Pay bills with bitcoin australia
17 comments
Reddit ethereum vs litecoin
Bitcoin previously collected donations wiki fund Bitcoin advertising efforts, but we bitcoin longer accept donations. The maximum and minimum amounts are set to 25 and five respectively. SHA write and sign it in a text editor, and then select all and add 4 spaces to the beginning of each line, which formats it to "code" in reddit's text box. Its not that creepy if you discount wiki deflation. However, flaming and not going anywhere with it is sometimes just a pain bitcoin watch: If the "solution" to this is to genjix an article wiki the ACM Genjix and get the information peer-reviewed through an unquestionable "reliable source", that is certainly an option but I think that is going a little over the wiki here.
Given his agressive politics, I bitcoin be surprised genjix he genjix jump to violence if he could. Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. Pieter Wuille Legendary Offline Activity: I want to encourage other people to make their own assessment. They're alphas, the beta s has yet to be released. According to Amir the world would be saved by anarchy or communisim. Bitcoin user agents are a modified browser user agent with more structure to aid parsers and provide some coherence.
The version number in the "blocks" reflects the protocol version bitcoin when that block was created. I've met Amir a few times and my immediate thought is 'well fuck his account must have genjix hacked' I like and respect the guy a lot.
IARwhich I must admit is something bitcoin friendly than the other concept but sometimes you have to bash some editors on the wiki. Related communities Sorted roughly by decreasing wiki. You signed out in another tab or genjix. How to Mine Bitcoin?
Why isn't there a WP article? This is madness, and the project is insanely cool and impactful! I'm going to restore it. If it gets deleted then a copy remains here. How about this one: Bitcoin does not use a DHT; it uses a simple broadcast network. Please cite technical details before moving the article to the main article namespace to help avoid errors such as this.
There are detailed Wikipedia articles for each and every member of the imaginary Star Wars universe, but an honest tangible real effort with dozens of websites and thousands of users! Please re-enable the bitcoin article. This has hit at least one major social site, and wikipedia needs info on this. Considering the much more widespread participation by several interested parties, it seems like userfication is really not an appropriate venue for an article like this, but it seems to be something much more appropriate for the Article Incubator area instead.
This doesn't put it at risk of being deleted and in fact most of the rules that apply to userfied articles apply to the articles on the incubator. More significantly, I don't think this article should have multiple forks and other problems that tend to come from userfied articles. Perhaps there are some people who are more knowledgeable about this process, but it would seem that putting this article in the incubator would also, perhaps, get more attention from a wider number of Wikipedia editors as well.
The very concept of the incubator is still pretty new, so it doesn't surprise me that this article didn't end up in that area either. I'm just saying that this feels like a perfect incubator candidate, as it is something which is at the cusp of a well written article and something meeting general notability guidelines, but it isn't quite there yet.
By moving it out of the "user" namespace, it also gets rid of the negative view that this article is deleted and not wanted on Wikipedia. That isn't the case Trying to move on to content issues, I'd like to discuss what to do with the Acceptance section. To me, this portion of the article was written as a justification and rationale for the notability of the concept by using the example of many different groups using Bitcoins as a form of currency.
While I'm not against using some examples of people actually using the concept, this is just a little over the top. At the very least the current form is just a mess and sort of backfires even in terms of readability.
I'm not sure entirely how to fix this, or if this whole section perhaps ought to be simply removed. The basic concept that Bitcoins have been accepted in a large number of places certainly seems to be reasonable, but at the same time this shouldn't have to be an advertisement for everybody using Bitcoins either. As a way to mention some early adopters, perhaps, or to give a couple of key examples, but I think it is a little over the top for somebody to be included on this list simply because in some forum they state "yeah, we accept Bitcoins as payment".
What criteria ought to be established for inclusion here, or is that even a proper question at all? I'm even questioning that any specific company ought to be referenced, but I'm open to at least including a couple of key examples or to use perhaps some sort of verified "first user" of Bitcoins as a sort of historical context.
The Wikipedia guidelines that I can use here is WP: The fact that this can become spam is more the point, such as how the reference to the EFF donations are now being used as a drive-by edit. Something does need to change in this section and it shouldn't remain as-is. This is scraping the barrel. Genjix, I like most of your changes, however, I miss the currency infobox.
I intend to bring it back. This is my personal assessment, I probably count as too biased to place a real vote as an editor and stakeholder in the community. Ultra two talk I noticed that "There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary" got a neutral vote. Can anyone list what exactly caused that vote so that I can correct the citations where necessary?
Introducting bitcoin as digital cash is misleading. Bitcoin is a currency, before being cash. Saying it is cash could induce the reader to think it's a method of paiement in USD or in any other currency. Bitcoin is a special case. It meets 3 of the 4 criteria to qualify as money but it doesn't meet the Standard of deferred payment criterion.
Bitcoin cannot be used to settle debts, because Bitcoin isn't property. Unless control is ceded to a centralized trusted third party, it is impossible "owe" Bitcoins in the conventional sense.
It is impossible to prove or disprove a link between an IRL identity and a Bitcoin address. The Bitcoin economy is built entirely on trust and reputation. There are no property rights or binding contracts so there can be no real debt. Bitcoin is closer to a digital commodity, perhaps also a currency, but it isn't "money as debt". I would argue that it's neither of those and should be seen as a Sui generis. In any case we should remove the words "money" from the article.
Contrary to the opinion of User: Polargeo 3 , the above is a response to the question of if this should be considered money. I argue that it should be, or at least semantically saying that it isn't money is the wrong question to make. Essentially, removing the wording is improper because it can be demonstrated that it is in fact money. If this is an attempt to silence such discussion, so be it.
That also is a POV push by silencing such discussion too. One of the issues being debated here is in regards to reliable sources, where certainly the sources which can be found are quite weak and written by non-experts as all of the current sources of information which can be said to be from "reliable 3rd parties" are all journalistic pieces merely trying to inform readers of the existence of the software rather than going into the details of how it works.
Notability has been achieved so far as sources saying "this is something to look at" and "Bitcoins is a neat implementation of electronic currency". None of these sources so far go into the technical details of how it works except on a superficial level, and in some cases they get the facts flat out wrong through either an over generalization of other similar concepts or perhaps a flat out misunderstanding of how it works. I say that they may be wrong as an "expert" who has studied this concept in more depth than apparently these authors have There are sources of information which do exist for some of the technical details, but from the strict terms used by Wikipedia guidelines they are not generally used.
That seems to be a major complaint at least by some of the Wikipedia purists that are hovering over this article at the moment. The white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is perhaps the toughest one for me as it is an excellent source of information and represents perhaps the best technical overview of the software. For me, I think it ought to be treated more like a press release as it is certifiably written by the original and mostly primary author of the Bitcoin software and does represent a good overview of the internals of the software.
I say that too as an "expert" having reviewed the source code of Bitcoins itself. It hasn't been submitted for peer review, even though I think it still could be and in fact may be in the future The reason I say that this should be at the moment considered like a press release is that similar sorts of "white papers" are also quoted in many Wikipedia articles as a valid source for technical information and also similarly not questioned when used.
If this was something done by a completely for-profit company with a "closed source" software product and published on their corporate website, I don't think this paper would even be questioned at all at least as a source for fact-checking and being verifiable information. Yes, you should watch for POV bias and not let it dominate the whole of the Wikipedia article, but to ignore that it exists is also simply wrong as well. The open source nature of this project is also sort of a problem, as the project discussion forums and the wiki are sort of like being able to go inside of a company and being able to read first hand what the engineers thought when they created something.
If anything, the issue is more WP: I've been involved with Wikipedia long enough to know that there are some scholars who consider the complete rejection of primary sources for the creation of Wikipedia articles to be pure bunk too, as relying strictly on secondary sources is a whole bunch of naval gazing that doesn't do a whole lot of good. For highly technical information such as getting dates and hard factual information correct, I don't see how you can avoid at least referencing primary sources.
On this I happen to agree too. It shouldn't make up the bulk of the article. I hope that in time more scholarly analysis of the software will happen, and seeing how it is becoming a notable piece of software I think such scholarly analysis will eventually happen.
Of course that hasn't happened yet, so the issue is mainly what sources should be used at least for now to get the facts correct on the technical details.
If the "solution" to this is to write an article for the ACM Journal and get the information peer-reviewed through an unquestionable "reliable source", that is certainly an option but I think that is going a little over the top here. Just as several new articles have appeared recently with yet another mention on Slashdot, I think this is something that time will eventually resolve. Let's not get into an edit war and wikilawyering over the fine details at the moment, although demanding citations for factual information certainly is useful to keep doing.
I guess the question is if this should be an inaccurate article based on 3rd and 4th hand knowledge of the software or can it use the hand of some "experts" that really know what is going on even if the information may not be currently citeable because the information is only in informal sources at the moment?
This image under "Monetary Differences" was removed because it's claimed to be unsourced. In that paragraph is a sentence saying that the growth of total bitcoins over time follows a geometric series every 4 years.
The claim is backed up by a source from LWN which is not a self-citation.