Bitcoin-Qt Developers and Supporters: Your article is going to be deleted.

[Atlas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin-Qt

Please fix it with reliable independent and secondary sources so people can understand the first application that started it all.

No, bitcoin.org, bitcoin.it and anything directly tied to Bitcoin is not reliable.

If you want an article for your client, please justify it.

[1713493685]

1713493685

[1713493685]

1713493685

[1713493685]

1713493685

[1713493685]

1713493685

[1713493685]

1713493685

[Atlas]

P.S. No, I am not pushing for deletion. Some deletionist scumbag is.

[gmaxwell]

There wouldn't have been any reason to create an article if you were not trying to aggressively remove all mention of the reference implementation from the Bitcoin article ever since the creation of the Bitcoin Foundation caused you to hate it.

There is no reason for a Wikipedia article on every little aspect of Bitcoin.  The reference implementation can be adequately covered in the main Bitcoin article, and it used to be.

Moreover, don't try to freeking votestack Wikipedia it's almost as despicable as your constant sockpuppeting.

[Atlas]

There wouldn't have been any reason to create an article if you were not trying to aggressively remove all mention of the reference implementation from the Bitcoin article ever since the creation of the Bitcoin Foundation caused you to hate it.

There is no reason for a Wikipedia article on every little aspect of Bitcoin.  The reference implementation can be adequately covered in the main Bitcoin article, and it used to be.

Moreover, don't try to freeking votestack Wikipedia it's almost as despicable as your constant sockpuppeting.

Your first statement is not accurate. Bitcoind is well-covered in [[Bitcoin]].

Additionally, your last statement is libelous as well.

[gmaxwell]

Your first statement is not accurate. Bitcoind is well-covered in [[Bitcoin]].

No, it's not— it's now full of inaccuracies that you've added, like claiming that bitcoind was the original software and the the graphical version came later.

The article is crap now— it completely fails to describe how Bitcoin works, nothing about how the consensus algorithm works, nothing about why a couple of sibyl attackers can't reverse transactions at will... and the whole article has become a toxic waste dump of speculation and edit warring, just like all the areas of this forum that you post in.

[Atlas]

I don't doubt those topics were covered; however, they were probably organized poorly and/or were too technical for the average reader.

A security section will be created.