Bitcoin Core was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bitcoin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Example: "I installed bitcoin software, downloaded the bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip. Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a bitcoin exchange."
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyBitcoin:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyBitcoin:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsBitcoin:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
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 Bitcoin. 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 & InvestmentBitcoin:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetBitcoin:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawBitcoin:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsBitcoin:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Bitcoin. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingBitcoin:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Material from Bitcoin was split to Bitcoin network on 26 May 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
Namecoin was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Bitcoinj was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briansurguy.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hennock,l. Peer reviewers: Jimmyk578, TylerSukovski.
might be better to put this in the template:refidea, so it does not get archived away if not added quickly. Emir of Bitcoin (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the design section, there is a graph of the elliptic curve secp256k1. The caption of the photo says this picture is over the algebraic number field of real numbers R^2. The real numbers are not an algebraic number field, it would be more correct to just say the field of real numbers. Also, writing the R in blackboard bold latex font would also be more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Bitcoin (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Suggested Change: Change the caption of the photo "Graph of the elliptic curve named secp256k1 over the algebraic number field of real numbers, " to "Graph of the elliptic curve named secp256k1 in " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
Partly done: I did that, except just linked real coordinate space as R^2 could be confused with other things anyway. The confusion is that it's actually defined over Z/pZ for primes p, which is a field, but I think whoever originally added it copied it over from bitcoin wiki without understanding what it meant. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
As of 11 May 2020, the reward amounted to 6.25 newly created bitcoins per block added to the blockchain, plus any transaction fees from payments processed by the block. Wish.big (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't know whether the legal status of Bitcoin in El Salvador should be in the lead or not, but I think it should be in the infobox in any case. Template:Infobox currency has a field called "using_countries" but Template:Infobox cryptocurrency does not. Should we add such a field to the cryptocurrency infobox only to cover the case of El Salvador and Bitcoin (for now)? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree probably infobox template should be edited. Probably need to have a discussion on the template itself. @David Gerard: thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to wait and see whether more countries adopt cryptos as legal tender. For the moment, it may be an isolated event. JBchrchtalk 11:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Plausible, but this entire El Salvador bitcoin deal is weird. I would say this is a case for not-immediatism. The law being passed this morning is pretty article-significant, I should be clear - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree on the wait and see position of David and JB, infobox is the ultimate level of wikivoice, we should be cautious Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting: the law does not take effect until 90 days from now, or when (per art. 14) the Trust is established, whichever happens second - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears it has been added anyhow, apparently without talk page consensus. My concern about the current version of the infobox states "users" as El Salvador. However, we also have in the article that Zug accepts bitcoin for some type of payments, and we also have millions of bitcoin "users" (aka people). I think this requires more thought, and I dont see the urgency to add this to the infobox prior to the 90 day time period that David has referred to, as it implies it can be used today. Can bitcoin be used today in El Salvador? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Yes sorry I posted this message about the infobox then thought actually I should do it and didn't wait for answers, sorry... Regarding the terminology, "Official user(s)" is the one used in Template:Infobox currency, that's why I used it, assuming there was a consensus for this terminology. But I think that the name of the variable ("using_countries") is probably better. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I understand from the text of the law and the official website of the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador that the law was adopted on June 8th: "La Asamblea Legislativa decretó este 8 de junio de 2021 un total de 10 artículos como disposiciones generales" 
The tweet of the president was posted 5 minutes after midnight, El Salvador time (CST). And by the way, I remember that during the vote, on the live Twitter Spaces, the president and his brother said that the law had been adopted just before midnight (CST). There's a 2-hour difference between El Salvador time and time in NYC (EDT) so for journalists in NYC (and even more in London) the law was adopted on the 9th.
But I agree it's not 100% clear. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Just found the Diario Oficial 9 de Junio de 2021.indd which says on page 15 about the Ley Bitcoin: "Dado en el salon azul del palacio legislativo: san salvador, a los ocho dias del mes de junio del ano mil veintiuno." But then: "Casa presidencial: San Salvador, a los nueve dias del mes de junio de dos mil veintiuno." If it works as it does in France (and I assume it does because most countries in Latin America were inspired by the Napoleonic Code), then a law adopted on one day is published on the official journal on the following day, but the publication date is not the date of adoption. So I conclude that the law was published on June 8th. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: I understand your point, but in presence of ambiguous WP:PRIMARY sources, it is necessary to rely on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And here we have the FT, the WSJ and Bloomberg telling us the date is the 9th. Besides, in my experience, it's impossible to determine these kinds of things by looking at government documentation and without a solid understanding of how the specific government in question works. Often—and not only in developing countries—laws are enacted, on one day, adopted on another, published on yet another, officially published on yet another etc etc. It's very confusing. JBchrchtalk 10:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The primary sources aren't that ambiguous to me. Regarding secondary sources, I read the Bloomberg article, but which part of the article mentions it was adopted on the 8th? On the WSJ is says: "according to the three-page bill that was submitted Tuesday evening and swiftly approved after midnight by lawmakers of President Nayib Bukele’s New Ideas party", so we have again this question of before/after midnight. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the FT, what does it say about the publication date? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
WSJ says El Salvador passed a new law on Wednesday. FT says The legislature, which Bukele controls, passed the bill with 62 of 84 possible votes on Wednesday. It's true Bloomberg doesn't state the date, but it's easy to find more sources from top sources: Reuters  says El Salvador became the first country in the world to adopt bitcoin as legal tender after Congress on Wednesday approved President Nayib Bukele’s proposal. JBchrchtalk 15:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. So we don't know if it's Wednesday Salvador time or Wednesday for the author. Given the uncertainty I removed the day, I think the month and the year are enough for this article. But the problem persists for the Bitcoin Law article. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Do newspapers date their stories with the time at their headquarters? I would be very surprised if that was the case. I am pretty sure that the dates are given relative to the timezone of the relevant place that is being discussed? In addition, I think the exact date is important encyclopedic content, so we have to come to a consensus decision one way or the other. But the consensus among the reliable, secondary and independent sources looks clear to me. JBchrchtalk 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the exact date is important for Bitcoin Law (where someone else wrote June 8th) but that for this article about Bitcoin in general I think it's not. And yes the consensus in secondary sources is June 9th (even though it seems wrong to me). I asked the President + the gov on Twitter by the way, but I guess they won't answer... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
On the website of the Legislative Assembly they have:
I guess next week both links will be updated. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the key point is that here at wikipedia we follow, we dont lead. We just follow the sources and be careful of what we say in WP:WIKIVOICE. If we editors dont know here on the talk page, we shouldn't be saying it in the mainspace. Bitcoin Law itself says the law is not yet in force, so if it is not in force how can we use it the bitcoin article (this article) as legal tender? Seems these two wikipedia articles are conflicting with each other in a WP:POVFORK (not ok). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there's, unfortunately, a conflict between these two articles. Regarding the date of adoption, I think Lexology is a quality source, and this article says: "Una vez incorporada la propuesta de Ley BTC fue aprobada a las 00:01 horas del día miércoles 9 de junio, con 62 votos a favor." If true, then the law was indeed adopted on June 9th. Regarding the enforcement date, the 90-day delay is not mentioned in all secondary sources (WSJ and Bloomberg for instance), as if for these journalists it was already taken for granted. But a note could be added to mention that it'll be legal tender on Sept 7th 2021. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC) A455bcd9 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Update on the gov website: the law is said to have been adopted on June 8th ("Fecha Aprobación" / "Datos de la Ley" / "Fecha de Emisión"), and it was published in the Official Journal on the following day ("Datos de Publicación" / "Fecha de Publicación"). Should we conclude the law was adopted on June 8th? I think so. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the big fuss is? We have to follow what independent, reliable, secondary sources say. JBchrchtalk 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
No, we are not going to use wikipedia editors interpretation of the law posted in another language. Wait for this to be in the WP:IRS as Jbchrch says. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think it is "wikipedia editors interpretation of the law" but just reading the date of adoption written on the official government website, and in the official press release of the legislative assembly. Regarding secondary independent sources, here are some that mention the adoption date is June 8th:
Ernst & Young: EY: "On June 8, 2021, El Salvador's Legislative Assembly approved the Bitcoin Law"
AFP: "Lawmakers in the Central American nation's Congress passed a bill late Tuesday that will eventually allow [...]"
So regarding WP:IRS we have 3 of the 4 biggest news agencies (AP, AFP, EFE) that say the law was adopted on June 8th (whereas Reuters say June 9th) + one of the Big Four accounting firms (EY, I couldn't find any statement from the others) + a leading local newspaper (El Mundo). On the other hand, the WSJ and the FT say June 9th. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, AFP, AP, Reuters, etc those are great sources. WSJ and FT also. If there is a dispute which are accurate, I am not sure what we we would use. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
What if we add a footnote saying that the some media outlets have said that the law was adopted on the 8th (cue refs) and others on the 9th (cue refs)? JBchrchtalk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we could add a note like this: "The law was voted during the June 8th plenary session (cue refs), and published in the official journal on June 9th (cue refs). Some media outlets consider that the law was adopted on the 8th (cue refs) and others on the 9th (cue refs)." A455bcd9 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not inclined to add info based on your original research in primary sources. We can perfectly limit ourselves stating what reliable, secondary, independent sources said. By the way, EY and ICEFI are self-published and therefore sub-optimal compared to the sources available. Anyway, I have now implemented the proposed wording. I hope that we can close this thread. JBchrchtalk 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for revamping your comment to tone down the bad tone; I appreciate it 🤗 I totally understand your point. However, the sentence I suggested was not based on my original research in primary sources but on a reliable, secondary, independent source, namely, the first paragraph of the El Mundo (El Salvador)'s article: "El Diario Oficial publicó el 9 de junio de 2021 la Ley Bitcoin aprobada el 8 de junio por la Asamblea Legislativa de El Salvador, por lo que se espera que su vigencia inicie el 7 de septiembre de 2021." Other Salvadoran newspapers confirm this information:
La Prensa Gráfica:  "La ley de 16 artículos fue aprobada en la plenaria del pasado martes por la Asamblea oficialista" "La Ley Bitcóin fue publicada esta tarde en el Diario Oficial, en su edición correspondiente al 9 de junio; esto representa el último paso del proceso de formación de ley, según la institucionalidad salvadoreña."
La Pagina: "La Ley Bitcóin, aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa el pasado martes 8 de junio, fue publicada este viernes en El Diario Oficial, lo que significa que las transacciones con la criptomoneda se harán a partir del próximo 7 de septiembre en todo el país."
Teleprensa: "En el tomo Número 431 del Diario Oficial fue publicada la Ley Bitcoin aprobada el pasado 8 de junio por los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa. La iniciativa fue sancionada por el presidente salvadoreño, Nayib Bukele, un día después de ser aprobada por el parlamento."
That's why I thought (and still think) that it could be added, with the relevant references, in the article. And thanks for your edit! A455bcd9 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
El Mundo is an WP:RS in my opinion and any problems in an English publication out of the country, I think we would use the local publications. It's ok to use a Spanish language source for English wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think using reliable Spanish-language sources is fine, especially for an event happening in a (rather small) Spanish-speaking country. What do you think JBchrch? Here are two other sources by the way:
Salvadoran government: "El pasado 8 de junio los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa aprobaron la denominada Ley Bitcoin"
Taproot has met the requirements for the activation process. It has gained the support of 90% of qualified blocks mined in the last two weeks. This happened on 14-6-2021. This is quite a big update. Maybe this can be added to the page
Hi @Freedom.to.distribute.information: , i read cnbc. Are there other mainsteam sources? Does anyone know if this upgraded included Schnoor signatures or it didnt? I have seem some sources saying Schnoor and MAST were included, but others didnt say. We need mainstream sources for this (like CNBC). On twitter pundits were saying this CNBC article contained a lot of incorrect information, but I am I suppose not versed enough in the subject to understand it. Ladislav Mecir comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Since Bitcoin has become legal tender in El Salvador, Bitcoin is a legal an supported currency, and there is not neccessary for a currency to be issued by a Central Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)