The Bitcoin Economics Section on Wikipedia Needs Help - .2 BTC Reward

[Atlas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Economics

Anybody here willing to expand this section by 1000-2000 words, explaining Bitcoin's economic features and a history detailing its exchange rate? I'll offer a .1 BTC award for a well-written edit posted here that is at least 1000-2000 words. First claim, first served. All I ask is if I don't like your content, don't expect me to pay.

If you don't have a confirmed account that allows you to edit, I'll add the content myself. By posting your content, it is agreed that you are releasing the content into a Wikipedia compatible license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights.

Thanks!

Edit: There are additional rewards to follow in this thread.

[1714874625]

1714874625

[vokain]

I like it, however ~$1 isn't too attractive of an incentive but I'm sure other people would be willing to contribute in their own way. I pledge to match .1 with Atlas too!

[hazek]

I pledge 1BTC if the submitted material of 1000 - 2000 words also satisfies me.

[cunicula]

Hazek and Atlas, would you like material written by a professional economist? Or would that not be a good idea?

[sorry couldn't resist]

[hazek]

I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.

[nybble41]

I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.

That sounds a lot like "original research", which is against the Wikipedia policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). It needs to be based on attributable primary sources, not "empirical evidence and logic", unless you want to see it quickly reverted.

[hazek]

Ahh I didn't know that which sucks. I retract my pledge then.

[SgtSpike]

I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.

That sounds a lot like "original research", which is against the Wikipedia policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). It needs to be based on attributable primary sources, not "empirical evidence and logic", unless you want to see it quickly reverted.

Then post it up on pastebin and use that as a primary source.  Or start a free blog.

[nybble41]

I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.

That sounds a lot like "original research", which is against the Wikipedia policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). It needs to be based on attributable primary sources, not "empirical evidence and logic", unless you want to see it quickly reverted.

Then post it up on pastebin and use that as a primary source.  Or start a free blog.

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V>

So pastebin obviously wouldn't count, and neither would your average blog.

[vokain]

I really don't care who writes it as long it's based on empirical evidence and logic and makes sense to me. If it'll meet these criteria and is of the appropriate length, I'll pay up.

That sounds a lot like "original research", which is against the Wikipedia policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR). It needs to be based on attributable primary sources, not "empirical evidence and logic", unless you want to see it quickly reverted.

Then post it up on pastebin and use that as a primary source.  Or start a free blog.

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V>

So pastebin obviously wouldn't count, and neither would your average blog.

Good thing there's a Bittalk Media.. Libertarianism might rely on the freedoms of the individual, but by all means work with others on the goal we're all trying to achieve. Bittalk might even sponsor a economics study on this for publish, and say if a econ student were to write that and that article were to break out because of the quality of presentation to an audience that ranges from only taking a HS econ class to those that have a good working knowledge of econ and can follow the logic, it could be a win-win.

[SgtSpike]

If the writing is of decent quality, I can push to have it published at bitcoinmagazine.net.  We're always looking for more content, even on the website, and I don't think publishing articles written by people not directly involved with the mag is out of the question.  I don't see any reasons why BM wouldn't count as an attributable primary source.

[vokain]

If the writing is of decent quality, I can push to have it published at bitcoinmagazine.net.  We're always looking for more content, even on the website, and I don't think publishing articles written by people not directly involved with the mag is out of the question.  I don't see any reasons why BM wouldn't count as an attributable primary source.

Let's make it happen! A few people should work together on this, preferably those with backgrounds in economic science and someone with a sort of journalistic background to make sense of all that to a wide audience, kinda in a Carl Sagan type of way.

[cunicula]

If you write an article about bitcoin as money. This is an extremely important academic article on monetary theory to cite.

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/vesely/www/831/Kiyotaki%201989%20JPE.pdf

Abstract: The authors analyze economies in which individuals specialize in consumption and production and meet randomly over time in a way that implies that trade must be bilateral and quid pro quo. Nash equilibria in trading strategies are characterized. Certain goods emerge endogenously as media of exchange, or commodity money, depending both on their intrinsic properties and on extrinsic beliefs. There are also equilibria with genuine fiat currency circulating as the general medium of exchange. The authors find that equilibria are not generally Pareto optimal and that introducing fiat currency into a commodity money economy may unambiguously improve welfare. Velocity, acceptability, and liquidity are discussed. Copyright 1989 by University of Chicago Press.

You guys are going to be confused by the definition of fiat in this paper. The definition of fiat here is that the money has no intrinsic value. This contrasts with commodity money which does have intrinsic value. There is no state backing involved in fiat in any way. Their "fiat money" is equivalent to bitcoin. To interpret the abstract, just replace 'genuine fiat currency' with 'bitcoin' and 'commodity money' with 'gold', 'silver', or 'pouches of tobacco'.


This article might also be useful.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf

This paper examines the sets of feasible allocations in a large class of economic environments in which commitment is impossible (the standard definition of feasibility is adapted to take account of the lack of commitment). The environments feature either memory or money. Memory is defined as knowledge on the part of an agent of the full histories of all agents with whom he has had direct or indirect contact in the past. Money is defined as an object that does not enter preferences or production and is available in fixed supply. The main proposition proves that any allocation that is feasible in an environment with money is also feasible in the same environment with memory. Depending on the environment, the converse may or may not be true. Hence, from a technological point of view, money is equivalent to a primitive form of memory.

The blockchain is just some public memory of the past. Money is a "primitive form of memory", well the blockchain is just pure memory.