Talk:Andreas Antonopoulos

586:

article related to that topic, without providing any precedent or clear breach of policy besides your feelings that anyone associated with Bitcoin is inherently untrustworthy because they're just out to make money. At this point seems you're only argument is "the sites aren't reputable because I say so", while I have shown that they meet all the guidelines in WP:IRS. Here's what the guidelines say qualifies a "questionable source"..."Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." What part of this article is making extraordinary claims what would not be supported by even a "lightweight source"? Where have you gotten the idea that these sources have a "poor reputation for checking the facts" or have "no editorial oversight". Your general feelings about Bitcoins notability are not relevant right now and it seems like your removal of almost every source in the article was an effort to support your preconceived notion that the article shouldn't exist. Just because these publications are not as popular as Bloomberg, does not mean they aren't reliable. Reliability is based on such things such as editorial control and reputation for fact checking.

592:

people buy stocks, any stocks as most people do so through broad based mutual funds. This is not inherently wrong, infact it would be unreasonable to insist that anyone writing about someone involved in the stock market to have no interest in the success of the market...Just as it is unreasonable to invalidate a source on a topic peripheral to bitcoin because they have an interest in the success of bitcoin. Actually these sources exist to talk about and promote cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin is only one. Just like Sports Illustrated exists to talk about and promote sports, climbing magazine exists to talk about and promote climbing, bloomberg exists to talk about and promote wallstreet investments. And guess what, lots of people involved in those publications have some kind of financial interest in their topic growing. Now if this was an article about The Bitcoin Foundation using a source from the Bitcoin Foundations blog would not be appropriate as it would be promotional material that they controlled.

686:

bitcoin, I care about REPUTABILITY , of which needs to be PROVEN, and HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. I cannot prove that they are NOT REPUTABLE, this is a negative claim and proving a negative is close to impossible for most things, and unless they've done something that's largely illegal or not reputable then it would be impossible to prove that any website is not reputable. You've used this as a way to argue past the policies on wikipedia, as if I can't prove they aren't reputable, they must be reputable. I mean, there are so many ways in which this argument makes me want to smash my own head open against a wall, but the level of rhetoric is probably the worst. You've made all of these false comparisons, attacked my neutrality (for who knows whatever reason) and then declared yourself the "winner". I mean, this is why no one wants to edit this fucking site, too many people invested in the subjects who just don't know how to reason properly infest every god damn page.

535:

far as I know they do not. They do not write about products that they have a hand in wanting to succeed. These "source" you seem so bent on using on the other hand do benefit from coming up with "experts in bitcoin", to legitimize the very idea of cryptocurrency. They have a direct hand in trying to make bitcoin bigger than it already is, and I would say that the vast majority of the writers, if not all of them, own bitcoins themselves. We're not just talking about the self promotion of Antonopoulos here, we're talking about a self referential "bitcoin expert" site that has a stake in how bitcoin is viewed. I honestly don't think I can spell this out any better for you

499:

about? This article isn't about bitcoin. Coindesk is no more a promotional tool of Andreas Antonopoulos than Popular Science Magazine is a promotional tool of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Furthermore, is Popular Science Magazine an invalid source on any science related topic simply because they promote science? Your argument is entirely invalid. And the fact that these are publications with editorial control means that they are inherently not self-published. Unless you can show otherwise, Andreas Antonopoulos has no control over the content of any of these publications and thus their writing about him is not "self advertisement".

553:

promotion and success of stock market investing. Well guess what, Bloomberg Businessweek is a source on Jim Cramers wiki and I don't think anyone would think its invalid because of this absurd argument. Furthermore, underlying your various rationales to get these sources removed seems to be a prejudice against anyone associated with bitcoin that they're only motivation is financial gain, which is simply not true. Its like argueing the scientific journal 'Nature' is an invalid source because all their writers are just conspiring to promote the scientific method so that they can get more money for research grants.

568:

magazine does not exist to "promote science so they can get research grants" either. Your bitcoin sources however exists solely to talk about and promote bitcoin. They are blogs, and nothing more. I don't have some personal vendetta here, I just want reputable sources for this wikipedia page about a living person. I haven't deleted the information, all I want is better sourcing. If you can't do that, this page needs to be deleted.

747:

references is his own damn blog (#4), one of them is apparently broken as it wont load (#6) one of them I can't comment on because it's a subscription source and I'm not going to, and one of the remaining is from 2013 while all of the rest are less than 6 months old. This is not reliable, not noteworthy, and not credible. I'm sorry I wasted my time reading it. But that's just me, and I wasn't the one to break out the bold font.

321: 300: 144: 123: 1679:" is an author of a book that is a contrarian take on cryptocurrencies and blockchains. By definition a "competitor" of mine (Andreas M. Antonopoulos), in as much this causes a conflict of interest. Nothing against someone who holds a contrary opinion, but should that person really be editing a Biography-of-Living-Persons article, removing edits by others (see talk page). Seems fishy to me. I wouldn't edit his page. 481:

come from reliable sources, and while this may or may not be reliable depending on who cares, it's still self referential and serves the purpose of self advertisement. As such it doesn't pass WP:RS. Regardless of whether the information is bad or good, wikipages on living persons need to have stringent standards for sources, so I'm going to maintain this position, unless someone else had a better argument.

230: 212: 92: 331: 21: 885:..."so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;...". Here the material is being used to support the claim that the subject "has authored more than two hundred articles published in print and syndicated worldwide.", which is a pretty exceptional claim. And insofar as my comment was about the use of blogs generally, per 240: 1421:

but the definintion over there doesn't mean Hold On For Dear Life. It simply says it was a typo. However, this term is being intentionally used here in this case, which is a reflection of its broad use in the crypto universe. I did make an edit and started a talk page discussion at wiktionary, but it

534:

This should be self explanatory. Just because opinion pieces have and editor doesn't mean they are anything more than opinion pieces. If in fact popular science was promoting products that they directly benefit monetarily from, your ridiculous comparison would actually make some sort of sense, but as

1807:

Well, no. Nobody prohibits you to edit article on the topic on which you wrote a book. This, however, is not an article on the topic on which you wrote a book. This is an article on an author having an opposing view than your own. That is a big difference. If you should be able to edit an article on

746:

So, I realise that this argument is already over because one of the people was first to use bold font, and that always means that the person using it is indisputably right and The Winner. But ... I think the 'article' reads like nothing more than a job application from a wannabe lobbyist. One of the

664:

All these arguments for removal have fallen flat. Lets move on. If you wish claim that any of the content of the article is controversial, please do so. If you wish to contest the notability of Andreas Antonopoulos you can nominate the article for deletion. And if it makes you feel better I've added

498:

It looks like youre grasping at straws here to get these sources deleted. First you claimed that the sources were from personal blogs, and that argument being refuted, switch to the claim that they are promotional and self-published. Promotional of what? Andreas Antonopoulos, whom this discussion is

409:

The previous request for deletion was tabled as many of the petitioners claimed that they had sources to provide notability, but as of yet none of those people have come forward to add those sources. If anyone would like to source this article, but if not I do believe the article should be nominated

756:

What isnt "credible" about this? I'm sorry that Antonopouslos's bitcoin advocacy rubs you the wrong way, but there are less then 10 people who are involved with Bitcoin whom have wikis, and Andreas is one of the most notable of those. Link #6 loaded just fine for me a moment ago. Also, his personal

690:

And this is all about SOURCES. Something so SIMPLE and so innocuous. I haven't deleted the information from the page, I haven't said the information is false, I just don't think sources that are highly involved in the subject in a way that brings into question their reputability. I mean, anyone can

680:

I just don't understand why it's so important that you use these sources. Let's assume you're right and these sources are okay (you're not, and I really resent all of the nonsense you've said about me here), but let's just assume that's so. Is it not possible that there are better sources for these

552:

Lets put your argument in context...it is the equivalent of saying that Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine is not a valid source for a wiki on Jim Cramer because Jim Cramer promotes investing money in the stock market, and the majority of Bloomberg Businessweek writers have a financial interest in the

1484:

is of the opinion, that a "reliable source", like an international newspaper, etc. as reference is needed. I personally think that the man's very own speeches are the best possible resource you can find and thus used them as a reference. There isn't that much mainstream media coverage thus far. So

685:

There is one thing I hate, and I really do mean hate about the internet is arguments like this. You're SO SURE that you're right and that you've proven me wrong, you just keep arguing past me and ignoring everything I've said. None of your arguments make the remotest sense. I don't just care about

591:

Also regarding your claim that Bloomberg doesn't promote stocks that would benefit them personally...any increase in inflows to the stock market as a whole his a high degree of correlation to an individual stock's price. They have a financial interest in the stock market as a whole and profit when

480:

Both of those sites may have editorial staffs, but they are also promotional in their nature. They promote the existence of bitcoin. You might not agree with that, but it's pretty clear to me. I'm not going to concede this point, as they also are self published. Self published information needs to

585:

It makes perfect sense. You just don't like it because you don't think Bitcoin is important enough for news publications focusing on it to be valid. This isn't a articles for deletion discussion anymore. This is a discussion of your refusal to accept a topic specific publication as a source on an

567:

Nothing you're saying is making any sense. These comparisons do not fit because they are not the same thing. These sources are not reputibale like Bloomberg, and Bloomberg doesn't promote the selling and buying of stocks that would benefit them personally (as that would be highly illegal). Nature

425:

Several of the sources you deleted were perfectly fine sources. Some of them were marginal, but others were useful and valid sources. For example, what was your reasoning for removing the PandoDaily source on Andreas's meeting with the Canadian Senate from the section of the wiki noting Andreas's

597:

Coindesk, cointelegraph, and cryptocoinsnews are not Andreas. Andreas is a separate entity and thus their reporting on him is not promotional. The fact that they might promote bitcoin is a separate isssue and is as relevant to this article as Bloomberg promoting wallstreet investment is to their

726:

As a matter of fact, experience and expertise in the subject matter is often a boon for objective reporting. At CryptoCoinsNews, we require all authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest to ensure that inappropriate advocacy (e.g., for a Bitcoin service) is discarded in preference for

444:

You say several sources I deleted were perfectly fine but you only mentioned one. You also re-added multiple sources which are clearly from personal blogs that discuss bitcoin. I will remove those sources, and if you feel the need to add them again, feel free to defend why you believe they are

1041:

Your opinion that "He merely digests information from other sources (e.g. his book which ripped off bitcoin.it) and speaks publicly about them." is not related to notability. For example, famous television anchors only digests information from other sources, but the famous ones are considered

730:

Cryptocurrency publications need to mind the fine line between Bitcoin advocacy and "objective reporting" on Bitcoin. Full disclosure of potential conflicts of interests is a must for all reporters, Bitcoin-related or not; furthermore, I also believe that critical reading is a must for

722:

I am a proud digital currency advocate; however, that doesn't override basic journalistic integrity. As with authors who write about foreign exchange or US fiscal policy, having involvement and monetary interest in the US dollar is not viewed as tainting objective reporting.

466:. I will also be adding sources from coindesk.com. If you wish to argue that these sites are infact personal blogs and not news sites with editorial staff, please present your evidence that these sites are not a valid source of information on bitcoin related topics. 889:"... For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." 588:

If you wanted to argue that these topic related publications are not proof of Andreas's notability, that would be a separate discussion that would have been relevant in the AfD discusssion. Right now they're simply being used to support the content of the

1166:

Can this really be considered OR? Andreas' Twitter is a reliable source if you are making a claim about something he said. The other source removed was a court document. I might agree that cryptocoinnews isn't a reliable source and should be removed.

1422:

was quickly reverted. Maybe I don't know the rules for editing over at wiktionary. If others here know the rules, please evaluate that definition and assist with changing it (if crypto's def is within the scope). There are also RS to support it see

1018:

This is commentary on how notable he is, not about those specific portions of the article. I'm not completely clear on the qualifications for notability, but this article seems to have low quality sources brought on by his fanboys from this thread.

845:

Seriously? You are trying to say that information that someone wrote about themselves in their own blog is a credible and reliable source for an encyclopaedia article? I am truly gobsmacked. On the other hand, Bitcoin? What did I say about Bitcoin?

1853:

You're into arguing hypotheticals about hypotheticals now. If you have a claim to make - if this is a discussion you intend to go anywhere - then you need to actually show an actual COI, and the place to actually do that is on

594:

Andreas Antonopoulos has no control over these sources and that fact that the source has an interest in the topic Andreas specializes in does not change the fact that they are infact independent from him and thus are not

757:

website is a perfectly valid source of information about him. If the article was primarily sourced from his site it would be a problem, but right now, it comprises only 1 out of 11 sources. Its just supplementary.

956:

You will find unreliable articles, even ones that say "no one currently understands bitcoin better than Andreas Antonopoulos" (laughable). Andreas calling himself a Bitcoin/security expert doesn't make it so.

716:"CT: Obviously, publications such as ours have in-built biases; we wouldn’t write about cryptocurrencies if we weren’t interested in them. Where do you draw the line between advocacy and objective reporting? 774:: "So, I realise that this argument is already over because one of the people was first to use bold font, and that always means that the person using it is indisputably right and The Winner." - this is a 615:: "Your bitcoin sources however exists solely to talk about and promote bitcoin." - this statement surprised me. I had to check where did it come from, et voila! It turned out to be a citation from the 194: 1655:

There was a Fortune link higher up in the piece - I was thinking specifically of the claim that Adam Back was the prime instigator, when there was only really Back's tweet saying he backed it -

906:

I removed this ludicrous bit of puffery from the Occupation field. My edit was almost immediately reverted with a note: "there is a source for the claim". So what? There is no such occupation.

1945: 184: 1272:

reportedly began the outpour of support by tweeting: “if ‘sign guy’ can get a meaningful start from tips, we should try find a way for the community to fund @aantonop to a hodlers position.”

1865:

is the place to do that. I'd suggest that "He's an author in the same area who thinks differently to me" is unlikely to convince anyone, but I certainly can't stop them or you from trying -

1781:

More specifically: this is an instance of the curious idea that people who aren't advocates of a topic shouldn't edit articles on it. This is not in fact a Knowledge rule in any manner -

1560:

We're not here to write hagiographies. If there's really zero coverage of Antonopoulos's views outside crypto sites, then it's literally not something we can note citably in Knowledge -

1278:

Note this text is cited and should be discussed on this talk page before deleting. Probably more sources will develop over time as this is an interesting story and likely to be covered.

960:

This article should be deleted or at least corrected. You are seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel when you need to use the number of Github commits he has to show his notability.

1940: 462:

You also removed sources from cryptocoinsnews.com and cointelegraph.com. Both of those are news sites that have an editoral staff that issues corrections and meets the guidelines of

1904: 786:

use yet another way how to emphasize the text, I mean your sentence "One of the references is his own ... blog", which is known as a nonstandard way of giving emphasis to words.

31: 71: 657:

they're "promotional in their nature" - refuted by the fact that their income derives from ad revenue targeting users seeking bitcoin related news, not from selling bitcoins

1727:

Agreed. Seems both the article's subject and the concerned editors are both blockchain pundits on the opposite sides of the fence. Strictly interpreted, probably a COI.

713: 782:

is one of standard ways how to emphasize parts of text. Another, less standard way, is the use of ALL CAPS, which can be also observed in the discussion. However, you,

650:

Lets break this down.. regarding bitcoin related sources such as coindesk, cryptocoinsnews, cointelegraph it has been argued that they should be removed because:

619:

lead section! When verifying it, I checked the source provided, and found out that it was just made up and contradicted the information provided by the source.

1186:

I have requested that the specific bitcointalk.org link (currently blacklisted in this article) be added to the spam whitelist. See the request details here:

800:

Not a very effective red herring if I'm not part of the already concluded discussion to which it relates, is it? But thanks for the instruction in rhertoric.

1950: 1935: 76: 1485:

from this point of view the whole article had to be removed, which would be utter nonsense. What do others think? Below is the text, which got reverted. --

59:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 719:

CC: Readers should realize that every author has in-built biases that inevitably find their way on paper: This is true of every publication known to man.

660:

they're "self published" - refuted by the fact that they have editorial control and that Andreas Antonopoulos has no control about what they write of him.

1970: 1886: 1552:

According to him it is important to teach people how to properly use peer-to-peer cryptocurrencies. One of the most important slogans in his opinion is "

387: 377: 691:

make a website and call it a news site, they can claim to have a board of editors, none of that actually makes them a reputable source for wikipedia.

160: 1138:

He educates the masses by explaining Bitcoin in easy to understand presentations. This is very relevant work in my opinion. Why so sour, anyway? --

1975: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1637: 258: 51: 1393: 1349: 463: 1451: 1060:

You are right. Him ...snipped... other sources doesn't make him not notable, but it does reflect on how much of a Bitcoin authority he is. --

353: 262: 151: 128: 1861:

If the editor who is using the name of the subject wants to claim a particular person has a COI about editing the article about him, then

1582:

sourcing is strict on crypto articles. Can you see if you can find this in mainstream or in a book (note Antonopoulos' books). Thanks!

1109: 1061: 1024: 961: 778:

fallacy trying to refute the arguments by pointing not at the arguments, but at the form in which they are presented. As far as I know,

1556:" , which emphasises that people should have their private keys in their possession as opposed to using a custodial wallet providers. 1168: 1020: 714:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112532/cryptocoinsnews-caleb-chen-at-this-stage-in-bitcoins-development-medias-role-is-largely-education

467: 266: 821:

I can see that it is you who declared the discussion to be over, although I do observe that you actually do discuss here, don't you?

500: 257:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 654:

they're "clearly personal blogs" - refuted by the fact that they are news services with an editorial staff that issues corrections

426:

meeting with the canadian senate? When I get time this week or next I'll go over these changes in depth and add other sources too.

520:. I see that your comment is solely based on "it's pretty clear to me", which, unfortunately, does not have the proper weight. 344: 305: 253: 217: 1694: 953:

He merely digests information from other sources (e.g. his book which ripped off bitcoin.it) and speaks publicly about them.

1423: 950:

Andreas Antonopoulos is a public speaker. In this article has been attributed as a security expert, genius, visionary, etc.

1512:

According to Antonopoulos a cryptocurrency has to have the following properties in order to serve as peer-to-peer money :

336: 1462: 103: 1108:

Really? "Regurgitating" is inappropriate? What better word is there for repeating facts without understanding them? --

1371: 665:

a couple more sources that are unrelated to bitcoin. The bitcoin related ones should be fine in a supporting role.

27: 712:

Cryptocoinsnews has a great reputation for reliability. Even their competitors have good things to say of them.

1825: 1714: 1087: 1047: 1002: 980: 935: 921: 872: 826: 791: 695:

All I want to see it better sources. I'm done with this argument and this website, this is way to frustrating.

624: 525: 91: 1113: 1065: 1028: 965: 1912: 1850:

You're missing showing where it would otherwise be a COI for him to do so, on a basis you haven't specified.

1458: 1225: 1204: 1172: 471: 60: 1870: 1786: 1762: 1660: 1565: 1633: 762: 736: 670: 603: 558: 504: 431: 109: 1894: 1732: 1682: 1645: 1433: 1283: 1015:"such claim is not in the article" That would make sense since "has been attributed" is past tense... 882: 864: 70:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to 1305: 1249: 1191:

https://en.wikipedia.org/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Quote_by_Andreas_Antonopoulos_on_Bitcoin_Talk

20: 1821: 1817: 1809: 1710: 1686: 1477: 1242:

I have added this text on the page with sources multiple times. Seems this text is controversial.

1083: 1043: 1021:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2l97xj/wikipedia_page_for_andreas_antonopoulos_nominated/

998: 976: 931: 917: 868: 822: 787: 701: 620: 574: 541: 521: 487: 451: 415: 352:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

159:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1908: 1690: 1519:- Anyone can participate independent of ethnicity, gender, personal wealth or political opinions. 1221: 1200: 74:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see 1447:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

1866: 1782: 1758: 1706: 1676: 1656: 1627: 1561: 1490: 1481: 1143: 930:

Well, nevermind, I remove the claim from the box, if you perceive it to be so controversial.

1042:

notable. Since the article has recently survived an AfD, do you have any new points to add?

758: 732: 666: 599: 554: 427: 245: 1426: 1890: 1728: 1641: 1429: 1327: 1279: 886: 67: 994:"In this article has been attributed as ... visionary" - such claim is not in the article 969: 1862: 1855: 1754: 1082:

Knowledge does not encourage this kind of language when speaking about living persons.

907: 890: 851: 801: 748: 697: 612: 570: 537: 517: 513: 483: 447: 411: 156: 991:"In this article has been attributed as ... genius" - such claim is not in the article 1929: 1813: 1750: 1190: 1577: 1486: 1394:"It's A Wonderful Life for Bitcoin Evangelist as Community Expresses Its Gratitude" 1350:"It's A Wonderful Life for Bitcoin Evangelist as Community Expresses Its Gratitude" 1139: 143: 122: 320: 299: 1372:"THE NEW BITCOIN JESUS? VER TRIGGERS $ 700K IN BITCOIN DONATIONS TO ANTONOPOULOS" 1504:

Andreas Antonopoulos' presentations often contain the following key statements:

1457:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —

775: 1916: 1898: 1874: 1829: 1790: 1766: 1736: 1718: 1709:

is in a conflict of interest and should not edit this specific article at all.

1698: 1664: 1649: 1569: 1494: 1466: 1437: 1287: 1229: 1208: 1176: 1147: 1117: 1091: 1069: 1051: 1032: 1006: 984: 939: 925: 910: 893: 876: 854: 830: 804: 795: 766: 751: 740: 707: 674: 628: 607: 580: 562: 547: 529: 508: 493: 475: 457: 435: 419: 229: 211: 1609: 1597: 1531:- It does not matter to whom you send money. Even to people in "rogue states". 783: 771: 326: 235: 1269: 1253: 349: 1252:

were sent to Antonopoulos by over a thousand followers of his work, after

330: 616: 1443:

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

1257: 867:, self-published sources can be used as informations about themselves. 1248:

On the 5th and 6th of December 2017, unsolicited donations of over

265:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 1887:

Knowledge:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Andreas_Antonopoulos

1612:, Talk at the Kuala Lumpur Bloktex Event on February 22nd 2017. 1476:

I was trying to summarize the key statements from the talks of

1525:- The currency can be used no matter where you live or travel. 85: 66:

from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially

43: 15: 1640:. I cant open the fortune, maybe out of pageviews. Thoughts? 1543:- Everybody can verify, if a transaction has happened or not. 1671:

Should a competing (contrarian) author be making edits here?

1889:. Thought it would be the correct venue for this. Thanks! 681:

claims? Why is it so important that THESE sources be used?

1217: 1600:, Talk at the Seoul Bitcoin Meetup on April 5th 2019. 997:

Notability has been established by reliable sources.

348:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 155:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1753:. But if you think you have a case, you know where 1946:Low-importance WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 1419: 1632:couple more sources for the bitcoin gift content 1941:Start-Class WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 1757:is. They'll want edits as evidence, though - 1537:- Nobody can shut down or control the system. 410:for deletion for a lack of notability again. 8: 916:Where do you have a source for your claim? 89: 1903:The COI Notice above has been archived to 1680: 294: 206: 117: 1820:to edit an article on yourself either. 1590: 1297: 296: 208: 119: 1182:Whitelisting of bitcointalk.org source 1256:questioned his investment choices on 516:, you should check the definition of 7: 1508:The Five Pillars of Open Blockchains 342:This article is within the scope of 251:This article is within the scope of 169:Knowledge:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 149:This article is within the scope of 1951:WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 1936:Biography articles of living people 1705:If this is true, then I think that 175:WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles 172:Template:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 108:It is of interest to the following 946:Andreas Antonopoulos Isn't Notable 30:on 1 November 2014. The result of 14: 1971:Low-importance Economics articles 1418:This article links to wiktionary 1452:Andreas M. Antonopoulos 2016.png 1162:Criticism Section Deleted for OR 329: 319: 298: 238: 228: 210: 142: 121: 90: 49:This article must adhere to the 19: 1749:Pretty sure it isn't a COI per 382:This article has been rated as 362:Knowledge:WikiProject Economics 275:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 189:This article has been rated as 26:This article was nominated for 1976:WikiProject Economics articles 1966:Start-Class Economics articles 1961:WikiProject Biography articles 1956:Start-Class biography articles 1554:Not your keys? Not your coins! 1467:20:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC) 850:what did I say about Bitcoin? 365:Template:WikiProject Economics 278:Template:WikiProject Biography 1: 1665:11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC) 1650:16:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 1570:21:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 1495:20:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 1438:08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC) 1148:20:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 1033:12:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 1007:10:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 985:10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 970:09:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC) 940:12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 926:12:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 911:11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 894:16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 877:08:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 855:07:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 831:17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 805:16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 796:08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 767:03:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 752:14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC) 741:16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC) 708:22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC) 675:17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 629:07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 608:14:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 581:13:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 563:09:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 548:01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC) 530:07:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC) 509:15:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC) 494:07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC) 476:16:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC) 458:00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC) 436:13:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 420:07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC) 356:and see a list of open tasks. 337:Business and economics portal 163:and see a list of open tasks. 52:biographies of living persons 1885:I created a discussion here 1306:"#THANKYOUANDREAS - Bitcoin" 1288:05:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC) 1177:20:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC) 263:contribute to the discussion 1118:00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC) 1092:23:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 1070:23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 1052:14:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 64:must be removed immediately 1992: 1899:16:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1875:16:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1830:15:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1812:, then it should not be a 1791:14:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1767:14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1737:14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1719:08:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 1699:21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC) 1209:17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 902:Occupation = "Visionary". 388:project's importance scale 152:WikiProject Cryptocurrency 598:reporting on Jim Cramer. 381: 314: 223: 188: 137: 116: 1917:23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) 1230:17:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 945: 1328:"Roger Ver on Twitter" 98:This article is rated 1535:Censorship-Resistance 1196:Comments / thoughts? 345:WikiProject Economics 254:WikiProject Biography 1472:Dispute over content 975:Repaired the title. 445:reputable sources. 1459:Community Tech bot 1216:FYI: Whitelisting 368:Economics articles 281:biography articles 104:content assessment 1701: 1685:comment added by 1396:. 7 December 2017 1374:. 7 December 2017 1352:. 7 December 2017 1330:. 5 December 2017 1308:. 6 December 2017 704: 577: 544: 490: 454: 402: 401: 398: 397: 394: 393: 293: 292: 289: 288: 205: 204: 201: 200: 84: 83: 42: 41: 1983: 1858:. You know this. 1675:Knowledge user " 1631: 1613: 1607: 1601: 1595: 1581: 1548:Be your own bank 1406: 1405: 1403: 1401: 1390: 1384: 1383: 1381: 1379: 1368: 1362: 1361: 1359: 1357: 1346: 1340: 1339: 1337: 1335: 1324: 1318: 1317: 1315: 1313: 1302: 1044:☃ Unicodesnowman 727:objective work. 706: 702: 579: 575: 546: 542: 492: 488: 456: 452: 370: 369: 366: 363: 360: 339: 334: 333: 323: 316: 315: 310: 302: 295: 283: 282: 279: 276: 273: 259:join the project 248: 246:Biography portal 243: 242: 241: 232: 225: 224: 214: 207: 195:importance scale 177: 176: 173: 170: 167: 146: 139: 138: 133: 125: 118: 101: 95: 94: 86: 72:this noticeboard 44: 23: 16: 1991: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1926: 1925: 1673: 1625: 1623: 1621:removed content 1618: 1617: 1616: 1608: 1604: 1596: 1592: 1575: 1550: 1510: 1502: 1474: 1445: 1416: 1414:HODL definition 1411: 1410: 1409: 1399: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1377: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1355: 1353: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1333: 1331: 1326: 1325: 1321: 1311: 1309: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1240: 1184: 1164: 948: 904: 696: 569: 536: 482: 446: 407: 367: 364: 361: 358: 357: 335: 328: 308: 280: 277: 274: 271: 270: 244: 239: 237: 174: 171: 168: 165: 164: 131: 102:on Knowledge's 99: 12: 11: 5: 1989: 1987: 1979: 1978: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1859: 1851: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1822:Ladislav Mecir 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1722: 1721: 1711:Ladislav Mecir 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1622: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1602: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1573: 1572: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1538: 1532: 1526: 1520: 1509: 1506: 1501: 1500:Key statements 1498: 1473: 1470: 1455: 1454: 1444: 1441: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1385: 1363: 1341: 1319: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1239: 1238:donation event 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1218:was successful 1194: 1193: 1183: 1180: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1084:Ladislav Mecir 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1055: 1054: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1016: 1010: 1009: 999:Ladislav Mecir 995: 992: 988: 987: 977:Ladislav Mecir 947: 944: 943: 942: 932:Ladislav Mecir 928: 918:Ladislav Mecir 903: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 879: 869:Ladislav Mecir 858: 857: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 823:Ladislav Mecir 810: 809: 808: 807: 798: 788:Ladislav Mecir 769: 694: 689: 683: 682: 662: 661: 658: 655: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 621:Ladislav Mecir 610: 522:Ladislav Mecir 518:Self-published 511: 439: 438: 406: 403: 400: 399: 396: 395: 392: 391: 384:Low-importance 380: 374: 373: 371: 354:the discussion 341: 340: 324: 312: 311: 309:Low‑importance 303: 291: 290: 287: 286: 284: 250: 249: 233: 221: 220: 215: 203: 202: 199: 198: 191:Low-importance 187: 181: 180: 178: 166:Cryptocurrency 161:the discussion 157:cryptocurrency 147: 135: 134: 132:Low‑importance 129:Cryptocurrency 126: 114: 113: 107: 96: 82: 81: 77:this help page 61:poorly sourced 47: 40: 39: 32:the discussion 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1988: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1954: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1939: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1931: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909:JonathanCross 1906: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1857: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1678: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1629: 1620: 1611: 1606: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1555: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1507: 1505: 1499: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1479: 1471: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1442: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1413: 1395: 1389: 1386: 1373: 1367: 1364: 1351: 1345: 1342: 1329: 1323: 1320: 1307: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1237: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222:JonathanCross 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201:JonathanCross 1197: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1181: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1161: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110:70.176.210.76 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062:70.176.210.76 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1040: 1039: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1025:70.176.210.76 1022: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 993: 990: 989: 986: 982: 978: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 962:70.176.210.76 958: 954: 951: 941: 937: 933: 929: 927: 923: 919: 915: 914: 913: 912: 909: 901: 895: 892: 888: 884: 883:WP:SELFSOURCE 880: 878: 874: 870: 866: 865:WP:SELFSOURCE 862: 861: 860: 859: 856: 853: 849: 844: 843: 832: 828: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 806: 803: 799: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 770: 768: 764: 760: 755: 754: 753: 750: 745: 744: 743: 742: 738: 734: 728: 724: 720: 717: 715: 710: 709: 705: 699: 692: 687: 679: 678: 677: 676: 672: 668: 659: 656: 653: 652: 651: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 611: 609: 605: 601: 596: 590: 584: 583: 582: 578: 572: 566: 565: 564: 560: 556: 551: 550: 549: 545: 539: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 512: 510: 506: 502: 497: 496: 495: 491: 485: 479: 478: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 460: 459: 455: 449: 443: 442: 441: 440: 437: 433: 429: 424: 423: 422: 421: 417: 413: 404: 389: 385: 379: 376: 375: 372: 355: 351: 347: 346: 338: 332: 327: 325: 322: 318: 317: 313: 307: 304: 301: 297: 285: 268: 267:documentation 264: 260: 256: 255: 247: 236: 234: 231: 227: 226: 222: 219: 216: 213: 209: 196: 192: 186: 183: 182: 179: 162: 158: 154: 153: 148: 145: 141: 140: 136: 130: 127: 124: 120: 115: 111: 105: 97: 93: 88: 87: 79: 78: 73: 69: 65: 62: 58: 54: 53: 48: 46: 45: 37: 33: 29: 25: 22: 18: 17: 1867:David Gerard 1783:David Gerard 1759:David Gerard 1707:David Gerard 1681:— Preceding 1677:David Gerard 1674: 1657:David Gerard 1628:David Gerard 1624: 1605: 1593: 1585: 1574: 1562:David Gerard 1553: 1551: 1540: 1534: 1528: 1522: 1516: 1511: 1503: 1482:David Gerard 1475: 1456: 1446: 1417: 1398:. Retrieved 1388: 1376:. Retrieved 1366: 1354:. Retrieved 1344: 1332:. Retrieved 1322: 1310:. Retrieved 1300: 1292: 1277: 1250:100 bitcoins 1241: 1198: 1195: 1185: 1169:73.168.27.10 1165: 959: 955: 952: 949: 905: 847: 779: 729: 725: 721: 718: 711: 693: 688: 684: 663: 649: 595:promotional. 593: 587: 468:98.65.197.25 408: 383: 343: 252: 190: 150: 110:WikiProjects 75: 63: 56: 50: 36:No consensus 35: 1480:, but user 776:Red herring 759:Redpointist 733:Redpointist 667:Redpointist 600:Redpointist 555:Redpointist 501:63.79.84.86 428:Redpointist 100:Start-class 1930:Categories 1891:Jtbobwaysf 1729:Jtbobwaysf 1642:Jtbobwaysf 1586:References 1523:Borderless 1430:Jtbobwaysf 1428:. Thanks! 1400:8 December 1378:8 December 1356:8 December 1334:7 December 1312:7 December 1293:References 1280:Jtbobwaysf 405:Notability 1270:Adam Back 1254:Roger Ver 848:Precisely 780:bold font 698:Countered 613:Countered 571:Countered 538:Countered 514:Countered 484:Countered 448:Countered 412:Countered 359:Economics 350:Economics 306:Economics 272:Biography 218:Biography 68:libellous 1905:this url 1818:Aantonop 1810:Aantonop 1695:contribs 1687:Aantonop 1683:unsigned 887:WP:BLOGS 617:CoinDesk 589:article. 28:deletion 1863:WP:COIN 1856:WP:COIN 1755:WP:COIN 1634:fortune 1610:YouTube 1598:YouTube 1578:Renek78 1529:Neutral 1487:Renek78 1258:Twitter 1140:Renek78 386:on the 193:on the 1814:WP:COI 1751:WP:COI 1638:qz.com 1541:Public 1478:Aantop 464:WP:IRS 106:scale. 908:Wayne 891:Wayne 852:Wayne 802:Wayne 784:Wayne 772:Wayne 749:Wayne 731:all." 1913:talk 1907:. – 1895:talk 1871:talk 1826:talk 1816:for 1787:talk 1763:talk 1733:talk 1715:talk 1691:talk 1661:talk 1646:talk 1636:and 1566:talk 1517:Open 1491:talk 1463:talk 1434:talk 1425:and 1402:2017 1380:2017 1358:2017 1336:2017 1314:2017 1284:talk 1226:talk 1220:. – 1205:talk 1173:talk 1144:talk 1114:talk 1088:talk 1066:talk 1048:talk 1029:talk 1003:talk 981:talk 966:talk 936:talk 922:talk 881:Per 873:talk 863:Per 827:talk 792:talk 763:talk 737:talk 703:talk 671:talk 625:talk 604:talk 576:talk 559:talk 543:talk 526:talk 505:talk 489:talk 472:talk 453:talk 432:talk 416:talk 261:and 34:was 378:Low 185:Low 57:BLP 1932:: 1915:) 1897:) 1873:) 1828:) 1789:) 1765:) 1735:) 1717:) 1697:) 1693:• 1663:) 1648:) 1568:) 1493:) 1465:) 1436:) 1286:) 1228:) 1207:) 1199:— 1175:) 1167:-- 1146:) 1116:) 1090:) 1068:) 1050:) 1031:) 1023:-- 1005:) 983:) 968:) 938:) 924:) 875:) 829:) 794:) 765:) 739:) 673:) 627:) 606:) 561:) 528:) 507:) 474:) 434:) 418:) 1911:( 1893:( 1869:( 1824:( 1785:( 1761:( 1731:( 1713:( 1689:( 1659:( 1644:( 1630:: 1626:@ 1580:: 1576:@ 1564:( 1489:( 1461:( 1432:( 1404:. 1382:. 1360:. 1338:. 1316:. 1282:( 1260:. 1224:( 1203:( 1171:( 1142:( 1112:( 1086:( 1064:( 1046:( 1027:( 1001:( 979:( 964:( 934:( 920:( 871:( 825:( 790:( 761:( 735:( 700:| 669:( 623:( 602:( 573:| 557:( 540:| 524:( 503:( 486:| 470:( 450:| 430:( 414:( 390:. 269:. 197:. 112:: 80:. 55:( 38:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index