content in Digital currency is not just copy-paste duplication; any remaining issues can be dealt with on the Digital currency article/talk page now. That Digital currency article still needs source references that aren't from the all-digital-currency-is-like-Bitcoin point of view, though. (And I still have no idea why those last couple of anonymous IPs went berzerk about "touching" the Cryptocurrency article. This discussion is on Talk:Cryptocurrency because merger discussions often go on the destination article that has the {{mergefrom}} template, rather than the article with the {{mergeto}} template. I don't know how many times I'd have to repeat that I didn't think anything would change on the Cryptocurrency article, since the original Digital currency article was just a copy-paste of part of Cryptocurrency. But I think most people know that.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the issue to attention. The Digital currency article is heading in the right direction now. Another question occurs though, do we need a Digital currency and Electronic money articles. Agyle done some research, see Talk:Electronic_money#Difference between Electronic money and Digital currency Jonpatterns (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why cryptocurrencies are not Fiat-Money.

Here i attempt to respond to GliderMavens implicit question "why aren't cryptocurrencys classified as a form of Fiat-Money?"

It may well be appropriate to dedicate a section of article space for this topic in the future if many others have trouble - for now i shall provide a simple barraging answer.

Herein we will specifically use the well defined cryptocurrency protocol - Bitcoin as a currency-definition reference against which to compare the more loosely defined cash-money specification.

Fiat Money first off, is defined as any currency which possesses all of the following properties:

A money declared by a government to be legal tender. State-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard. Intrinsically valueless money used as money because of government decree.

Clearly Government approved Bills of paper stamped 'legal tender' do fit into this definition very well. Clearly the Bitcoin protocol does not fit into this albeit rather-specific definition. ( nor do any of the successful Bitcoin spin-off protocols )

There's also a far more informal definition of the term Fiat which simply means 'to not be backed by anything precious'; however even this relaxed definition does not apply to Bitcoins ( or any of it's popular spin-offs )... Cryptocurrency specifications fundamentally do-not maintain monetary value as a magnitude - Instead; a cryptocurrency wallet pertains value by becoming associated with some number of 'transactions' - each of which is itself associated with a diverging tree of previous transactions which unequivocally anastomosise from transactions within which the coins now owned by a wallet via its association with a transaction tree were first initially created...

In simple vernacular; Bitcoins are infact backed, they are perfectly backed, but they are backed by themselves - unlike any two real $1 notes you find which are functionally identical, every Bitcoin is unique and unreproducible, whether they are virtual or otherwise they ARE Fundamentally Scarce. if you still have trouble understanding or simply do-not agree then study the Bitcoin specification; it's an important point which is continuously made very clear in the designers technical writings, Bitcoins are Precious (that is to say they are difficult to acquire) Bitcoins are backed (thanks be to there implementation as an unreproducable tree of transactions) and so Bitcoins are not a Fiat-Money. ( nor are the popular Bitcoin spin-offs )180.216.130.114 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree a discussion comparing crypto to fiat would be useful (also on Electronic money and Digital currency. There is a good article on Fiat money which could point us in the right direction. Fiat money gains it value from Government backing, Bitcoin from the quality of its encryption and transfer protocols. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Other notable coins

Was thinking maybe Vertcoin is notable enough to merit an actual article on Misplaced Pages as well as a mention here. The main reason why it is notable is that it is designed to limit the "arms race" of ASICs by scaling its difficulty over time in a way that ASICs wouldn't be able to adapt to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.218.121 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability to justify an article is generally determined by "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". Fighting the ASIC arms race issue isn't unique, but that's also irrelevant. If someone wants to start the article, I'd suggest it's started with Draft:Vertcoin unless there's already enough coverage from reliable sources that it warrants its own article. Many cryptocurrency articles are nominated for deletion an hour or two after they're created, so you don't want to create an article in anticipation that there will be more media coverage about it in a couple weeks. Vertcoin seems like a fad coin from back in the early days of February, and faded well before mid February, but you never know, and International Business Times gave it very minor coverage in at least ten articles between Feb 5 and Feb 21. Of industry publications, CoinDesk only mentioned it in passing as one of many alt coins accepted by a London hostel chain, and Bitcoin Magazine doesn't mention it at all, though they're presumably pulling for Ether over other new currencies at this point. Agyle (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical discourse

Requesting chart comparing the technical differences of popular Cryptocurrencies. The current chart focuses on economic differences. I'd like to also see blockchain differences and other classifications that would illustrate, of example, if one system were "broken" which other related systems would also be broken because they are the same design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulldecent (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think there are reliable sources that do a good job of comparing them in a table-friendly way. The current chart attempts to compare "hashing algorithms" anyway, synthesizing information from many different sources, and the result is a misleading, context-free comparison of apples to oranges. I would not suggest Misplaced Pages editors attempt further original research like that. Agyle (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

NXT and Auroracoin draft articles

I'm removed NXT from the list of notable cryptocurrencies, as it does not seem notable at this point. I've created two draft articles, Draft:NXT and Draft:Auroracoin, as starts on articles about those cryptocurrencies, if anyone would care to contribute to them. However I don't consider either as meeting Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines at this point. Someone try creating full articles, but they'll quickly be nominated for deletion; I am confident NXT would be deleted, and Auroracoin would depend on who's judging it. Agyle (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

- thanks for creating Draft:NXT, I tried to create a full article. What do you think about it? Where should it be improved? Thanks. Salsacz 18:30, 10 March 2014 (CET)

I added a comment in the Talk page detailing some of the sources I find questionable or not reliable. Remove the weakest and try to replace them with the strongest sources available. Also, I'd try to write sentences, rather than rely on bulleted lists, for sections like "features"...this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement. ;-) The article has a lot of info, which is a good starting point, but some of it might be hard to support with good sources at the moment. Agyle (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Currency Infobox - Cryptocurrency, Digital current and Numismatics

An Info box listing the different type of currencies would be good. I'm unsure if once currently exist. The Currency page list the Template:Numismatics. But does Numismatics, the study of Notes and Coins, really cover Electronic money? Does Numismatics even cover currency - the flow of money, rather than the physical objects used as money. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - Getting Rid of the Chart.

Hey folks. I think the chart needs to go, or at least be split into a semi-protected list with only the most recognizable coins (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc) being shown here. It seems that everybody is recently been trying to put his/her own altcoin on the chart as a means of obscure promotion (some of these coins' notability are being put into question this very second as I write this.)

What does everyone think? Citation Needed | Talk 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• N Oppose. It might happen once every couple weeks, and it's easy enough to revert an edit, explain why, and direct to Talk. Compared to truly controversial topics, this is negligible. ;-) Even if it were a daily occurrence, it shouldn't be removed simply because it requires added edit scrutiny, though in that case edit protection might be warranted. Agyle (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• B Comment - The list is useful, so shouldn't be removed altogether. Maybe it could go on a separate page. Overall I think a consistent notability standard needs to be written specifically for cryptocurrencies. That will make it much quicker to judge new entries both to the list on for articles. It would also give editors adding these something to work to. The standard notability guidelines aren't a good match, there could be millions of dollars of a currency in existence but no mention in mainstream media and little background info. A standard could be the currency achieving a certain market cap over a number of months. To that end these sites could be useful: https://coinmarketcap.com/ http://cryptmarketcap.com/ Jonpatterns (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Marketcap was proposed in an earlier discussion. Personally I'm against it. It's too easy to manipulate the market cap and trading volumes in an unregulated, non-transparent environment. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• B Comment - An unregistered editor is trying to add Virtual Coin. It could be useful to put a banner above the table - stating coin must be notable with a link to an agreed standard for Cryptocurrency notatability.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just added a note in comments above the table, visible only to editors, which may reduce the addition of cryptocurrencies without Misplaced Pages articles. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Inherent Deflation Risk

Won't having a finite number of coins cause deflation? More money needs to be created as things of value are created so they can be exchanged. Too much money creation rate and you get inflation. Too little results in deflation. None results in a useless medium of exchange at some point, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.203.96 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all cryptocurrency have a finite number of coins, although bitcoin does. I though in Bitcoins case it is to create scarcity so they become more valuable. Edit: do you think a section should be added in finite-nous ? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I thnk a section should be added or at least it should be pointed out. Seems like if they are ever to be a viable currency then they need to have a mechanism for increasing the supply, automatically in a decentralized way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.203.96 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tentatively removing Zetacoin and Darkcoin from chart

Darkcoin does not yet have an article, Zetacoin has an article but has a deletion request pending, and in all likelihood will be deleted through a Speedy Delete or AfD process. (That sounds presumptuous, but having seen more than a dozen articles like this, I have yet to see one survive when not a single reliable secondary source is cited). Auroracoin also has a deletion request pending, but it does cite reliable secondary sources, and currently does not seem headed for deletion. Agyle (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The removal of Zetacoin was reverted, with the edit summary "Added Zetacoin, a well established cryptocurrency which is along with Bitcoin and Litecoin to be involved in Cryptr, covered by Yahoo Finance." The Yahoo Finance "article" is a press release from a company called Cryptr, not an independent reliable source. Whether Zetacoin is established is irrelevant toward notability on Misplaced Pages, and as has been explained in Talk:Zetacoin and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zetacoin, there is inadequate independent coverage by multiple reliable sources to establish its notability. I am re-removing the information; please do not add the information back unless this issue is addressed. Agyle (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of Digital in reference to cryptography.

Recent disagreement has arisen regarding the use of the term digital in the definition of the term cryptocurrency. This talk section has been created for us to discuss our perspectives and argue our points before re-adding the term so as to avoid public misconception and to minimize redundant and potentially incorrect article page edits.

My perspective is that Cryptocurrency, like it's parent fields cryptography and currency, has no innate connection and can exist entirely separate to digital signal processing.

Basic cryptography ( which is the key component of Cryptocurrency ) has existed far longer than the word digital, the concepts invoked by cryptography make complete and useful sense even within noisy or analogous implementations.

I believe the cause of this misnomer arose because of the avid connection between popular cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and popular modern electronic computing devices; which are by no means the only possible type of computing devices.

Cryptocurrency specifications can provably be implemented entirely within the minds of a group of humans, Cryptocurrencies are certainly not based upon digital currencies and i am yet to find or hear any argument which could prove that Cryptocurrencys cannot exist without digital-signal-processing which is all that is meant by the term digital.

Feel free to discuss, but please do-not include the term digital into the main article without providing strong supporting evidence that it needs to be there. encyclopedias are supposed to be minimal and concise, they are not the place for unintelligent hearsay.

Thank you, 180.216.52.21 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages reflects reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to cryptocurrencies as a type of digital currency. You could certainly do everything by hand, but that's not the canonical meaning of the term. You're creating your own theoretical definitions based on what you think the terms should mean, rather than the meanings used and defined in reliable sources. Agyle (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with you, also note that all the currently implemented cryptocurrencies are also digital currencies. It can also be argued that the majority percentage of 'conventional' currencies are also digital.

At the moment the article hardly mentions the word digital, so presumably there is no disagreement at the present time.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed coins without article

NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Misplaced Pages, do not include it in this article's table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG).

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pelecoin123456: see above, Misplaced Pages mostly avoids having articles written by people with direct involvement.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference dreamcoin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference steadman2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525926.0

Table too wide

table is too wide on 14" monitor, maybe vertical text images would be beneficial? See, Help:Table#Vertically_oriented_column_headers. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I shortened the width of the code, symbol, and founder columns a bit. Personally I'd suggest removing some of the columns of subjective information, unless someone wants to clarify precisely what they mean or how the values are determined. "Active", market cap, % release, and coins released all seem like good candidates. Coinmarketcap is a particularly non-transparent source (anonymously run, with no explanation of its values), susceptible to mistakes and fraud from multiple sources, and able to perpetrate fraud on its own. If you compare the April values cited in this article with the live site, Ripple's "available supply" dropped from 100 billion to 7.8 billion coins in circulation, dropping its market cap from $637 million to $36 million, and Auroracoin went form having 10.7 million coins released to 1.5 million, dropping its market cap from $11 million to $0.3 million. As far as I know, nothing changed about the actual number of coins released by those sites, just coinmarketcap's figures changed. At least with Bitcoin quotes using CoinDesk's Bitcoin Price Index or the Winklevoss twins' Winkdex, they explain their methods, and values can be verified against the exchanges they use, but currencies that trade less frequently can be more susceptible to certain types of fraud, and coinmarketcap is completely opaque. Agyle (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm neutral on market cap being removed. In one way it can give an indication of how much of a coin has grown. Maybe a more static value like average market cap for 2013 would be adequate - using information from the better sources.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Format issues and Dogecoin

• Whomever wrote parts of this didn't use markup. I'm taking the WP URLs out of references, replacing with wikilinks. Also, I'm creating an "External sources" section, which is where Coinwiki belongs.

• Is there a Dogecoin Foundation? It is mentioned in the article. If so, ref source please?

Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not notable criteria

I've been trying to add a coin to the list of cryptocurrencies, which although may not be well known (the point of this coin is far more stealth than Bitcoin offers) it is well known within it's circles having more users of the coin and a higher market cap than the majority of the coins on that list. I was going to revert it's removal until I read the criteria that it must have a wikipedia page. How can whether or not something has a wikipedia article be determined as an object of note? I realise you're wikipedia users and will be rightly proud of your website. However this notability test seems to contradict wikipedia referencing rules that wikipedia cannot be used as a source of reference. I am happy to create a wikipedia page for the currency but I find wikipedia ignoring something as not worth mentioning because no one made an article, a little big headed. 194.138.39.53 (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for selecting what coins mentioned appears very very random, I can imagine people were trying to squeeze in their coins through out, resulting in such a mess. However, shouldn't it be common sense that a Cryptocoin should be 'at least' 1yr old ? Coins like Aurora, Maza, Vertcoin are all unworthly mentions, made to 'wow' people for a quick 'get rich' schemes. I work in coinbase for the last 18 months, and to be honest, except Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin. All the rest are considered Minor, where you then have Feathercoin, Primecoin, Peercoin, Worldcoin and Ybcoin that is actually developed by respectable people who show their faces. Mastercoin is fine to mention, given it is different, similar to Ripple, but again, no one talks about Mastercoin or Ripple at all either, almost embarassing to see it on this list. WinterstormRage (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to do this properly, let's try to come up with some criteria under which a coin can be added. I propose the following rules:

Universal:

1. at least one year old (briefly grandfathering in Doge)
2. uses some sort of blockchain technology

Major:

1. at least 2k transactions per day
2. at least 7k active addresses
3. accepted on 2/3 of major exchanges

Minor:

1. at least 500 transactions per day
2. at least 2k active addresses
3. accepted on at least 3 exchanges

Now, I fully expect this to be amended and modified. These are arbitrary rules, and they use possibly fallible third party resources. But, as an initial draft, what do you think?

ThePenultimateOne (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There already are criteria in effect, and they are easier to follow than your newly proposed set. Therefore, I oppose the change. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What are these criteria? ThePenultimateOne (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Citing from the section (it is commented and invisible, but visible when editing):

"NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Misplaced Pages, do not include it in this table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG), please ask in Talk:Cryptocurrency; most cryptocurrency articles are deleted after a week or two discussion process. NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS - READ BEFORE ADDING TO TABLE" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but is being on Misplaced Pages really a good way to judge if something is notable? I would argue that user-base is a much better data point to use. 66.249.83.218 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the criteria are what Misplaced Pages uses. If wanting to remain consistent, it is best to use the criteria in this case as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

definition of cryptocurrency

A sourced definition of cryptocurrency has always been lacking on this page, and should be its own subsection. It would allow distinction from other similar terms ( digital currency, virtual currency).--Wuerzele (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow Table/Security Concerns

Is it just me or are we now paying someone for the privilege of building them their very own rainbow table?

Addition of BlackCoin

I suggest adding BlackCoin to the list here. It's had its own article since July, and was the first purely POS coin, which I think alone makes it sufficiently notable. It's currently 15th in the list according to market cap (about $2.2 million) and is accepted on 15 exchanges (Aurocoin, listed here, is accepted on 7). Are there any objections? Greenman (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to wait, there is a problem with notability as an inspection of the article reveals. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No notability concerns listed on the article or here, so will go ahead and add BlackCoin. Greenman (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Illegal in Iceland - really true?

"Cryptocurrencies are legal in all countries except Iceland, due primarily to Iceland's freeze on foreign exchange". I know what the source, a major Icelandic newspaper, says "illegal". Their quote from the central bank possibly really means that. It is about the capital controls and that Bitcoin is not an exception (a product). I just wander if you only use Bitcoin domestically does that work?

Bitcoin is mined in Iceland in big data centers so I take illegal with a grain of salt. comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have got some source for the statement, it may be a reasonable information to add, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Cryptography articles
• Unknown-importance Cryptography articles
• C-Class Computer science articles
• Unknown-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• WikiProject Cryptography articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles