Talk:List of cryptocurrencies/Archive 1

Worldcoin

I would think that the currency Worldcoin should be added as a major one, as it's grown to be the most highly traded on some notable exchanges e.g. Vircurex, has a market capitalization in line with the other major ones, and is growing rapidly. Would someone with the requisite expertise, please add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.238.28 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed you'll find this web site http://www.worldcoinalliance.net/ but it's not enough to get an entry on wikipedia.

One of the best April's Fool this year was about the comparison between auroracoin (but not vaticoin) and worldcoin : you need to prove you live in Iceland to get auroracoins but they say you must to prove to be Earth-citizen to be eligible to receive worldcoin airDrop. ONaNcle (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin of work

Note: much of the list was taken from list of digital currencies and digital currencies, for the original people who created the list, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_currency&action=history. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

weeding

I wanna weed the list of old and crap. Anyone have any objections to getting rid of all the things that don't have any information? **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No objections, there are more verbose lists elsewhere. You could possibly go by transaction volume, and delete those under a certain volume (I'd go for anything under a certain fraction of Bitcoin's transaction volume) and note this chosen attribute in the article. I don't see why we need to keep the inactive currencies in this list. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe remove ones under $0.5 million/$1 million market cap? Cliff12345 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Market cap isn't a good measure of importance. Total market depth, transaction rate or transaction volume would be more meaningful. Smite-Meister (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The entries with no refs and no wikipedia page should probably be removed as non-notable.Dialectric (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like another one of the sock puppets who have been removing entries concerning minor alt/digital coins has now sabotaged this page. (that's "Smite-Meister" I'm talking about). Timelord2067 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you are right Timelord2067. All of the cryptocurrencies that arnt in their bag are being deleted. This is really bad. Some guy is now quoting that this is a list of major cryptos but the title says otherwise.

On top of that people are saying that none of these coins are being traded which simply isnt true. Cryptsy is an alt exchange with alot of trading volume for most of the alternatives. NataliWinehouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

usage note

I want to put a note at the top something like:

Many of these are not in active use, or are only traded on currency markets.

Comments, thoughts? **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought that generally the list article is meant to be just a list (which is generally only linked in from the main article) with a link to the main article at the top. The main article can then have actual information about the topic (and perhaps a criticism section). For example: List of social networking websites.

I'll add the above criticism to the main article. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

reliable references

Are http://dustcoin.com/mining and btc-e.com reliable sources? I can't find any real info about BTC-E on their website except that their from Bulgaria. Dustcoin seems to have been created by Bitcoin forum member Dust, but a quick look does not reveal where the information comes from. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess they can be considered reliable (or at least passable until better sources can be found).

• BTC-E just lists the value of the coin according to what people have recently paid for it (and I suppose is the sort of site that the media would use to find a cryptocurrency's value when writing an article). I suppose they could edit the prices, but people would probably notice fairly quickly.
• I think (at least for market cap) that dustcoin just works out $coin$ $price$ x $total$ $coins$, so would be as reliable as anyone else using a calculator. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin-based

It's unclear what the Bitcoin-based column means. All of the currencies in the list have "yes" in that column. Does it mean the currencies are backed by Bitcoins? (Seems unlikely). Does it mean they're inspired by Bitcoin? If so, that should be referenced, and why is there a "yes" in the column for Bitcoin? Unless the column can be clarified, I'm going to remove it as it doesn't provide any information. Pburka (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it was meant to indicate that the currency had the same structure (proof-of-work producing a block chain) as Bitcoin, but that was before it was moved from the digital currency page to this page, so I presume we could remove it now as it's redundant. Cliff12345 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed. I also notice that the "Ledger" column has "P2P" for all entries. Are there any other known ledger distribution mechanisms for crypocurrencies? If not, I propose that that column be removed, too. Pburka (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that column seems to be redundant too (I'll also remove these from the cryptocurrency article). Cliff12345 (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When this page didn't exist, there was a list of digital currencies. All the cryptocurrencies are based on the same source code, and idea, as Bitcoin. They have various variations, but they can all be traced to the Bitcoin project. Unless, and until, a non-Bitcoin based cryptocurrency turns up, I think it's a good idea to simply state that they are bitcoin based. With regards P2P, so long as it is stated on the main crpytocurrency page, I don't care if it's not listed here. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, it gives a lot of information to the reader, as they could quickly look up Bitcoin if they wanted to learn about the origin/structure of the cryptocurrencies, and it avoids the problem of clogging up the table/article. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a handful of SHA 256 based coins and a truckload of scrypt based coins - the "Yes" indicates they are derived from BitCoins method of generating the blocks where as the LiteCoins derived coins use the has (ie CPU and GPU hash power) to mine coins. I suggest you stop stripping information off of this and other pages as clearly non of you know anything about the information you are removing. The age would read much clearer if the sock puppet "Smite-Meister"'s removals were restored. Timelord2067 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the infinitecoin page

I thought I should inform those reading this page that I have proposed the Infinitecoin article for deletion because I can't find any evidence of notability. If you wish to contest this, please remove the deletion tag from the Infinitecoin page. Cliff12345 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Non-exhaustive list"?

Previously, this article presented the listed cryptocurrencies as a "Non-exhaustive" list of crypto currencies, and I don't think that is accurate anymore, or at least I think it is misleading. There are dozens of crypto currencies listed, and it is unlikeley that any other such (unlisted) currencies are being traded. As you can see on the list, there are plenty of crypto currncies with no market value; even the undisputed king of crypto currencies, bitcoin, is seldom used for commerce, save for a few markets. While I don't want to specifically imply that every crypto currency that exists is definitly on this list, The current wording gives the impression that there are scores of other unreported crypto currencies, so I am simply removing the word "non-exhaustive." If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and tell me why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustyfence (talk • contribs) 09:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Some coins can actually be removed. Everyone needs to agree on which sources are acceptable, since the sources about cryptocoins are new. I'll remove the talk sourced ones. If you feel strongly about other removals, I won't revert anymore. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC) My apologies. It doesn't belong. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 13:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been a wholesale clear cutting of information from this page which is increasingly making the page non-relivant and hard to read. All the information removed by sock puppet "Smite-Meister" and others needs to be restored. Timelord2067 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I was alarmed by the removal at first, and I went back and forth between reverting and restoring it. We need a better source for the top few cryptocurrencies, which are/is likely to be found, to put some back on the list. Rucoin is also likely to have a source. Including source needed or better source needed templates are an option for currencies most likely to have a source. Even if it is not our intent to advertise smaller cryptocurrencies (even those that turn out to be scamcoins without our knowledge), it becomes an outcome by listing not well sourced ones. People can find the currencies without much hassle even if they're not listed here. I'm not quick to label someone a puppet. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogecoin

dogecoin is simply a rip off of litecoin. It was started as a joke. How can it be taken seriously? Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.139.227 (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that Dogecoin is the subject of a contested deletion. The outcome of that discussion probably affects this article too, and will I hope resolve the current edit/revert cycle. Nick Levine (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Outcome of AFD was keep. On that basis I assert that Dogecoin belongs in this list. Nick Levine (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If that is true why are all the sources listed owned by coin? Dogeco.in.

NataliWinehouse (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Wired magazine, the Washington Examiner or Business Insider are owned by coin. Pburka (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That may be true however those sources arnt listed in this wiki. NataliWinehouse (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re adding all of the currencies striped away.

This entire wiki has been ruined. This is no longer a list of cryptocurrencies as it is a list of a few peoples favorite cryptocurrencies. I feel this wiki doesnt give a clear picture. I vote to add all of the missing currencies back.

Why do we need two list of "noteable" cryptocurrencies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency

NataliWinehouse (talk)

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Articles within Wikipedia are to describe WP:NOTABLE subjects, not to give exhaustive lists. I appreciate your passion for a neutral point of view, but it would be very unweildy if there were no limits on all of the lists in Wikipedia. Josh3580_talk/hist 03:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Major" cryptocurrencies are not the only notable ones. Also, this is supposed to be a list of all cryptocurrencies. Howicus, Please tell me what policy says "Lists like this are only for things that already have their own Wikipedia pages." Please stop giving WP:UNDUE weight to some cryptocurrencies. There are many serious cryptocurrencies with value that are not listed here. Not to use Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but look at this. WP:NOTDIR has nothing to do with this. WP:Notable does not apply to lists... A reasonable (e.g. not jokes like Dogecoin) full list of cryptocurrencies would be very useful. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 04:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the list inclusion policy. Independent notability is not always required for every member of a list, but verifiability using reliable sources is, and that is what they're lacking. Coinmarketcap, bitcointalk and project pages are not reliable sources. Dogecoin, unlike all the entries removed, actually is notable (if only barely) according to Wikipedia standards. The fact that it might be a joke does not enter the equation at all. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Many coins listed on List of Cryptocurrencies and Cryptocurrency only link to Coinmarketcap, their own Whitepaper and a founder's article on Medium. See virtually any late 2017 currency. See for instance IOTA's references. We need objective measures for inclusion, because otherwise a question of bias rises.

I agree, some of these coins on this list are very un-notable (e.g. Coinye) and some I really can't see why they've been added. That being said, just because one person doesn't think a coin should be added doesn't mean it should stay off the list. We need a variety, e.g. algos, earliest, most innovative, failed coins, coins that started off well, coins that have taken ideas from others and expanded on the technology, etc. leopheard (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need two separate lists, only a list of cryptocurrencies with consensus. YubbaDoo (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Notablility is opinion debated by everyone. If doge is notable only because it was based on a meme, then its not notable at all because their is a coin known as MEMEcoin, and catcoin, and the labowskicoin.. Which would be in a neutral list of cryptocurrencies. So then it becomes a list of a few peoples favorites and not a list of what is actually notable. If this is only a redundant list then I vote to remove the entire thing because as I stated previously the current list is already mentioned in the other wiki.

NataliWinehouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies say notability is determined by the sources, please read WP:Notability. However, notability is debated. By the way, use ~~~~ to sign your posts. Please don't break WP:3RR (just to let you know it exists). Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 04:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Defining "major"

"major" should be defined based on market capitalization. dogecoin is not a real coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.7.139.227 (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please define "major" in the article, and update the list to reflect the new requirements. It should be an objective measure. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 04:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should use market capitalisation as a metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I suggest we list "notable" currencies, and use the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable currencies are already listed on another wiki so why do we even need this list? NataliWinehouse (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If we list notable currencies in the cryptocurrency article, there is no reason for this list to exist. I've seen no compelling argument for why wikipedia should provide any information whatsoever on currencies which have not met the WP:GNG.Dialectric (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If we are going off of market capitalization then Dogecoin should be removed from the "Major" section Huey2323 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Listing all cryptocurrencies

From Wikipedia:LSC#Selection_criteria:

Quote "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names."

Quote "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list."

These are only commonly used criteria, and are not written in stone. Listing all cryptocurrencies would be acceptable under both criteria.

For information about the cryptocurrency, the Btcointalk original post for the cryptocurrency and the website of the cryptocurrency are clearly primary sources, which are acceptable on Wikipedia. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 15:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'Every entry fails notability' example does not apply here, as a number of cryptocurrencies pass the general notability guideline, and have their own wikipedia pages, as well as significant coverage in reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this should only list currencies that have their own article, per longstanding practice for lists. WP:CSC#1 is really the only reasonable option to take at this point. It's unfortunate that the "wrong" version was protected, but I've protected a few wrong versions in my day so I shouldn't complain too loudly :) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a separate list for all cryptocurrencies (not just notable or "major" ones)? That list would use WP:CSC#2. A list like that would be useful. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 20:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because of WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTDIR. There are several lists of cryptocurrencies available on the Internet, for example here. The difference between them and a list on Wikipedia is notability and the quality of the sources, and that's what's missing here. Why do you think such a list would be useful? To whom? Smite-Meister (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I was speculating that people looking for a list of cryptocurrencies might find a list of cryptocurrencies useful... Listing cryptocurrencies is not WP:PROMOTION, nor is it a directory. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 23:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

this 74.196.48.62 (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A list similar to this one seems to be the better method. (Note by user archiving talk page: an external link was removed due to it being on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)) NataliWinehouse (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• http://coinmarketcap.com/ isn't a good source for inclusion. As for sites that only focus on altcoins, nothing has emerged as reputable yet. A reputable newspaper or magazine works. Anything in http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513661/bitcoin-isnt-the-only-cryptocurrency-in-town/ is good for inclusion. PCWorld has an article on an alternative coin, but unfortunately why should something that dumb be included in this article (consensus might help with this). There was a reputable source here before, I don't know where it went, also there is a new york times article about altcoins. A coin doesn't have to have its own page to be included, it just needs mention once in a reputable source (to have its own page it needs more reputable sources). - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 December 2013

Add a notice that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cryptocurrencies. [citation needed] 01:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria to be listed here

Before there's an editting war, which seems to happen often in all Cryptocurrency pages. I want to suggest some criteria to be met to have a crypto listed here.

• Notable of course. Having mainstream media 'specifically' mentioning it. There are many self-serving blogs in the web, those obviously cannot be a source, same with self-serving press releases. The mentioning media should have no 'affinity' to the crypto, so news like 'cryptocoin news' shouldn't quality, as in the crypto world, you can pay $25 and be mentioned. However, Charitible events such as Dogecoin's Sled sponser qualifies, as the media has no affinity to Crypto to start with. This also shows a 'monetarized transaction' has actually took place, reinforcing the Cryptocurrency as actually a 'currency'.
• Still in Function, coins no longer functional, or forked completely, should be indicated as 'Disfunct', while they might meet 'Notability', the fact they are no longer listed in exchanges to have any traded volume should be noted. Else everyone can shock the market.
• Has a community. This is another prove the coin is in use by 'people'. Disfunct coin will have little to no community behind it. Community can be in Reddit/their own forums/Twitter/Facebook. This rule is just to weed out coins that are absolute jokes that only a few people know about.
• ** note: Market Capitalization and Liquidity. This I feel will be very controversal, as there's no saying where the line should be drawn. However, should all 3 above rules are already adhere, the crypto should have some min recognizable Market Cap/Liquidity.

How we think about this? WinterstormRage (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the criteria to be listed here is to have an article on Wikipedia. As was mentioned in the motivation for this list, the point was NOT to have notability discussions in multiple places. This is exactly how it works in similar lists elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as List of content management systems. The criteria for having an article in Wikipedia is to be notable, and those discussions can happen on the individual pages. Some of the criteria you list are not applicable to Wikipedia notability - a notorious scam coin, widely covered and therefore notable, that crashes and burns and has zero market liquidity, will still be notable.Greenman (talk)

alright, I thought about it, and can accept it. Afterall, Wikipedia is not about being tech savvy, rather it is about what was Notable under wiki rules. I still feel it is a general mis-representation of what cryptocurrency is, (by having more joke coins than real coins this moment). Who knows, maybe in 2yrs, we all look back and call it 'all' a joke. I will try to see what coin deserves a page, to increase 'relevant/traded' currency to help the article. WinterstormRage (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

To me, as I would assume to many who are looking into cryptocurrency, the issue is whether or not the currency is completely anonymous. That is surely a highly notable issue regarding these, and a category or column that is much needed. As you can see, it is how one defines being notable. No currency is worth anything unless it can be used anonymously. Those that meet that criteria should be at the top of the pack regardless of market share, value or press coverage. Certainly, press coverage is highly undesirable when it comes to this subject. - KitchM (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency task force Invite

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin Double Listed

Any reason why bitcoin is double listed?

Houdinipeter (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Equinox

There seems to be no information on the web about the currency "Equinox". The Wikipedia link directs to the page concerning celestial equinox, and the sources are or irrelevant or down. I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekingsushi (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Move

Move the article to Comparison of cryptocurrencies since its not a list any more but a table.

Market Cap

I added market cap to the table to increase usefulness.--BitThug (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it from the table. None of the information added was sourced and looking at random articles, none of them have this information in them. This would need to be reliably sourced for it to be added. ~ GB fan 18:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. thank you for the guidance.--BitThug (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

AJ2265 (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC) I removed the market cap column as:

1. The title 'Market cap' doesn't agree with the definition in Market capitalization
2. The values are very volatile.

I believe you are mistaken.--Ehtermann (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Yes it does.
2. Where does wikipedia guidance address that?

Please don't take it upon yourself to remove properly sourced information without justification.--Ehtermann (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Market cap is far too volatile to be useful, it cannot be properly maintained. Greenman (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Block size, block frequency and other common characteristics?

Should those be included in the table? L29Ah (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes.--BitThug (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cryptocurrencies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203012031/http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt to https://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Whitepaper:Nxt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

DigitalNote

It appears DigitalNote was set to Active in this revision. This is not correct as the project has not been updated since August. Could someone please revert this change? --Capndurk (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It does not have an article so I deleted it.- MrX 00:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ZenCash addition

I am updating this cryptocurrency list with the ZenCash New article.

--Fergus_Manx 04:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMAN (talk • contribs)

ECC addition request

I would like to add ECC to this list. [ECC WIki]

Release: 2014

Status: Active

Currency: ECC

Symbol: ECC

Founder: Greg Griffith

Hash Algorithm: Scrypt

Programming language of implementation: C++

Cryptocurrency blockchain: PoW and PoS

Notes: Open-source project with a financial core that looks to utilize a multi-chain platform to implement decentralized services such as secure messaging and file storage.

After the article is moved to the mainspace rather than the draft space it can be added. ~ GB fan 20:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Reinstated

The article was redirected following the latest AfD, but has been reinstated... was this discussed anywhere? Andrewa (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here. Greenman (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

Add a new currency entry to the list. Crypt111 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

|- | 2018 | style="background: #9EFF9E; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="active table-active"| Active | Aurei | AURX | Aureus Holding, LLC | ECDSA | C++ | PoC | Private, decentralized, open source, digital currency with commodity backing. |

 Not done - Sorry, but all cryptocurrencies listed on this page should already have a Wikipedia article. Please write the article first.- MrX 🖋 19:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018

- Crypt111 (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2018 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Governance

Do we need this column in the table? Labelling cryptocurrencies as having governance or not can be highly controversial. The labels have no citations (except a few). The question is not even discussed on the pages of each individual cryptocurrency. The coloring is confusing: as if red "No" is a bad thing, and green "Yes" is a good one. I believe that we should remove this column. An alternative would be to require at least a reliable source for each "Yes" or "No" or, perhaps, a section in the corresponding article. Retimuko (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This has been already discussed. The column has been added because of this [1] Demohere (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Demohere You are mistaken. The outcome of that AfD was not merge, it was The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 4:29 pm, 20 April 2018, Friday (1 month, 9 days ago) (UTC−4) It was not discussed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was no consensus in that AFD to include it here. There was some discussion about it, mostly by you trying to negotiate saying it was OK to delete that article only if you could add it here. If people object to the inclusion then the place to gain consensus is here. ~ GB fan 22:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the column and will reincorporate the data into the notes column. I do not think it warrants it's own column on the table. -- Dane ^talk 22:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

NOT ONLY YOU DELETED THE COLUMN , BUT ALSO YOU LOCKED THE ARTICLE!!!!! THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! LEAVE THE ARTICLE UNLOCKED! Demohere (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop WP:SHOUTING. It does not help your case. 10^Eleventeen 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

More shouting, and in violation of a blockchain and cryptocurrencies topic ban
IT IS NOT MY CASE, IT IS THE CASE OF TRUTH. A STUPID PERSON HERE WANTS TO CENSOR GOVERNANCE TYPE CRYPTOCURRENCIES THAT EXIST!!! Demohere (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Please stop shouting and stop making personal attacks and stop editing in violation of your topic ban. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the "sources" in the few columns that were yes that had sourcing...they weren't good sources. So never mind on me doing any kind of reincorporation of data. -- Dane ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd also suggest we remove anything sourced here that isn't sourced in their respective articles. There are a LOT of unreliable sources and stuff that isn't covered in the main article, so not sure why it would be here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I support this. And I support raising the bar for what counts as a reliable source in cryptocurrency-related articles in general. Retimuko (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

A good place to start would probably be "if it's only sourced to a crypto site, just say no." :P? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Altering table columns

I wanted to start a discussion on column names in the table. What is my concern is that the table is supposed to describe cryptocurrencies, not blockchains they live on.

• Hash algorithm is a feature of an underlying protocol, not the currency itself
• Programming language of implementation as well
• Cryptocurrency Blockchain is mistakenly referring to the [[2]] consensus of a protocol rather than the name of the blockchain.

I suggest removing Hash algorithm and Programming language of implementation and cleaning up Cryptocurrency Blockchain column, which I will be very happy to do with the community approval. Beno neno (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency XRP is named XRP, while Ripple is the name of a company

Name of cryptocurrency " Ripple " should be changed to " XRP ". Ripple is the name of a company while XRP is the name of the cryptocurrency; which are two different and separate things. Thus all reference to " Ripple " as a cryptocurrency should be changed to " XRP ". Benwhale1 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. — Newslinger talk 03:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I will answer to you again : we're not talking about the article " XRP Ledger / Ripple protocol " which is the name of the ledger, but the name of the native cryptocurrency of this ledger called " XRP ". This name has always been XRP, and was already the case BEFORE i edited the article. XRP and its ledger are two different things. Please stop answering about things you don't have any knowledge on. There is no consensus on cryptocurrency XRP being named XRP because it has always been its name.

talk  12 August 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwhale1 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Differences between XRP (cryptocurrency) , Ripple(company) and XRP Ledger / Ripple protocol (payment protocol)

So i will try to explain the differences and why the name " Ripple" should be changed to " XRP " :

XRP is a cryptocurrency native to the XRP Ledger / Ripple protocol. The ledger can use XRP but aswell fiat currencies. These are two separate things. One is a " a real-time gross settlement system (RTGS), currency exchange and remittance network " while thee other ( XRP ) is a cryptocurrency/digital asset.

Ripple is the name of the company who created the XRP Ledger / Ripple protocol. Even

In this article which is about crypocurrencies , you refer to XRP as " Ripple". Ripple is not a cryptocurrency, has been never been. And while there is a consensus / discussion opened about the name of the ledger, which is either XRP Ledger or Ripple protocol, there has never been any discussion or debate regarding the real name of XRP, the cryptocurrency native of this ledger.

Thy why is there no debate is that the article regarding the XRP Ledger / Ripple Protocol, is that the wikipedia article always refered to the native cryptocurrency of this ledger as " XRP ", even before there was any debate regarding the XRP/Ledger Ripple Protocol article name

Finally i should had there has been an effort regarding the choice of the new XRP logo with thousands of votes by the XRP community on a dedicated website The #XRPCommunity has opened voting for the next week on a new #XRP symbol. Vote by following the link below ( the site used for the vote is now down but there is still the github that was used for the logo proposal ) / https://xrpsymbol.github.io/, and as you can see the cryptocurrency is refered as " XRP " by the community.

Also, the referene websites of the cryptocurrency community such as Coinmarketcap , livecoinwatch, and multiple exchanges now refer to XRP as... XRP ! Benwhale1 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benwhale1 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.

Please take some time to read through Wikipedia's policy on consensus and policy against promotion, and remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). — Newslinger talk 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've topic banned this editor. MER-C 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

The number of cryptocurrencies available over the internet as of 19 August 2018 is over 1600 and growing. Gozames (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 13:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Revise protection policy

It's somewhat understandable that this page has been put into extended confirmed protection to stop vandalism but seems excessive. I think this pages protection policy can be reduced to a lower protection policy, I'm unsure why semi-protected or pending changes protection policy isn't sufficient requiring reviews and approval from other approved members. At the moment the protection on this page looks like favourites are being played more than protection from vandalism.

Note

Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars.

Five Pillars

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

3) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

4) Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility

5) Wikipedia has no firm rules

DaJaffaMan (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is not protection from vandalism. It is protection from persistent disruptive and promotional editing on the subject of cryptocurrencies. You can find out more by reading the notice at the top of this page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Litecoin Isn't the First Scrypt Coin

On the table, Litecoin (LTC) is listed as being the first Scrypt coin, which isn't true, as that is the inactive cryptocurrency Tenebrix (announced September 26th 2011 on BTCtalk, almost a month before Litecoin). Should this be changed? Tenebrix was unsuccessful due to premining. I'm unable to directly cite BTCTalk due to wikipedia restrictions, but googling "Litecoin Bitcointalk" and "Tenebrix Bitcointalk" will find the posts confirming this. Atericparker (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• If it isn't published in a reliable source, then it can't be stated here. Anyone can claim something on a forum but this does not mean it is verifiably true. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• • I've always wondered about this. I've actually found Terebrix's CPU miner's code that is verifyably older than Litecoin (Oct 1, 2011 vs Oct 7, 2011): https://github.com/Lolcust/Tenebrix-miner/blob/cpumine/cpu-miner.c, but since it's a (very) old deprecated project there will never be a news article about it. Is this however, not proof enough? Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Changed to "One of the first." Andreas Antonopoulos wrote in his book "Tenebrix was the first cryptocurrency to implement an alternative proof-of-work algorithm, namely scrypt, an algorithm originally designed for password stretching (brute-force resistance)."[3] Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Should we give an honorary mention to Tenebrix as well for being the first, or do our sources lack to much for even that? Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned at Scrypt#Cryptocurrency_uses as being the first. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Editing

I have made a number of edits to the notes sections of the list to try and balance the amount written and correct some oversimplifications. Any questions about my edits, please ask. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing entries

There are a number of articles of cryptocurrencies such as; Filecoin, Counterparty, VeChain, Zcoin, and OmiseGO, from Template:Cryptocurrencies. And others from Category:Cryptocurrencies. Is it necessary to gain consensus before adding an entry to this list? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to add. As long as there's an article about it, it can be added to the list. Greenman (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Note

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_on_use_of_CoinDesk which may be of interest to people watching this page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

Hey there is a dead link for cryptocurrency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies I have now a good link with good information: 1. https://investingmentors.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-is-bitcoin-why-is-cryptocurrency.html

                                             2. https://investingmentors.blogspot.com/2018/12/practical-tips-on-how-to-trade.html BaqirRaza1 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Not a good link as well, Blogspot is unreliable. Flooded with them hundreds 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Vertcoin's description is promotional, misleading, and sourceless.

"Next-gen ASIC resistance" is clearly a promotional statement. Additionally, "first cryptocurrency to implement stealth addresses" is entirely untrue as far as I understand; they appear to have implemented stealth addresses in July 2014, but Bytecoin launched in at least March 2014 with stealth addresses implemented due to their use of the cryptonote protocol (see the Cryptonote article (before it gets deleted in a few days) for details). Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Changed to "Aims to be ASIC resistant." Џ 05:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Should Bitcoin SV be listed now?

It is listed on various exchanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BecurSansnow (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have an article, so no. If someone wants to start working on a draft however, I will happily tag along. Dr-Bracket (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

In the "NEO" line under "Notes" Change: "China based cryptocurrency, formerly ANT Shares and ANT Coins, the name was changed in 2017 to NEO and GAs." to: "China based cryptocurrency, formerly ANT Shares and ANT Coins, the names were changed in 2017 to NEO and GAS." Mounty01 (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Uncontroversial grammar fix of existing content - thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

In Verge under Notes: change "Features anonymous transactions using Tor and I2P" to: "Features anonymous transactions using Tor.". In the article for Verge (cryptocurrency), I removed all mentions of I2P a few weeks ago because there were no sources that supported the claim, as well as it's not a feature of their software. Since the information is inaccurate, it should probably be removed. Dr-Bracket (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I can not find the text you are referring to. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 08:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's in the table of active currencies, under the Notes column. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Done now - thank you for pointing this out. This seems like an uncontroversial fix (AGF), but of course anyone can revert me if this needs further discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

Please remove "Kenesis" from the list as the article has been deleted. Thank you! 79.168.3.237 (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done GermanJoe (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please Remove XRP - Not a Cryptocurrency

If you read Wikipedia's own definition of a Cryptocurrency: A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions, control the creation of additional units, and verify the transfer of assets. Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems.

XRP does not meet this definition, as it is controlled by a central company (Ripple) and Ripple is able to issue new tokens at any time. Randolphnimmer (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

IOTA

I know this has been mentioned before, but I think IOTA should be included. There seems to be plenty of sources. I don't expect to chance the consensus all on my own, but I'd at least like for my voice to be heard. Benjamin (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)