Wikipedia

Talk:Bitcoin#Consensus for External links section

Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


El Salvador and Bitcoin

[edit]

Its listed as Official user, which is missinformation. Its not legal tender anymore, but it can be used by private trade. In that case every country that hasnt banned bitcoin should be listed, and thats not the intention I assume.

https://dig.watch/updates/bitcoin-is-no-longer-legal-tender-in-el-salvador

Bitcoin is no longer legal tender in El Salvador 146.2.132.96 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article, and have also updated the map on Commons. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use for payment section. Update needed

[edit]

Under the: 'Use for payments' section its written: " El Salvador still describes bitcoin as "legal tender", but its acceptance is no longer obligitory (as it is with the US dollar) and the El Salvador government no longer accepts bitcoin for payment of taxes or fee"

This is not factual correct: El Salvador merchants no longer obliged to accept bitcoin

Bitcoin is no longer legal tender in El Salvador  | Digital Watch Observatory

Its not legal tender at all anymore. They dont describe it as 'legal tender' this just be updated 146.2.132.15 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to join the active discussion of this above, at #Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_8_October_2025_(2). Please don't create more talk page sections to discuss the same issue.
Per this source: The reform eliminated the word “currency” when referring to bitcoin, but says it is “legal tender.” Despite the lack of clarity... Wikipedia has to follow sources, even when sources say it is not clear.
If you know of a source which explains this more clearly, please provide a link to it. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You admit the source says it is still considered legal tender. Then what is the justification for removal of the legal tender wording? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was already discussed at #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2025 (2), which is why I advised the IP to join the discussion of above. Per cited sources, bitcoin is functionally no longer legal tender in El Salvador, and our goal should be to neutrally summarize sources. This is also explained in the article at Bitcoin#Use for payments. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: Apologies, we do seem to have multiple talk page sections on this, and it seems expedient for us to continue in this thread, unless you object. I did read your comments above. It seems they were earlier directed at the infobox, and now you are advocating removal of the legal tender claim from the article based on WP:SYNTH. If it is legal tender (and the source you cited you admit states that), we leave that text. It can possibly be explained, if it is so important (I dont think it is but you might). However, your SYNTH arguments are not sufficient and do not support the claim. We follow what the sources say. Do we even have any mainstream RS on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are already cited in the above section, and in the article itself, which is why I repeatedly and specifically suggested discussing it there instead of here.
The disputed section says In January 2025, El Salvador amended its laws to no longer regard bitcoin as a legal tender currency, and to no longer accept it as payment for taxes (emphasis added). This is per many sources. If you have a reliable source which explains what it means to be a legal tender non-currency as relates to El Salvador, please propose them on this page for discussion, preferably the section above, not here. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is WP:JARGON and probably SYNTH. Do we have RS that state that it is no longer a currency? We have a source that says it is still legal tender. I dont need to provide sources to refute the longstanding wording the article. The ONUS is upon you to provide sources to justify your recent edit, or it needs to go back to something neutral. Right now it looks like some sort of word smithed POV> Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the sources are already cited. Your preferred wording is not the long-standing consensus, because this article was updated based on multiple recent sources, and this was already discussed in the above section. Here are some of those sources repeated for your convenience:
There are other sources, as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then add a proper source to the article. This is the first time I have seen you list these sources (if you already did above and I didnt see it, I apologize). Regardless the text you are adding to the article needs to be properly sourced. If the currency is still legal to use in the country, our current summary in wikivoice (that you re-added again) is not a neutral summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your own edit summary for this includes a quote from the cited source supporting this wording: The reform eliminated the word “currency” when referring to bitcoin, but says it is “legal tender.” Despite the lack of clarity, it lifts, as required by the IMF, the obligation to accept it in transactions or debt payments, a key condition for it to be “legal tender,” according to economic analysts.[1] Did you misinterpret this? To rephrase this for clarity, a key requirement of bitcoin being legal tender currency is a legal obligation to accept bitcoin in transactions and debt payments. By lifting this requirement, bitcoin is no longer legal tender currency in El Salvador.
The other cited source for this says, El Salvador has reversed its historic decision to make Bitcoin legal tender, following pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). and later El Salvador’s Congress agreed to remove Bitcoin’s legal tender status, ensuring that the government and businesses would no longer be required to accept it.[2]
These sources are not ambiguous. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Digiwatch is essentially a blog, this is funded by two governments. Not at all an RS on this subject. The other source states it is still legal tender. I am not sure about that second part where you go on to synth the requirement of a legal tender to be accepted for government payments. Seems a bit nuanced and when I ask chatgpt if this is true (my OR attempt to verify your SYNTH), it doesnt even agree with that basis. It states that some governments dont accept coins for tax payments but coins are still legal tender for private transactions. Key point here is you are pushing too much of a POV here, that doesnt follow the sources used. Two of the sources you use above use the term "effectively" and others are all quite vague. Thus we need to put this in a proper light in wikivoice, we dont create certainty out of uncertainty, that is not how wikipedia works. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

still legal tender for private transactions

I think both people are right, actually. The issue is that legal tender has a different definition in El Salvador than the standard one. If we go by the wikipedia definition of legal tender it means it can be used as a payment to settle a debt. And only USD can do that in El Salvador. Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"And only USD can do that in El Salvador.": do you have a source for that? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are some sources:
Primary source which says bitcoin acceptance is both defined as legal tender in the law, but is voluntary.
https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/DocumentosBoveda/D/2/2020-2029/2021/06/E75F3.PDF

Art. 1.- La presente Ley tiene como objeto la regulación del Bitcoin como curso legal, definido por su poder liberatorio ilimitado, con aceptación voluntaria por las personas naturales o jurídicas con total participación privada únicamente, en cualquier transacción y a cualquier título que requieran realizar.

(Probably shouldn't be included since it could be considered original research.)
Secondary sources saying that since people aren't required to accept it so it loses it's legal tender status.
A law firm:
https://blplegal.com/major-changes-to-el-salvadors-bitcoin-law/
IMF:
https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/002/2025/058/002.2025.issue-058-en.pdf Sibshops (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, accepting BTC for payments is voluntary. What matters for legal tender is whether courts of law are required to recognize BTC as satisfactory payment in court for any monetary debt (see legal tender). This is what article 13 says: "Todas las obligaciones en dinero expresadas en dólares, existentes con anterioridad a la vigenciade la presente ley, podrán ser pagadas en bitcoin." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the law you mentioned "podrán ser pagadas en bitcoin." means may be paid. But typically, for legal tender status, "deberá aceptar" would be used, which means must accept.
For example, this is how it was written before it got amended.

Art. 7. Todo agente económico deberá aceptar bitcoin como forma de pago cuando así le sea ofrecido por quien adquiere un bien o servicio.

https://www.uif.gob.sv/wp-content/uploads/leyes/Ley-Bitcoin.pdf
So I could see both being right. And it makes sense why the sources conflict. It's legal tender one way you look at it and not legal tender in another way you look at it. Sibshops (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, legal tender means "courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment in court for any monetary debt". Article 13 says that a debt may be paid in bitcoin. So I understand that courts of law would consider it a satisfactory payment. Of course, this is OR between us. RS confirm that bitcoin is still legal tender but not anymore legal currency in El Salvador, which is what people understand as "legal tender". So I think the current article is OK. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:OR is allowed when it comes to evaluating sources. So I think we are in the clear to discuss why some sources say it is legal tender and why do other sources say it isn't.
From WP:OR,

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Since it's not cut and dry, maybe there's a middle ground here? Like we could say "some sources say it meets the definition of legal tender while others don't." or something like that. Sibshops (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any reliable sources which directly say it still meets the definition of legal tender. At most, they say it is in-name-only. The purpose of these edits was to make sure readers are not mislead about the current situation. Both Bitcoin in El Salvador and Bitcoin Law would benefit from a reliably sourced explanation of this legal idiosyncrasy. If anyone finds a source explaining this, let us know. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We dont need sources to re-assert that it is legal tender. We have prior sources prior to the law change stating it was legal tender at that time. We have subsequent sources that continue to state it is legal tender, one of them on the article right now that you added and have used in your justification in this discussion. OR and SYNTH are not allowed here to push a particular narrative on this article, nor are they allowed on other articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should still say legal tender in the text in someway. But it is a unique case in that both the creditor and debtor have to agree to be paid in bitcoin for it to discharge debt. Unlike legal tender elsewhere, it's only legal tender if both parties agree to it. So that makes it not really legal tender but more like a method of payment. So to be fair also I understand those other sources which are saying it lost its legal tender status. Sibshops (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we editors cant figure out the nuance, then we should not cover it. Issue is the legal tender status is one of these DUE concepts already being covered. I think we just need to figure out more neutral text for it. I have take a couple passes at it, and both were reverted by Grayfell. We dont have many good sources on this, some are vague (as I suppose we editors are also confused), some say outright it is still legal tender but not accepted for govt debts. We have some other sources that are generally not reliable (such as the swiss govt blog). Want to propose some more options? Seems it would be ideal if we could get more options prior to going to RFC (if we have to go there). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current article still does say that it's labeled by the El Salvador government as legal tender, and the current article also explains that it isn't a legal tender currency. The contradiction is already explained. I have not seen a single reliable source which says that El Salvador's is still using bitcoin as a legal tender currency.
Since this seems to be a source of confusion, not being a legal tender currency doesn't make bitcoin illegal. Bitcoin is legal for private transactions, but that wasn't really in question. This is not the same as "legal tender for private transactions".
To provide some context, if someone is fined by a government (or lose a civil suite over a contract or whatever), a government usually will not force that person to give up their specific possession which have no direct connection to the legal issue (their house or car or Pokemon cards whatever). Instead, they can demand that the person raises money, and if the only way to raise that money is to sell those things, so be it. Likewise, a private entity may or may not choose to accept bitcoin for a debt, but if the law becomes involved, the cash value is the important part. To put it another way, if you say to a court 'he owes me 2.5 bitcoin', the judge is going to ask, 'how much is that worth'? Meaning in cash.
Bitcoin isn't being used to account for debt, it's at most being sold for its cash value to resolve that debt. This is why it isn't 'legal tender currency'. Again, I have not seen a single reliable source which says that El Salvador is is still using bitcoin as a legal tender currency. Grayfell (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term "legal tender currency" is not found in RS and seems to be original research. We shouldn't use it. We should use "official currency" for instance. Bitcoin is not an official currency of El Salvador but it remains according to the gov "legal tender", a designation that does not seem to mean much. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the only option available it just to describe the situation in full?
For example,

As of 2025, the Salvadoran government continues to describe bitcoin as legal tender, but a January 2025 reform removed any obligation for businesses or the state to accept it (including for taxes). Several reliable sources therefore characterize bitcoin’s legal-tender status as effectively ended in practice, while others note the label remains in law.

Sibshops (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks ok to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is better than nothing, but I would remove the commentary about several/other sources (this is a bit redundant and is mild editorializing). I would also mention the IMF, since per sources this is the reason for the change.
The gist is that we shouldn't be misleading readers into thinking that Bitcoin is actually used as legal tender in El Salvador. Per reliable sources, bitcoin no longer functions as legal tender, regardless of the government's choice of terms for it. The context here is that the government's Chivo wallet was purported to allow bitcoin to be used as a currency for day-to-day transactions. This did not work very well, if at all, for multiple reasons.[3][4] The government's involvement with Chivo was ostensibly ended shortly before the law itself was changed. This was likewise due to pressure from the IMF.[5][6] If the article implies that bitcoin is used as legal tender in El Salvador, we are misleading readers. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The change being made from IMF pressure is also due in my opinion as well. I dont have any personal knowledge, but what I have read here is that Bitcoin is still legal to use in the country, which makes it sound like legal tender to me. The whole extra part about if you consider it to have 'worked very well' isnt really relevant to this line. If you want to add another line stating the trial in the country 'didnt go very well' feel free to add that with appropriate sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Bitcoin is still legal to use in the country, which makes it sound like legal tender to me": that's not what legal tender means. Bitcoin is legal to use in France and the US and yet no one would ever say that Bitcoin is legal tender there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. Legal to use =/= legal tender. Two parties can voluntarily discharge a debt in France and the US using bitcoin and it isn't legal tender. Functionally, bitcoin operates the same in El Salvador as it does in France and in the US. The difference is the label legal tender in both the primary source and in many secondary sources.
How about this:

As of 2025, the Salvadoran government continues to describe Bitcoin as legal tender under the 2021 Bitcoin Law; however, a January 2025 reform removed obligations for businesses and the government to accept it, so many analysts regard its legal-tender status as effectively ended in practice.”

Sibshops (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Since nobody has objected or proposed anything better, I've made the change. Grayfell (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has been a recurring point of confusion, please acknowledge that 'legal to use' and 'legal tender' are separate concepts, otherwise any discussion is going to be a big waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what the definition of legal tender is in El Salvador. Do you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're jumping the gun. I know what the term means in English, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. The English definition of 'legal tender' can be found at Wikt:legal tender:

1. (law) Any form of currency that, by law, cannot be refused as payment to extinguish a debt equal to the amount offered.

Other dictionaries are similar:[7],[8]. If you don't accept this, or are using some other definition, this conversation is going to be frustrating for everyone. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legal tender article also says this: "There is no obligation on the creditor to accept the tendered payment, but the act of tendering the payment in legal tender discharges the debt." It would appear to meet this criteria to me. Now I see that I am looking at the wikipedia article versus the wiktionary article. It does not appear to meet the criteria in the wiktionary article as I think payment is now optional, meaning it can be refused. Is that the logic? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, either. Here's a scenario:
I agree to paint your fence for $20 dollars. You offer to pay me with a $20 bill, but I refuse. That's my problem. You get to keep the $20 and I get nothing. Your offer to pay in cash discharged the debt. As far as the law is concerned, I have no legal recourse.
Here's another scenario:
You offer to pay me $20 worth of bitcoin. Again, I choose to refuse. This time, it's still your problem. You still owe me 20 dollars. Since bitcoin is not legal tender, your offer does not discharge the debt. I would have legal recourse to get that money in cash.
That's what the "legal" means in "legal tender". This applies in both the U.S. and El Salvador.
Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia article says "the act of tendering the payment in legal tender discharges the debt" thus it seems we are debating something beyond the scope of this article. We are debating our intrepreation of some change in El Salvador makes it legal tender or not. We have sources going both ways and now we are debating if we should follow the wikitionary defitinition or the wikipedia definition. Sounds to me it is still currency in El Salvador as it is legal to use and is not being treated as property/commodity like it is in the US. Should we instead work to align the wikipedia article to wiktionary (if it is possible) and then return to interpret this article based upon that discussion? If we dont want to do that, then we need to decide which definition to use, wiktionary or wikipedia, which seem to be quite different. Maybe as virtual currencies take rise, this becomes more of an modern discussion, certainly in light of the IMF's/NGO(state sponsored) opposition and efforts to push us through the press to push a POV here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Wiktionary nor Wikipedia are reliable sources, and even if they were, it would be WP:OR to 'align' article content to one of them. We go by reliable sources, and if such sources differ, we describe both perspectives, with due regard to balancing per the weight of sourcing available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since this part of the discussion is about "legal to use" vs "legal tender" and if legality of bitcoin should include "legal tender" status or not, maybe this conversation should take place on the talk page of Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory article instead of here? Sibshops (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do not share a common understanding of these basic terms and concepts, as I said, any discussion of this is going to be a waste of time. This is an encyclopedia, and words matter here.
Regardless, Wiktionary and Wikipedia are already 'aligned', and Jtbobwaysf's comments here mean we do not have enough of a shared baseline for this discussion to be productive. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is to be done with the summary in the lead of this article, as in the body we are sort of waffling on if it was revoked as legal tender, but in the lead we are stating it was. The lead should summarize the body. Or just delete it entirely from the lead? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no contradiction between the body and the lead. We are not waffling, as the current wording is a reasonably neutral summary of multiple cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We previously agreed and the body text has now been changed to remove the legal tender claim. Correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

In the section Bitcoin#Recognition_as_a_currency_and_legal_status

−
In 2013, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency
+
  • Why it should be changed:

It's a non-neutral summary of the referenced article WP:NPOV.

Velde’s article does not claim that Bitcoin is recognized as a currency. Rather, while he acknowledges its innovative design, he concludes that Bitcoin’s use as a medium of exchange appears limited.

So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

See discussion in Talk:Bitcoin#Removal_of_attribution_line_by_David_Andolfatto

Link to the article. [1]

Sibshops (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly neutral. Should it be expanded? Maybe but it is mostly an article about is design. That's why despite the low use at the time it concludes That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves. Saying that the author uses "bitcoin" for "any cryptocurrency" is OR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw in 2015 he wrote the following where he clearly distinguishes bitcoin from "alt-coins": https://shs.cairn.info/article/ECOFI_120_0105 . a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2017 he wrote this: https://www.suerf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/f_b495ce63ede0f4efc9eec62cb947c162_1253_suerf.pdf
"Bitcoin is remarkable. Monetary history abounds in examples of monetary tokens that are not explicitly backed or managed by a central authority, but they usually are tokens with an alternative use: a gold coin can always be melted down and turned (made of precious metals). Conversely, there are many examples of tokens that are intrinsically value less, but there is always an issuing entity, private or public, that is supposed to provide some convertibility, guarantee, or acceptability. Bitcoin is not only the first completely dematerialized token: it is unique in monetary history in being intrinsically valueless (there are no alternative uses to a bitcoin if the protocol ceased to be used) yet it is no one’s liability."
"I hasten to add that I view Bitcoin as a proof of concept rather than a fully-fledged currency: eight years after its appearance, and five years after it gained worldwide notoriety, the aggregate value of its stock is tiny compared to existing monetary stocks, its use in ordinary transactions remains limited, its value remains extremely volatile, and (as of writing) seems to be sought either for speculative reasons or as a way to evade capital controls. There seems little chance for Bitcoin to become much more, at least in advanced economies." (note: Aug 17 market cap = $77m vs $2200m today)
"In summary, Bitcoin is in my view a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems. It has nevertheless offered an interesting prototype and has generated interest in its underlying principles with potential applications to asset transfers. Central banks and regulators face a host of potential challenges, and the time may come soon when they will have to become involved in blockchains." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since he is discussing the design of bitcoin and not a currency and legal status, instead of removal, would it make sense to move to another section?
By leaving his quote in the currency status section of the wiki page, it erroneously implies that Velde says it's a currency, while he actually views it as a proof-of-concept and not a currency. Sibshops (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should expand using the other two articles. For instance: In articles published between 2013 and 2017, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency" and "a proof of concept rather than a fully-fledged currency". According to him, bitcoin is "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems". Or we could just use the latest article (2017) that might reflect his latest opinion? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with expanding. Discussion its currency status seems relevant to the section in the wiki, too. Sibshops (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a shorter version. Let me know if OK. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to work. Combining different quotes form multiple primary sources spanning years is a form of cherry-picking. This is arbitrary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of documents just like this one discussing bitcoin from similar non-notable experts in economics and policy. If these quotes are special in some way, cite a WP:IS for them. Otherwise, any quotes will be arbitrary. Why not quote him saying "its use in ordinary transactions remains limited, its value remains extremely volatile, and (as of writing) seems to be sought either for speculative reasons or as a way to evade capital controls. There seems little chance for Bitcoin to become much more, at least in advanced economies."? That be just as informative and just as arbitrary.
To put it another way, our goal isn't to find the juiciest pull-quote. If Velde's position must be included for some reason, we should summarize what he is saying without editorializing, and highlighting only these quotes would be editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. It's not editorializing to cite the actual conclusion of an article: In summary, Bitcoin is in my view a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems. I agree that we can just keep this latest RS though. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it nonsense does nothing to address the issue. This is a form of editorializing, but setting that aside, this is also not a proportionate summary of this position for the larger topic. This isn't Economics of bitcoin, or Bitcoin and politics, or Virtual currency law in the United States. If Velde's position is important enough to the topic of bitcoin to justify multiple quotes spanning years, figure out how to do it neutrally. Better yet, cite at least one WP:IS for this and use that to figure out how to summarize this position. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I offered two times (and now three) to only quote his latest paper's conclusion. No editorializing, no "multiple quotes spanning years" and it's proportionate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be: In 2017, François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this is necessary at all, and would benefit from independent sources. As a compromise, how about François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems." This is the bit that is relevant to the section 'Recognition as a currency and legal status'. There are better articles to go into detail about his opinions, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion, I support removal.
  • It isn't an independent or secondary source. WP:IS
  • Off topic, doesn't discuss its recognition as a currency or discuss its legal status
  • Descriptions like "remarkable" or "elegant" is editorializing and advocacy and not neutral summary. MOS:PUFFERY WP:NOTADVOCACY
Sibshops (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The source is of course independent from the topic. But yes it's not secondary.
2. It's not off topic, the section talks about bitcoin as a currency so an economist saying that it is "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems" is relevant.
3. "remarkable" is used by the author itself so it cannot be editorializing or advocacy or non neutral.
I think Grayfell's compromise is good. Ideally we would have secondary sources showing that bitcoin is precisely only/mostly used in "non-functioning monetary systems" (Venezuela? Turkey? Argentina?) and his opinion would then fit well after that. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Good point about independence, the secondary nature of the source is the primary concern.
2. I agree the "unlikely by itself to replace monies..." portion is the only part relevant to the section. That communicates his position without promotional tone.
3. Quoting remarkable may technically accurate attribution, but it isn't necessary to convey currency status and it doesn't add encyclopedic value.
(missed this)
4. I missed is other point Grayfell brought up about WP:UNDUE. It gives too much weight to a single economist's opinion relative to all the literature out there.
5. (new and edited) Now that I think about it, would speculating about the future fail the 10-year test? WP:10YT Predictions or forward-looking statements can become outdated. Sibshops (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the conversation, maybe we can divide this discussion in to two separate discussions.
It seems we reached consensus to remove

In 2013, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency

Maybe we can remove since everyone agrees on that, then start another thread on whether to add these sections in:
Section with
> Ideally we would have secondary sources showing that bitcoin is precisely only/mostly used in "non-functioning monetary systems"
and

François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems.

Sibshops (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfldecember2013_317.pdf

Request to add 2025 FHFA mortgage guidance info

[edit]

I suggest adding a sentence to the "Regulation" or "Adoption" section regarding the 2025 guidance from U.S. housing regulators, which legitimizes Bitcoin as an asset for real estate finance. This is a significant development in the integration of cryptocurrency with traditional housing markets. Proposed text: In June 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to consider cryptocurrency assets as part of a borrower's overall wealth for mortgage qualification. This regulatory shift has led to the emergence of new home equity products that allow homeowners to collateralize real estate holdings to fund digital asset investments.[1] MykeHunt99 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WEIGHT, if we want to add information about bitcoin's adoption or status as collateral, it should probably cover the overall current status rather than focusing solely on the recent change in U.S. government-backed housing loans. Sibshops (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per the above comment, as this addition gives WP:UNDUE weight to a different topic. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 12:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Goldstein, Matthew (26 June 2025). "Crypto Industry Moves Into the U.S. Housing Market". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 November 2025.

Removing investing terminology

[edit]

@Of 19 I don't think you can remove investing terminology, that's the way it's used in the source.

For example the pew research study asked this:

Overall, 17% of U.S. adults say they have ever invested in, traded or used a cryptocurrency.

Sibshops (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about this edit (I assume).
There's a deeper issue. This isn't Cryptocurrency, this article is specifically about bitcoin. The cited source doesn't mention "bitcoin" at all. It links to articles about 'bitcoin', but the survey is not limited to bitcoin, and the questions that were asked were generically about "cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or Ether". That survey should be removed from this article and instead it could be better summarized elsewhere. Specifically, it should be summarized over-all, instead of the most digestible sound-bite from the middle. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right. This seems OR or SYNTH. It's using a generic crypto survey in a bitcoin-only context to imply the statistic is about bitcoin. It implies that 17% have used bitcoin which the source didn't say. I second moving to cryptocurrency. Sibshops (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the source to cryptocurrency and rephrased it to more faithfully summarize its findings. I am not attached to that new wording, but that article's talk page would be the place to discuss changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs "BUGS/GLITCHES/HACKS HISTORY" section

[edit]

In 2010 Bitcoin had a bug that made about 184.5 BILLION Bitcoin supply and the community had to fix this bug and roll back the chain. https://coingeek.com/alert-key-mechanism-free-transactions-protocol-restorations-bitcoin-protocol-and-sv-node-updates/ https://decrypt.co/39750/184-billion-bitcoin-anonymous-creator https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1fqzf53/why_did_the_184_billion_bitcoin_overflow_incident/

Then there was some kind of double-spend bug that happened that enabled people to make more within their wallet in 2013 and the chain rolled back again i think.

The world deserves to know any time Bitcoin has had any bugs, glitches, hacks or other problems. KingsRight1 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those links are to reliable sources. It looks like David Auerbach's 2023 book mentions these incidents. That may be a good starting point, since it seems like there may be a few more reliable sources out there, as well. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]