Talk:Bitcoin

Cryptojacking
http://www.ibtimes.com/what-cryptojacking-trend-continues-grow-2612969 02:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Expanding on the content of this article.
This is not really a critique of the contents of the Bitcoin article, but a suggestion for *additional* content. Namely, I would find a section going into more detail about the scams in the crypto space very informative (and entertaining) to read. Off the top off my head:

The bitcoin article could then be transformed into a 'cryptocurrency' article, or the subjects in the list above could be put in the 'Scam' template.
 * ICO's
 * Ponzi schemes (Like bitconnect)
 * The shady behavior of exchanges
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. I think it would be best to have a separate cryptocurrency article. You are right that there a lot more things that could be addressed. To be honest, I don't think Bitcoin needs its own article at all, since there's nothing that distinctly separates it from other cryptocurrencies. Feel free to draft something up in your sandbox. —Kazitor, pending 10:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Warren Buffet: BTC is "probably rat poison squared"
Inb4 shill gambit. 95.195.215.238 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

...aaand it's gone.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-06-28/crypto-coin-graveyard-fills-up-fast-as-icos-meet-their-demise 217.119.171.154 (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The one exception to Betteridge's Law of Headlines
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-bitcoin-network-oligarchy.html 217.119.171.154 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

95% of trades are fake
Just found this. Maybe this can be used in the article --87.177.125.51 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Reconsideration of BTC as of 2021
I think things drastically changed since 2018, while I was a sceptic about BTC (as the article is) in that time period, things move quickly and BTC started to really proove itself and gained momentum with huge retail investors flocking to BTC. I think this whole article needs reconsideration, and more updated views. --94.44.250.178 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not a BTC enthusiast, but yes the article is indeed outdated. Bitcoin showed a resilience that we thought it would never show. Not removing the silver status, but do question it. 01:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The altcoin section is rather grossly out of date too. It says "Ethereum's the trendy coin of 2016", has it not been updated in five years? The "honest ponzi" and TheDAO dapps are ancient history at this point, there's rather a lot more interesting things than that going on. 174.3.226.189 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Another issue with the Ethereum section is some honestly pretty egregious weasel wording regarding ETH's move to proof of stake, and the resultant energy usage reduction; it claims that the reduction in energy usage "is something that may actually be somewhat true" (it simply IS true) and that "has not proven on a large scale yet." A cryptocurrency is a computer algorithm, one does not need epistemological proof to say that there will be a reduction in energy; the energy usage from proof of work coins comes from hashing, and proof of stake does not require intensive hashing, therefore there will be less energy used. And of course, this is even more egregious considering that the move to proof of stake is now complete, and the energy reduction has happened totally as predicted. The only source that seems to relate to the energy usage claim is refs 155 and 156 (those are redundant by the way, one links to the PDF of the paper and the other links to the IEEE database entry for said study); I've only read the abstract, but it clearly says "First, we confirm the concerns around the energy footprint of PoW by showing that Bitcoin’s energy consumption exceeds the energy consumption of all PoS-based systems analyzed by at least three orders of magnitude.", which seems pretty cut and dry to me. 2601:402:C202:BA70:9D9D:5941:EB90:FDEC (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just edit it then 2600:4040:403C:F300:7544:9F30:D062:9FF5 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: energy usage
This section needs to be updated. As of May 2021, the Bitcoin network is estimated to use 120 TWh/year (so nearly 14 GW). A single transaction is estimated to use 1.3 MWh. That's as much energy as forgetting to shut off your oven for over 20 days. (Note: I'm not sure if the 2400-watt figure accounts for the thermostat shutting the oven off once it's nice and hot. For the sake of this example, I have assumed that it does.)

Sometimes Bitcoiners like to bring up Netflix. However, you need to watch Netflix for 17k hours to use as much electricity as one Bitcoin transaction.

— 02:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Introducing Netchcoin
VeeMeow? 17:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)