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!
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, defense, 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.
Bitcoin 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. 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 is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. 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
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 Wikipedia. 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 October 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Other talk page banners
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.
Merged articles
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.
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.
Bitcoin Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 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 has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2017, when it received 15,026,561 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report17 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Alessia Pannone (September 14, 2023). "Bitcoin on Wikipedia: record number of views in anticipation of the ETF". en.cryptonomist.ch. Retrieved September 15, 2023. On 8 September, the Wikipedia page dedicated to Bitcoin recorded a total of 7,830 views, marking the peak in daily views for 2023.
Murtuza Merchant (September 14, 2023). "Why Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Traffic Just Hit 2023 Peak". msn.com. Retrieved September 15, 2023. Bitcoin's (CRYPTO: BTC) Wikipedia page recently saw an unprecedented surge in its daily traffic.
DISHITA MALVANIA (October 31, 2023). "Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Views Soar Amid Ongoing Rally". cryptotimes.io. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Bitcoin's wikipedia page recently experienced a sharp increase in the number of people visiting it, reaching its highest level since mid-2022.
Stephen Harrison (June 19, 2018). "Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Views Soar Amid Ongoing Rally". The Outline (website). Retrieved January 17, 2025. The Bitcoin Wikipedia article has been deleted and restored numerous times, because, Mecir supposed, so-called "Anti-Bitcoiners" think the currency is a scam that preys upon the innocent. Other editors have told him that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and therefore should not be afforded the legitimacy of a Wikipedia page.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
These are not considered reliable sources per Wikipedia's standards unfortunately. Please provide an academic paper, a book, or an article from a mainstream media. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S. Bistarelli, I. Mercanti and F. Santini, "An Analysis of Non-standard Bitcoin Transactions," 2018 Crypto Valley Conference on Blockchain Technology (CVCBT), Zug, Switzerland, 2018, pp. 93-96, doi: 10.1109/CVCBT.2018.00016.
Since the concept of a 'redeem script' is not explained in the article (or even mentioned), introducing it to this article based on such flimsy sources would make the article even more messy and confusing than it already is. Our goal is not to pile-on technical jargon, it is to provide context to readers. Grayfell (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tannmauser, yes these are reliable sources. But we should first define what a "redeem script" is. It might be too detailed for this general article. You might want to look at expanding Bitcoin protocol instead as that article delves more into technical details. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is is too technical, starting from the second sentence. it basically is completely unintelligible if you do not already know abut crypto Finnigami (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schoolboy error. Should read "Based on a free-market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person or persons unknown." Covtom (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a crypto bro and have little interest in cryptocurrencies apart from in passing - like most people I would suspect. So, I came here to get a grasp, but I have no idea what this paragraph is saying - or trying to. This might be useful for someone with a knowledge of cryptocurrencies but trust me, for someone of any intelligence it's incomprehensible gobbledygook. And I say this with all respect to the authors
You're right, and you're not the first person to comment on this issue. If anything, you're being too generous. The first paragraph is no gem of clarity, either, and the rest of the article follows. The article is bogged-down with misused buzzwords and jargon. Attempts to fix this have met with tedious resistance.
Obviously the article should explain the technical details of how this works, but there are much better ways to do this. The technical details should provide context for what it does and why it exists, which isn't ever really satisfactorily explained despite the article's length. This would be a much more useful approach for disinterested readers.
The paragraphs however do a good job of wikilink to the relevant articles that users can navigate to. Of course many of those topics are novel, but as long as we wikilink to them we are ok. We are not going to be able to explain everything in the first paragraphs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt to simplify the language and add some detail, whilst still trying to keep it succinct. The article does already have relevant sections that go into more detail on the mentioned concepts, such as the Mining section. Do note that it's not entirely reasonable for readers of Wikipedia to expect simplified explanations of things in the lead section of popular articles, or indeed in general — this is still an encyclopedia. In general, we do have the Simple English version of Wikipedia for that; please see simple:Bitcoin. JivanP (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to append an addition in the "Units and divisibility" section to include "Bits" or, secondarily and lesser-named, "µBTC". The text should be placed after millibitcoin and before sat (satoshi) because of the already present pattern of descending value.
The Bit is becoming increasingly used as a denomination of Bitcoin in small-medium transactions and it is unfortunately absent on the Wikipedia page for Bitcoin.
An "official" source can be found on Bitcoin.org here [1] and the excerpt reads:
"Bit is a common unit used to designate a sub-unit of a bitcoin - 1,000,000 bits is equal to 1 bitcoin (BTC). This unit is usually more convenient for pricing tips, goods and services."
Bits are already a unit in Bitcoin-Core and other wallets, mining software/websites, and exchanges.
Which reliable source says this is "increasingly used"? Bitcoin.org being 'official' is a distraction. The sources for "millibitcoin" and "satoshi" in the body of the article are reliable and independent. Please also review Bitcoin#Use for payments. Per that section, "prices are not usually quoted in bitcoin and trades involve conversions into fiat currencies." Adding yet another unit to the infobox would be adding bloat without adding clarity. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The redirect BTCUSD=X has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 31 § BTCUSD=X until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 22:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)