Meanwhile on Wikipedia...

[evoorhees]

There's a Reddit thread about this... thought you guys would enjoy  

Bitcoin tops the Wikipedia list of highest valued currency unit. This is actually a meaningless/arbitrary indicator, as it's only a matter of notation, but still this makes me smile What's far more important is the relative change in these values over time, and Bitcoin, in just four years, has gone from being worth far less than a penny to now over $13 USD.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-valued_currency_unit

[1714918857]

1714918857

[elux]

My comment:

I think the better tactical move would be to create a new paragraph discussing "Other Currencies", including Bitcoin, along with well sourced references.

Bitcoin has - as a matter of fact - been the highest valued currency in the world for about 12 months or so.
However, adding Bitcoin to the top of the list (with no references) is pretty much begging for deletion.

[Disclaimer: I am not a Wikipedian.]

[evoorhees]

I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia... if it should have a "reference" then yes please someone put one. But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies. The table doesn't say "only government currencies."

[bitfreak!]

However, adding Bitcoin to the top of the list (with no references) is pretty much begging for deletion.

Well then add a reference to Mt. Gox. It definitely should be at the top of the list though. Although in terms of how large the Bitcoin economy is, many other currencies are much larger and have a much larger number of units in circulation. Of course you might say bitcoin has is divisible down to many small units, but you must keep in mind that the important thing is the value of those units proportionate to the number in circulation.

[Gabi]

I love the "no central authority" thing

[hazek]

I love the "no central authority" thing

Yeah me too 

[cunicula]

I love the "no central authority" thing

Do you think "Stateless" sounds better or worse? Or "Stateless Protocol?"

I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet.

[SgtSpike]

I love the "no central authority" thing

Do you think "Stateless" sounds better or worse? Or "Stateless Protocol?"

I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet.

No.  I think stateless is largely a useless term to many people.  It could just mean that whatever it is that is stateless is still under federal guidance/regulation/authority.  Or a stateless government might mean that there are no state-like subdivisions within the governmental hierarchy.

[DannyHamilton]

. . . But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies . . .

Most here would agree with you that Bitcoin is a currency, but there may be room for discussion as to what the "base" unit is and what the relative value is of that base unit.

If the "Satoshi" (the smallest integer unit of represented value in a transaction) is considered the base unit, then calling 1 BTC a "currency unit" would be like calling a Franklin (U.S. $100 bill) a "currency unit".  They are both just names for a multiple of the base unit.

If the "Satoshi" is the "currency unit", then it doesn't belong on that list. Yet.

[Gabi]

I love the "no central authority" thing

Do you think "Stateless" sounds better or worse? Or "Stateless Protocol?"

I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet.

I'm fine with "no central authority", i was really saying that i love it.

[herzmeister]

I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet.

No, it simply sounds like HTTP (to a dev's ear).

[SgtSpike]

. . . But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies . . .

Most here would agree with you that Bitcoin is a currency, but there may be room for discussion as to what the "base" unit is and what the relative value is of that base unit.

If the "Satoshi" (the smallest integer unit of represented value in a transaction) is considered the base unit, then calling 1 BTC a "currency unit" would be like calling a Franklin (U.S. $100 bill) a "currency unit".  They are both just names for a multiple of the base unit.

If the "Satoshi" is the "currency unit", then it doesn't belong on that list.

And that's exactly why it is a meaningless list, as Evorhees mentioned above.  We're only playing along with the meaninglessness of it.

[cunicula]

I like "Stateless Protocol." Sounds like Skynet.

No, it simply sounds like HTTP (to a dev's ear).

Yeah, it was supposed to be a play on words.

[paraipan]

I love the "no central authority" thing

Yeah me too 

[evoorhees]

. . . But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies . . .

Most here would agree with you that Bitcoin is a currency, but there may be room for discussion as to what the "base" unit is and what the relative value is of that base unit.

If the "Satoshi" (the smallest integer unit of represented value in a transaction) is considered the base unit, then calling 1 BTC a "currency unit" would be like calling a Franklin (U.S. $100 bill) a "currency unit".  They are both just names for a multiple of the base unit.

If the "Satoshi" is the "currency unit", then it doesn't belong on that list. Yet.

The base unit of a dollar is a cent, but the chart doesn't utilize that unit. It is listing the nominal unit of the currency. Bitcoin may be divisible to eight decimal places, but 1 btc is the standard currency unit, just as 1 usd.

[klaus]

I love the "no central authority" thing

yeah. thats so grrrrrr. 

[klaus]

hey. some ashole put Cosbycoin on top. what a nonsense.

http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3103/4vx6o43g_gif.htm

[DannyHamilton]

. . . But absolutely it's legitimate to be in the table of currencies . . .

Most here would agree with you that Bitcoin is a currency, but there may be room for discussion as to what the "base" unit is and what the relative value is of that base unit.

If the "Satoshi" (the smallest integer unit of represented value in a transaction) is considered the base unit, then calling 1 BTC a "currency unit" would be like calling a Franklin (U.S. $100 bill) a "currency unit".  They are both just names for a multiple of the base unit.

If the "Satoshi" is the "currency unit", then it doesn't belong on that list. Yet.

The base unit of a dollar is a cent, but the chart doesn't utilize that unit. It is listing the nominal unit of the currency. Bitcoin may be divisible to eight decimal places, but 1 btc is the standard currency unit, just as 1 usd.

As I said, I think there is room for discussion on that.  Perhaps the Satoshi is the nominal unit, and we simply use the "Bitcoin" nickname for ease of use when we are dealing with exceptionally large quantities.  If inflation drives prices up until every thing we buy costs over 1000 USD, and we all start talking in terms of "grand", ("Sure, you can have a diet coke, that'll be 3.5 grand.") does that make the "grand" the nominal unit?

[DannyHamilton]

hey. some ashole put Cosbycoin on top. what a nonsense.

http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3103/4vx6o43g_gif.htm

+1 

[casascius]

Speaking of Wikipedia, they have improved their tune in response to inquiries about Bitcoin donation, at least as of lately.  As a prior fiat donor to Wikipedia, I received an e-mail solicitation asking me to donate again.  Seeing it as an invitation to reply, I did.  Here's how it went.

redacted, Dec 11 13:26 (PST):
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your email and for your suggestion. We are aware of bitcoin, and we will continue to monitor it with interest. Thanks again for taking the time to email us.
Sincerely,
redacted
Donor Services Manager
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
https://wikimediafoundation.org
Support us: https://donate.wikimedia.org
________________________________________

Mike Caldwell, Nov 29 11:06 (PST):
I will donate again when the Foundation starts accepting Bitcoin payments. I see Wikimedia's acceptance of Saudi riyals, but not Bitcoin, on the grounds that riyals are backed by "full faith and credit of an issuing government" and Bitcoins are not, as a sore inconsistency with the Foundation's stated mission and goals.
Mike

Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 29, 2012, at 11:26 AM, "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia" < donate@wikimedia.org > wrote:
Dear Mike,
At Wikipedia we only ask for donations during our year-end fundraiser. That's our tradition. We don't think having your email address is a license to spam. We send two reminders per year. This is your first. Donate today, and we won't send you the second. ;-)
If everyone reading this email repeated their previous donation, our fundraiser would be done today. Please help us forget about fundraising and get back to improving Wikipedia.

---pruned the solicitation---

Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder