Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Remove bitcoin.org from the infobox

I propose removing bitcoin.org from the infobox where it is listed as the website. The justification for this is that the site itself explicitly disclaims being Bitcoin's official website, as evidenced on its "About Us" page (https://bitcoin.org/en/about-us):

"Bitcoin.org is not Bitcoin's official website. Just like nobody owns the email technology, nobody owns the Bitcoin network. As such, nobody can speak with authority in the name of Bitcoin." Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed change, as there is no other website to replace it with. Bitcoin.org was the website that Satoshi created and thus no reason for us to stop linking to it unless it goes dead. FYI, we dont claim in the infobox it is an official website, thus your point is moot. We just link to it out of utility. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The website currently linked in the infobox was not created by Satoshi Nakamoto. While Satoshi did originally register the domain, he very quickly relinquished control over it. The site is now managed by an obscure entity known as "Cobra-Bitcoin," who is also the co-owner of bitcointalk.org alongside the infamous "theymos"—the main administrator of the r/bitcoin subreddit. Theymos is well-known for attacks on Bitcoin community members and for engaging in censorship.

Consequently, bitcoin.org is not only unofficial but is also used to solicit donations for "Cobra-Bitcoin," who does not use these funds transparently. The donation address on the site is regularly replaced with a new one, making it extremely difficult to track its finances. In my opinion, bitcoin.org should be removed from the infobox, though it can remain elsewhere in the Bitcoin Wikipedia article. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Too much nuance ('Satoshi did x but didnt do y') and WP:OR here. If you have an axe to grind against Cobra/Theymos, please dont bring that WP:BATTLE here to wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto registered the domain but has had nothing to do with the website since 2010. The claim that he made the website is false. Please research before making inaccurate claims about his involvement. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source we can cite for this change? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

It doesnt matter that Satoshi supposedly has nothing to do with it since 2010, as we know that Satoshi supposedly left the project around 2010 and the transfer of the website domain is well documented (as you have admitted above). Your WP:OR statements here just push a POV that you dont like Cobra/Theymos and thus the domain should be removed. You made somewhat similar OR based statements requesting that the Bitcoin Foundation be merged into this article, in the section above this Talk:Bitcoin#Merge_proposal. None of your claims have come with any sources and this is starting to be tedious. Take your battle over to reddit or twitter, it doesn't belong here. As I stated above, we don't claim that the bitcoin.org website is the official website, it is just the website we have linked to from here for a very long time, and I dont see any good reason to remove it, as it is a decent informational resource to Wikipedia readers that want to learn more. You seem to be mostly focused on the supposed owner of the website and your claims about their earning donations, none of this is relevant to us here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I propose we remove the bitcoin.org URL from the website field in the infobox. As per the disclaimer on bitcoin.org itself, it is not Bitcoin's official website. Its prominent placement in the infobox inadvertently implies an official endorsement, which is misleading.

To maintain accuracy, we should either:

1. Remove it from the infobox entirely (it can still be cited as a reference in the body of the article where relevant).

2. Or, clearly add a disclaimer next to it stating it is an unofficial resource.

My concern is solely about ensuring the article's neutrality and accuracy, as the current presentation could mislead readers. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove bitcoin.org from the infobox unless we either find a better site to put there or decide that bitcoin.org absolutely cannot be used there (a harmful website or not related to bitcoin). Vgbyp (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

This continues to be simply explaining your own OR of why the site should be removed or subject of some disclaimer. The website is the site created by Satoshi and doesnt seem to have any harmful activity on it that prevents us from linking to it. You now have made your point repeatedly, and have not provided sufficient justification for removal. Please be advised of WP:SOAP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You continue to repeat the false claim that "the website was created by Satoshi Nakamoto." It was not created by him.

There is a significant difference between registering a domain and creating a website.

A website is hosted on a server and uses a domain name for human-friendly access, rather than requiring users to remember an IP address.

Satoshi Nakamoto only registered the domain name; he did not write any of the content currently hosted on the website.

Please keep this in mind and refrain from repeating this incorrect statement in the future. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is starting to apply here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making comments here, especially when they contain false claims.

You have repeatedly spread misinformation and are now attempting to defend yourself using Wikipedia.

The request to remove the unofficial website from the infobox remains valid.

No one has been able to prove that the website on that domain is official.

If unofficial websites can be freely added to the infobox, this represents a major problem.

You cannot add random websites and claim they are official or authoritative, especially when the site itself disclaims any such status.

It is even more unreasonable to suggest Satoshi Nakamoto created the current website in an effort to justify its inclusion. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

This could all be solved rather quickly with the introduction of some reliable sources instead of this he said she said back-and-forth. I don't see a single link to an RS in the conversation to verify anyone's claims. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

We do have a wired source about Satoshi creating the domain (the same editor also suggested we add some content about the person tasked to create the content in the section below). I did add that here. And the wired source is here. Pretty nice source for other content if others want to add as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

While the article mentions Martti Malmi, it omits the fact that Bitcoin was initially developed solely by Satoshi Nakamoto and Martti Malmi. Furthermore, there seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the bitcoin.org domain. Satoshi Nakamoto originally registered it but later transferred its management to Malmi, who developed and maintained the website. Therefore, attributing the creation of the current bitcoin.org website to Satoshi is incorrect.

Additionally, the Wired article you cited is likely not a reliable source for this information. It fails to mention the domain's history, which is well-documented elsewhere. Given that the bitcoin.org website lacks any official authority, I still propose its removal from the infobox. Cypherpunk Penguin (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, could you please post sources for that here. It would be useful to add your claim as well, if there are sources for it. I have found a source for Martti Malmi in google books, however it is getting tedious for you to make claims, refuse to provide sources, and expect other editors to search for sources to support your claims. Please cooperate in our wikipedia process. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2025

There should be a section about the negatives of bitcoin. Climate, transaction speeds, lightning network going against the Whitepaper etc. Its missing a lot of information 2A01:563:56:7D00:72DB:2EC9:E1D2:9555 (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2025 (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. jolielover♥talk 05:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2025 (2)

El Salvador is listed as official user, thats not longer the case. Should be updates asap 2A01:563:56:7D00:72DB:2EC9:E1D2:9555 (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"Official user" seems to be the correct term: https://gfmag.com/economics-policy-regulation/el-salvador-drops-bitcoin-legal-tender/

"At the end of January, on a vote of 55-2, El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly passed modifications to the Bitcoin law, eliminating the word “currency” but keeping it legal tender. The changes will take effect May 1" a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not correct. It isnt legal tender anymore.

Source 1: https://dig.watch/updates/bitcoin-is-no-longer-legal-tender-in-el-salvador

Source 2: https://gfmag.com/economics-policy-regulation/el-salvador-drops-bitcoin-legal-tender/

Source 3: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250130-el-salvador-merchants-no-longer-obliged-to-accept-bitcoin E

Lets keep this updated and correct 146.2.132.96 (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The second source says "At the end of January, on a vote of 55-2, El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly passed modifications to the Bitcoin law, eliminating the word “currency” but keeping it legal tender." In any case, does "Official user" mean "Legal tender"? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox currency, using_countries means "At least the country that issues the currency, together with any other countries that use it (typically because they do not have their own currency). [...] Only list countries or territories if local people use the currency routinely with each other in that country. A citation is required. Acceptance in hotels and shops in tourist areas does not qualify." So bitcoin and El Salvador fit there.

Regarding "legal tender" it means "a form of money that courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment in court for any monetary debt." (per legal tender). See also: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/what-is-legal-tender

According to GF Mag, bitcoin is still be legal tender (although the article also quotes someone saying the opposite?) but it doesn't have to be accepted by all merchants. Which is something different (see above the Bank of England link). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Per the Global Finance Magazine source:

“Bitcoin no longer has the strength of legal tender,” economist Rafael Lemus told AFP. “It should have always been that way, but the government tried to force it into existence, and it didn’t work.”

Users are now free to accept Bitcoin or not, but it cannot be used to pay taxes or state bills...

Per the cited source, acceptance of bitcoin is no longer obligatory, nor is it used to pay taxes. It is therefor no longer legal tender. The Bank of England source says nothing about bitcoin or El Salvador, so it is of very little use for this discussion. Of the three above, it looks like we have one reliable source which says this is no longer legal tender at all, and two more which say it is de facto not legal tender any more.

Other sources include:

• "El Salvador Abandons Bitcoin as Legal Tender After Failed Experiment". The Tico Times. AFP. 2 February 2025. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
• Ignacio Hernández, José (17 March 2025). "In El Salvador, Bitcoin's Retreat Left Valuable Lessons". Americas Quarterly. Retrieved 10 October 2025. Facing the opposition of the multilateral lender, the government and the Legislative Assembly opted to abolish Bitcoin's status as legal tender in January, limiting its "voluntary" use to the private sector.
• Hall, Katarina (3 February 2025). "El Salvador walks back its bitcoin law". Reason.com. Retrieved 10 October 2025. The Legislative Assembly has approved changes to the country's Bitcoin Law, effectively removing bitcoin's status as legal currency.
• Marsden, Harriet (5 March 2025). "The collapse of El Salvador's bitcoin dream". The Week. Retrieved 10 October 2025. ...Effectively, bitcoin's days as legal tender in El Salvador are over.

Several of these sources mention that the law still calls bitcoin 'legal tender' but all of them emphasize that it no longer functions as legal tender, nor do they explain what an optional 'legal tender' non-currency is supposed to be. It seems like nonsense, so if any reliable sources explain this, I would like to see them.

Regardless, multiple sources discuss how this change is significant, so the article should also explain this. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have updated the article, and have tried to phrase this to differentiate between 'legal tender' and 'legal tender currency', whatever that means.

Regarding the infobox thing, infoboxes are for simple, non-controversial details. There isn't enough room in an infobox for nuance, and multiple reliable sources dispute this factoid, so it no longer belongs there. The article should not present out-of-date or misleading information in such simplistic terms. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

1. "Per the cited source, acceptance of bitcoin is no longer obligatory, nor is it used to pay taxes. It is therefor no longer legal tender": this is not what legal tender means. We should probably use "official currency" or "legal currency" instead of "legal tender currency".

2. Infobox: Bitcoin is still widely used in El Salvador. Use doesn't have to be official and/or government-approved to be displayed in this infobox. You can compare to United_States_dollar#Unofficial_users or Euro#Other_users. We know that 8% of Salvadorans use(d) bitcoin for transactions in 2024 (source, in steep decline). According to the IMF, 4.9% of sales are paid in BTC and 20% of businesses accept bitcoin: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2025/03/19/El-Salvador-Selected-Issues-565394 That seems high enough to me to justify inclusion. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I have not seen a source which attempts to explain what El Salvador means by 'legal tender' but not 'legal tender currency'. The distinction between this and "legal currency" / "official currency" is not going to add any clarity to the article without context from a reliable source. Our goal isn't to add confusion based on our own idiosyncratic interpretation of obtuse terms, and we have to stick to sources regardless.

"High enough" is arbitrary, and we cannot use original research for this, either. When bitcoin acceptance was obligatory, 20% of businesses said they accepted it, but very few of them ever actually put that to the test. Per that IMF PDF: The October 2022 “Encuesta Dinámica Empresarial” from FUSADES registered that 97.75% of business have not made even one sale in Bitcoin. NBER and Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveys show similar results.

Also, The Bitcoin law also states the exclusive role of the US dollar as currency for accounting purposes, which implies practical limitations to the use of Bitcoin for companies and the government. For example, the Treasury does not have accounts in Bitcoin, therefore all payments in Bitcoin are converted into dollar before being deposited in the Treasury account. Despite the lack of adoption, there is no evidence that the authorities are actively enforcing Bitcoin's legal tender status or sanctioning non-complaint firms. El Salvador isn't really treating it as a currency, so direct comparisons to the USD or Euro would be a category mismatch.

On the talk page, and in the body of the article, there is room for this kind of ambiguity, but not in the infobox. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair, I agree. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Removal of attribution line by David Andolfatto

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

<del>David Andolfatto, Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, stated that bitcoin is a threat to the establishment, which he argues is a good thing for the Federal Reserve System and other central banks, because it prompts these institutions to operate sound policies.</del>

+

• Why it should be changed:

The linked article doesn't say he claimed that Bitcoin is a threat to the establishment.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

His further discussion on the matter support that this isn't his claim.

To sum up, I think the future of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is to serve as an alternative asset class for investors. I doubt that it will ever become a dominant medium of exchange in any large economy. Fractional reserve banks using BTC as reserves are not likely to be tolerated.

Sibshops (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

References

The cited article (http://www.businessinsider.com/interview-with-david-andolfatto-2014-4) says exactly the following:

BI: You said Bitcoin could pose a threat to central banks. What did you mean?

Vgbyp (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

BI means it's a question from Buisness Insider. His response is a lot more reserved than saying "bitcoin is a threat to the establishment".

So that’s not gonna happen in the U.S., but to the extent there are other technologies looming out there, that threat might discipline central banks.

Sibshops (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I support removal. The comment is vague, WP:BI is a weak source, and because it's so broad, the comment's connection to the subsection header, 'Recognition as a currency and legal status', is ambiguous. If David Andolfatto is independently notable, a wikilink could help provide context, but even then... Right now this is not informative enough to preserve.

At bare minimum, this should say that this was in 2014. A lot has changed since then. Grayfell (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added dates, but still support removal. On a related note, the Velde quote in the sentence above that one seems like a non-neutral summary of the cited source. Per Velde:

So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited, particularly if one excludes illegal activities. It has been used as a means to transfer funds outside of traditional and regulated channels and, presumably, as a speculative investment opportunity. People bet on bitcoin because it may develop into a full-fledged currency. Some of bitcoin’s features make it less convenient than existing currencies and payment systems, particularly for those who have no strong desire to avoid them in the first place. Nor does it truly embody what Hayek and others in the “Austrian School of Economics” proposed. Should bitcoin become widely accepted, it is unlikely that it will remain free of government intervention, if only because the governance of the bitcoin code and network is opaque and vulnerable. That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves.

Velde doesn't use the word 'cryptocurrency' once in this paper. The author is clearly treating 'bitcoin' to mean all cryptocurrencies, since the conclusion talks about financial institutions issuing 'their own bitcoins'. To reduce this to bitcoin itself being called an "elegant solution" is pretty egregious cherry-picking. Lacking a WP:SECONDARY/WP:IS to contextualize this from a NPOV, I support removing this, as well. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I'm just going to be WP:BOLD about this and remove the paragraph about David Andolfatto altogether. The article referenced doesn't seem to support the statement that was being made and additionally the paragraph didn't seem to fit in with the section as a whole - it was saying nothing about Bitcoin or crypto's status as a currency, nor did it speak to its legal status. Arthfach ^{Talk • Changes} 08:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted based on this 2024 article ( https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2023/09/08/technological-change-and-central-banking ): Which emerging technologies today are likely to have a material impact on the future of commercial and central banking? The big invention, in my view, was Bitcoin: a radically new form of money and payments system introduced to the world in 2009. In a public lecture I delivered on March 31, 2014, I described Bitcoin as “a stroke of genius” and outlined the threat the innovation posed for central and private banks.3 Regulators, including central banks, will have to think hard about how to deal with the risks these new structures are likely to present. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to add the reliable source with attribution instead of putting back the unreliable source? How would you address the other claims such as not being relevant to the section of currency status of bitcoin? Sibshops (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted to allow the discussion to continue. I find Andolfatto's opinion interesting but I would simplify it to "David Andolfatto, Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, described bitcoin is a threat to central and private banks." The current section is not perfect but probably the best (least bad?) as Andolfatto describes what bitcoin could be one day (or not!). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense, I didn't realize it would be contentious. I'll wait for other people to weigh in. Sibshops (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If we're keeping the statement (which I disagree with; it doesn't reflect what the section is trying to convey) the best thing to do would be to use the reliable source you listed rather than a straight revert with the unreliable source. I'll let others handle if it should be there at all, or not, considering the WP:1RR restriction. Arthfach ^{Talk • Changes} 03:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

1. I agree that we should only use the latest RS.

2. If we keep the quote we could change it to According to David Andolfatto, Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, bitcoin is "a radically new form of money and payments system" which could threaten central and private banks.

3. The above quote seems OK to me in "Recognition as a currency and legal status" unless you think there is a better section? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This is only superficially informative, as it doesn't explain how bitcoin is a purported threat to banks. From this document, Andolfatto views bitcoin as a DAO (which is, itself, a controversial position, to put it lightly) and speculates that if bitcoin or another DAO became significantly more appealing as a safe asset it would contribute to inflation in a financial crisis. "These forces would greatly hinder the normal countercyclical response expected from monetary and fiscal authorities in a recession." I still support removal, since this doesn't seem due weight for this article, but if this is included, it needs to include context. The 'radically new' quote is page two, and is not treated by the author as the primary point being made. Andolfatto is mainly saying that bitcoin should prompt policy-makers to look into central bank digital currencies. Look at what the source is actually saying, not just the parts that match prior assumptions of what should be in the article. Grayfell (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The position of the vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis on bitcoin is relevant to this article. He talks a lot about it (see his website: https://sites.google.com/view/david-andolfatto/cryptocurrencies-cbdc ). We can indeed add that according to him bitcoin should prompt policy-makers to look into CBDC. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of authorities, policy-makers, and other officials who have written about bitcoin over the years, any of whom could be relevant. Why not those from Singapore, the UK, China, Iran, India, the EU, or Nigeria, all of which have had these kinds of internal debates? Obviously we cannot add them all, and especially not to this article instead of a sub-article. This is why Wikipedia favors secondary sources. Brevity is important here. Just because an opinion has been expressed doesn't mean we have to cram it in. In 2014, when this was added, it made more sense. The topic has evolved. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think these other countries are as relevant. But I agree that we should favor secondary RS. I'll remove it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Good catch on the Velde quote, I made a separate edit request to address this. Sibshops (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Removal of quote from François R. Velde from Recognition as a currency and legal status

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

In the section Bitcoin#Recognition_as_a_currency_and_legal_status

−

In 2013, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency

+

• Why it should be changed:

It's a non-neutral summary of the referenced article WP:NPOV.

Velde’s article does not claim that Bitcoin is recognized as a currency. Rather, while he acknowledges its innovative design, he concludes that Bitcoin’s use as a medium of exchange appears limited.

So far, the uses of bitcoin as a medium of exchange appear limited

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

See discussion in Talk:Bitcoin#Removal_of_attribution_line_by_David_Andolfatto

Link to the article.

Sibshops (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly neutral. Should it be expanded? Maybe but it is mostly an article about is design. That's why despite the low use at the time it concludes That said, it represents a remarkable conceptual and technical achievement, which may well be used by existing financial institutions (which could issue their own bitcoins) or even by governments themselves. Saying that the author uses "bitcoin" for "any cryptocurrency" is OR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw in 2015 he wrote the following where he clearly distinguishes bitcoin from "alt-coins": https://shs.cairn.info/article/ECOFI_120_0105 . a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

In 2017 he wrote this: https://www.suerf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/f_b495ce63ede0f4efc9eec62cb947c162_1253_suerf.pdf

"Bitcoin is remarkable. Monetary history abounds in examples of monetary tokens that are not explicitly backed or managed by a central authority, but they usually are tokens with an alternative use: a gold coin can always be melted down and turned (made of precious metals). Conversely, there are many examples of tokens that are intrinsically value less, but there is always an issuing entity, private or public, that is supposed to provide some convertibility, guarantee, or acceptability. Bitcoin is not only the first completely dematerialized token: it is unique in monetary history in being intrinsically valueless (there are no alternative uses to a bitcoin if the protocol ceased to be used) yet it is no one’s liability."

"I hasten to add that I view Bitcoin as a proof of concept rather than a fully-fledged currency: eight years after its appearance, and five years after it gained worldwide notoriety, the aggregate value of its stock is tiny compared to existing monetary stocks, its use in ordinary transactions remains limited, its value remains extremely volatile, and (as of writing) seems to be sought either for speculative reasons or as a way to evade capital controls. There seems little chance for Bitcoin to become much more, at least in advanced economies." (note: Aug 17 market cap = $77m vs $2200m today)

"In summary, Bitcoin is in my view a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems. It has nevertheless offered an interesting prototype and has generated interest in its underlying principles with potential applications to asset transfers. Central banks and regulators face a host of potential challenges, and the time may come soon when they will have to become involved in blockchains." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Since he is discussing the design of bitcoin and not a currency and legal status, instead of removal, would it make sense to move to another section?

By leaving his quote in the currency status section of the wiki page, it erroneously implies that Velde says it's a currency, while he actually views it as a proof-of-concept and not a currency. Sibshops (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

We should expand using the other two articles. For instance: In articles published between 2013 and 2017, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency" and "a proof of concept rather than a fully-fledged currency". According to him, bitcoin is "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems". Or we could just use the latest article (2017) that might reflect his latest opinion? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with expanding. Discussion its currency status seems relevant to the section in the wiki, too. Sibshops (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a shorter version. Let me know if OK. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not going to work. Combining different quotes form multiple primary sources spanning years is a form of cherry-picking. This is arbitrary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of documents just like this one discussing bitcoin from similar non-notable experts in economics and policy. If these quotes are special in some way, cite a WP:IS for them. Otherwise, any quotes will be arbitrary. Why not quote him saying "its use in ordinary transactions remains limited, its value remains extremely volatile, and (as of writing) seems to be sought either for speculative reasons or as a way to evade capital controls. There seems little chance for Bitcoin to become much more, at least in advanced economies."? That be just as informative and just as arbitrary.

To put it another way, our goal isn't to find the juiciest pull-quote. If Velde's position must be included for some reason, we should summarize what he is saying without editorializing, and highlighting only these quotes would be editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's not editorializing to cite the actual conclusion of an article: In summary, Bitcoin is in my view a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems. I agree that we can just keep this latest RS though. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Calling it nonsense does nothing to address the issue. This is a form of editorializing, but setting that aside, this is also not a proportionate summary of this position for the larger topic. This isn't Economics of bitcoin, or Bitcoin and politics, or Virtual currency law in the United States. If Velde's position is important enough to the topic of bitcoin to justify multiple quotes spanning years, figure out how to do it neutrally. Better yet, cite at least one WP:IS for this and use that to figure out how to summarize this position. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I offered two times (and now three) to only quote his latest paper's conclusion. No editorializing, no "multiple quotes spanning years" and it's proportionate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be: In 2017, François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "a remarkable achievement, although unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I still don't think this is necessary at all, and would benefit from independent sources. As a compromise, how about François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems." This is the bit that is relevant to the section 'Recognition as a currency and legal status'. There are better articles to go into detail about his opinions, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

After reading the discussion, I support removal.

• It isn't an independent or secondary source. WP:IS
• Off topic, doesn't discuss its recognition as a currency or discuss its legal status
• Descriptions like "remarkable" or "elegant" is editorializing and advocacy and not neutral summary. MOS:PUFFERY WP:NOTADVOCACY

Sibshops (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

1. The source is of course independent from the topic. But yes it's not secondary.

2. It's not off topic, the section talks about bitcoin as a currency so an economist saying that it is "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems" is relevant.

3. "remarkable" is used by the author itself so it cannot be editorializing or advocacy or non neutral.

I think Grayfell's compromise is good. Ideally we would have secondary sources showing that bitcoin is precisely only/mostly used in "non-functioning monetary systems" (Venezuela? Turkey? Argentina?) and his opinion would then fit well after that. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Good point about independence, the secondary nature of the source is the primary concern.

2. I agree the "unlikely by itself to replace monies..." portion is the only part relevant to the section. That communicates his position without promotional tone.

3. Quoting remarkable may technically accurate attribution, but it isn't necessary to convey currency status and it doesn't add encyclopedic value.

(missed this)

4. I missed is other point Grayfell brought up about WP:UNDUE. It gives too much weight to a single economist's opinion relative to all the literature out there.

5. (new and edited) Now that I think about it, would speculating about the future fail the 10-year test? WP:10YT Predictions or forward-looking statements can become outdated. Sibshops (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the conversation, maybe we can divide this discussion in to two separate discussions.

It seems we reached consensus to remove

In 2013, François R. Velde, Senior Economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "an elegant solution to the problem of creating a digital currency

Maybe we can remove since everyone agrees on that, then start another thread on whether to add these sections in:

Section with

> Ideally we would have secondary sources showing that bitcoin is precisely only/mostly used in "non-functioning monetary systems"

and

François Velde, senior economist at the Chicago Fed, described bitcoin as "unlikely by itself to replace monies in well-functioning monetary systems.

Sibshops (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

References

El Salvador and Bitcoin

Its listed as Official user, which is missinformation. Its not legal tender anymore, but it can be used by private trade. In that case every country that hasnt banned bitcoin should be listed, and thats not the intention I assume.

https://dig.watch/updates/bitcoin-is-no-longer-legal-tender-in-el-salvador

Bitcoin is no longer legal tender in El Salvador 146.2.132.96 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article, and have also updated the map on Commons. Grayfell (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Grayfell: you reverted to re-add the claim that bitcoin is no longer legal tender in El Salvador here. Do you have a source for this? I explained in my edit that one of the present sources directly contradicts this claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Request to add 2025 FHFA mortgage guidance info

I suggest adding a sentence to the "Regulation" or "Adoption" section regarding the 2025 guidance from U.S. housing regulators, which legitimizes Bitcoin as an asset for real estate finance. This is a significant development in the integration of cryptocurrency with traditional housing markets. Proposed text: In June 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to consider cryptocurrency assets as part of a borrower's overall wealth for mortgage qualification. This regulatory shift has led to the emergence of new home equity products that allow homeowners to collateralize real estate holdings to fund digital asset investments. MykeHunt99 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, if we want to add information about bitcoin's adoption or status as collateral, it should probably cover the overall current status rather than focusing solely on the recent change in U.S. government-backed housing loans. Sibshops (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done per the above comment, as this addition gives WP:UNDUE weight to a different topic. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 12:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Removing investing terminology

@Of 19 I don't think you can remove investing terminology, that's the way it's used in the source.

For example the pew research study asked this:

Overall, 17% of U.S. adults say they have ever invested in, traded or used a cryptocurrency.

Sibshops (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

This is about this edit (I assume).

There's a deeper issue. This isn't Cryptocurrency, this article is specifically about bitcoin. The cited source doesn't mention "bitcoin" at all. It links to articles about 'bitcoin', but the survey is not limited to bitcoin, and the questions that were asked were generically about "cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or Ether". That survey should be removed from this article and instead it could be better summarized elsewhere. Specifically, it should be summarized over-all, instead of the most digestible sound-bite from the middle. Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you are right. This seems OR or SYNTH. It's using a generic crypto survey in a bitcoin-only context to imply the statistic is about bitcoin. It implies that 17% have used bitcoin which the source didn't say. I second moving to cryptocurrency. Sibshops (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've moved the source to cryptocurrency and rephrased it to more faithfully summarize its findings. I am not attached to that new wording, but that article's talk page would be the place to discuss changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Needs "BUGS/GLITCHES/HACKS HISTORY" section

In 2010 Bitcoin had a bug that made about 184.5 BILLION Bitcoin supply and the community had to fix this bug and roll back the chain. https://coingeek.com/alert-key-mechanism-free-transactions-protocol-restorations-bitcoin-protocol-and-sv-node-updates/ https://decrypt.co/39750/184-billion-bitcoin-anonymous-creator https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1fqzf53/why_did_the_184_billion_bitcoin_overflow_incident/

Then there was some kind of double-spend bug that happened that enabled people to make more within their wallet in 2013 and the chain rolled back again i think.

The world deserves to know any time Bitcoin has had any bugs, glitches, hacks or other problems. KingsRight1 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those links are to reliable sources. It looks like David Auerbach's 2023 book mentions these incidents. That may be a good starting point, since it seems like there may be a few more reliable sources out there, as well. Grayfell (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

overload

The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has exceeded 640 MB and there are approximately 25,000 active full nodes as of September 2025. Consider the following statement: “The projected growth of the Bitcoin mainnet, which currently stores more than 16 Petabytes of duplicated data across all participating nodes is unsustainable, and it will overload Internet bandwidth long before block rewards fall to zero once the 13,440,000^th block is mined ~2025-40951-32 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

To add this, it will need references to a reliable secondary sources. And to keep it in a neutral point-of-view, a statement about mitigations like checkpoints would probably be needed, as well. Sibshops (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Use for payment section. Update needed

Under the: 'Use for payments' section its written: " El Salvador still describes bitcoin as "legal tender", but its acceptance is no longer obligitory (as it is with the US dollar) and the El Salvador government no longer accepts bitcoin for payment of taxes or fee"

This is not factual correct: El Salvador merchants no longer obliged to accept bitcoin

Bitcoin is no longer legal tender in El Salvador  | Digital Watch Observatory

Its not legal tender at all anymore. They dont describe it as 'legal tender' this just be updated 146.2.132.15 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the active discussion of this above, at #Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_8_October_2025_(2). Please don't create more talk page sections to discuss the same issue.

Per this source: The reform eliminated the word “currency” when referring to bitcoin, but says it is “legal tender.” Despite the lack of clarity... Wikipedia has to follow sources, even when sources say it is not clear.

If you know of a source which explains this more clearly, please provide a link to it. Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You admit the source says it is still considered legal tender. Then what is the justification for removal of the legal tender wording? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This was already discussed at #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2025 (2), which is why I advised the IP to join the discussion of above. Per cited sources, bitcoin is functionally no longer legal tender in El Salvador, and our goal should be to neutrally summarize sources. This is also explained in the article at Bitcoin#Use for payments. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Apologies, we do seem to have multiple talk page sections on this, and it seems expedient for us to continue in this thread, unless you object. I did read your comments above. It seems they were earlier directed at the infobox, and now you are advocating removal of the legal tender claim from the article based on WP:SYNTH. If it is legal tender (and the source you cited you admit states that), we leave that text. It can possibly be explained, if it is so important (I dont think it is but you might). However, your SYNTH arguments are not sufficient and do not support the claim. We follow what the sources say. Do we even have any mainstream RS on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The sources are already cited in the above section, and in the article itself, which is why I repeatedly and specifically suggested discussing it there instead of here.

The disputed section says In January 2025, El Salvador amended its laws to no longer regard bitcoin as a legal tender currency, and to no longer accept it as payment for taxes (emphasis added). This is per many sources. If you have a reliable source which explains what it means to be a legal tender non-currency as relates to El Salvador, please propose them on this page for discussion, preferably the section above, not here. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

this is WP:JARGON and probably SYNTH. Do we have RS that state that it is no longer a currency? We have a source that says it is still legal tender. I dont need to provide sources to refute the longstanding wording the article. The ONUS is upon you to provide sources to justify your recent edit, or it needs to go back to something neutral. Right now it looks like some sort of word smithed POV> Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

As I said, the sources are already cited. Your preferred wording is not the long-standing consensus, because this article was updated based on multiple recent sources, and this was already discussed in the above section. Here are some of those sources repeated for your convenience:

• "El Salvador Abandons Bitcoin as Legal Tender After Failed Experiment". The Tico Times. AFP. 2 February 2025. Retrieved 10 October 2025.
• Ignacio Hernández, José (17 March 2025). "In El Salvador, Bitcoin's Retreat Left Valuable Lessons". Americas Quarterly. Retrieved 10 October 2025. Facing the opposition of the multilateral lender, the government and the Legislative Assembly opted to abolish Bitcoin's status as legal tender in January, limiting its "voluntary" use to the private sector.
• Hall, Katarina (3 February 2025). "El Salvador walks back its bitcoin law". Reason.com. Retrieved 10 October 2025. The Legislative Assembly has approved changes to the country's Bitcoin Law, effectively removing bitcoin's status as legal currency.
• Marsden, Harriet (5 March 2025). "The collapse of El Salvador's bitcoin dream". The Week. Retrieved 10 October 2025. ...Effectively, bitcoin's days as legal tender in El Salvador are over.

There are other sources, as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Then add a proper source to the article. This is the first time I have seen you list these sources (if you already did above and I didnt see it, I apologize). Regardless the text you are adding to the article needs to be properly sourced. If the currency is still legal to use in the country, our current summary in wikivoice (that you re-added again) is not a neutral summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Your own edit summary for this includes a quote from the cited source supporting this wording: The reform eliminated the word “currency” when referring to bitcoin, but says it is “legal tender.” Despite the lack of clarity, it lifts, as required by the IMF, the obligation to accept it in transactions or debt payments, a key condition for it to be “legal tender,” according to economic analysts. Did you misinterpret this? To rephrase this for clarity, a key requirement of bitcoin being legal tender currency is a legal obligation to accept bitcoin in transactions and debt payments. By lifting this requirement, bitcoin is no longer legal tender currency in El Salvador.

The other cited source for this says, El Salvador has reversed its historic decision to make Bitcoin legal tender, following pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). and later El Salvador’s Congress agreed to remove Bitcoin’s legal tender status, ensuring that the government and businesses would no longer be required to accept it.

These sources are not ambiguous. Grayfell (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Digiwatch is essentially a blog, this is funded by two governments. Not at all an RS on this subject. The other source states it is still legal tender. I am not sure about that second part where you go on to synth the requirement of a legal tender to be accepted for government payments. Seems a bit nuanced and when I ask chatgpt if this is true (my OR attempt to verify your SYNTH), it doesnt even agree with that basis. It states that some governments dont accept coins for tax payments but coins are still legal tender for private transactions. Key point here is you are pushing too much of a POV here, that doesnt follow the sources used. Two of the sources you use above use the term "effectively" and others are all quite vague. Thus we need to put this in a proper light in wikivoice, we dont create certainty out of uncertainty, that is not how wikipedia works. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

still legal tender for private transactions

I think both people are right, actually. The issue is that legal tender has a different definition in El Salvador than the standard one. If we go by the wikipedia definition of legal tender it means it can be used as a payment to settle a debt. And only USD can do that in El Salvador. Sibshops (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

"And only USD can do that in El Salvador.": do you have a source for that? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, here are some sources:

Primary source which says bitcoin acceptance is both defined as legal tender in the law, but is voluntary.

https://www.jurisprudencia.gob.sv/DocumentosBoveda/D/2/2020-2029/2021/06/E75F3.PDF

Art. 1.- La presente Ley tiene como objeto la regulación del Bitcoin como curso legal, definido por su poder liberatorio ilimitado, con aceptación voluntaria por las personas naturales o jurídicas con total participación privada únicamente, en cualquier transacción y a cualquier título que requieran realizar.

(Probably shouldn't be included since it could be considered original research.)

Secondary sources saying that since people aren't required to accept it so it loses it's legal tender status.

A law firm:

https://blplegal.com/major-changes-to-el-salvadors-bitcoin-law/

IMF:

https://www.elibrary.imf.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/002/2025/058/002.2025.issue-058-en.pdf Sibshops (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, accepting BTC for payments is voluntary. What matters for legal tender is whether courts of law are required to recognize BTC as satisfactory payment in court for any monetary debt (see legal tender). This is what article 13 says: "Todas las obligaciones en dinero expresadas en dólares, existentes con anterioridad a la vigenciade la presente ley, podrán ser pagadas en bitcoin." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

In the law you mentioned "podrán ser pagadas en bitcoin." means may be paid. But typically, for legal tender status, "deberá aceptar" would be used, which means must accept.

For example, this is how it was written before it got amended.

Art. 7. Todo agente económico deberá aceptar bitcoin como forma de pago cuando así le sea ofrecido por quien adquiere un bien o servicio.

https://www.uif.gob.sv/wp-content/uploads/leyes/Ley-Bitcoin.pdf

So I could see both being right. And it makes sense why the sources conflict. It's legal tender one way you look at it and not legal tender in another way you look at it. Sibshops (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, legal tender means "courts of law are required to recognize as satisfactory payment in court for any monetary debt". Article 13 says that a debt may be paid in bitcoin. So I understand that courts of law would consider it a satisfactory payment. Of course, this is OR between us. RS confirm that bitcoin is still legal tender but not anymore legal currency in El Salvador, which is what people understand as "legal tender". So I think the current article is OK. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think WP:OR is allowed when it comes to evaluating sources. So I think we are in the clear to discuss why some sources say it is legal tender and why do other sources say it isn't.

From WP:OR,

This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Since it's not cut and dry, maybe there's a middle ground here? Like we could say "some sources say it meets the definition of legal tender while others don't." or something like that. Sibshops (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen any reliable sources which directly say it still meets the definition of legal tender. At most, they say it is in-name-only. The purpose of these edits was to make sure readers are not mislead about the current situation. Both Bitcoin in El Salvador and Bitcoin Law would benefit from a reliably sourced explanation of this legal idiosyncrasy. If anyone finds a source explaining this, let us know. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

We dont need sources to re-assert that it is legal tender. We have prior sources prior to the law change stating it was legal tender at that time. We have subsequent sources that continue to state it is legal tender, one of them on the article right now that you added and have used in your justification in this discussion. OR and SYNTH are not allowed here to push a particular narrative on this article, nor are they allowed on other articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, here's the draft. User:Sibshops/el_salvador_draft

Before publishing, how does it look? I'm thinking of posting it in Talk:Bitcoin_in_El_Salvador then linking to that talk page from here. Sibshops (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should still say legal tender in the text in someway. But it is a unique case in that both the creditor and debtor have to agree to be paid in bitcoin for it to discharge debt. Unlike legal tender elsewhere, it's only legal tender if both parties agree to it. So that makes it not really legal tender but more like a method of payment. So to be fair also I understand those other sources which are saying it lost its legal tender status. Sibshops (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

If we editors cant figure out the nuance, then we should not cover it. Issue is the legal tender status is one of these DUE concepts already being covered. I think we just need to figure out more neutral text for it. I have take a couple passes at it, and both were reverted by Grayfell. We dont have many good sources on this, some are vague (as I suppose we editors are also confused), some say outright it is still legal tender but not accepted for govt debts. We have some other sources that are generally not reliable (such as the swiss govt blog). Want to propose some more options? Seems it would be ideal if we could get more options prior to going to RFC (if we have to go there). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The current article still does say that it's labeled by the El Salvador government as legal tender, and the current article also explains that it isn't a legal tender currency. The contradiction is already explained. I have not seen a single reliable source which says that El Salvador's is still using bitcoin as a legal tender currency.

Since this seems to be a source of confusion, not being a legal tender currency doesn't make bitcoin illegal. Bitcoin is legal for private transactions, but that wasn't really in question. This is not the same as "legal tender for private transactions".

To provide some context, if someone is fined by a government (or lose a civil suite over a contract or whatever), a government usually will not force that person to give up their specific possession which have no direct connection to the legal issue (their house or car or Pokemon cards whatever). Instead, they can demand that the person raises money, and if the only way to raise that money is to sell those things, so be it. Likewise, a private entity may or may not choose to accept bitcoin for a debt, but if the law becomes involved, the cash value is the important part. To put it another way, if you say to a court 'he owes me 2.5 bitcoin', the judge is going to ask, 'how much is that worth'? Meaning in cash.

Bitcoin isn't being used to account for debt, it's at most being sold for its cash value to resolve that debt. This is why it isn't 'legal tender currency'. Again, I have not seen a single reliable source which says that El Salvador is is still using bitcoin as a legal tender currency. Grayfell (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The term "legal tender currency" is not found in RS and seems to be original research. We shouldn't use it. We should use "official currency" for instance. Bitcoin is not an official currency of El Salvador but it remains according to the gov "legal tender", a designation that does not seem to mean much. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the only option available it just to describe the situation in full?

For example,

As of 2025, the Salvadoran government continues to describe bitcoin as legal tender, but a January 2025 reform removed any obligation for businesses or the state to accept it (including for taxes). Several reliable sources therefore characterize bitcoin’s legal-tender status as effectively ended in practice, while others note the label remains in law.

Sibshops (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The proposal is better than nothing, but I would remove the commentary about several/other sources (this is a bit redundant and is mild editorializing). I would also mention the IMF, since per sources this is the reason for the change.

The gist is that we shouldn't be misleading readers into thinking that Bitcoin is actually used as legal tender in El Salvador. Per reliable sources, bitcoin no longer functions as legal tender, regardless of the government's choice of terms for it. The context here is that the government's Chivo wallet was purported to allow bitcoin to be used as a currency for day-to-day transactions. This did not work very well, if at all, for multiple reasons. The government's involvement with Chivo was ostensibly ended shortly before the law itself was changed. This was likewise due to pressure from the IMF. If the article implies that bitcoin is used as legal tender in El Salvador, we are misleading readers. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The change being made from IMF pressure is also due in my opinion as well. I dont have any personal knowledge, but what I have read here is that Bitcoin is still legal to use in the country, which makes it sound like legal tender to me. The whole extra part about if you consider it to have 'worked very well' isnt really relevant to this line. If you want to add another line stating the trial in the country 'didnt go very well' feel free to add that with appropriate sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"Bitcoin is still legal to use in the country, which makes it sound like legal tender to me": that's not what legal tender means. Bitcoin is legal to use in France and the US and yet no one would ever say that Bitcoin is legal tender there. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Legal to use =/= legal tender. Two parties can voluntarily discharge a debt in France and the US using bitcoin and it isn't legal tender. Functionally, bitcoin operates the same in El Salvador as it does in France and in the US. The difference is the label legal tender in both the primary source and in many secondary sources.

How about this:

As of 2025, the Salvadoran government continues to describe Bitcoin as legal tender under the 2021 Bitcoin Law; however, a January 2025 reform removed obligations for businesses and the government to accept it, so many analysts regard its legal-tender status as effectively ended in practice.”

Sibshops (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. Since nobody has objected or proposed anything better, I've made the change. Grayfell (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, we also have an issue to discuss about the map colors and treatment here Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory, and the talk discussion here Talk:Legality_of_cryptocurrency_by_country_or_territory#Bitcoin as legal tender in El Salvador no more correct. This article was recently changed from legal tender to legal, just wondering what other editors thought of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Since this has been a recurring point of confusion, please acknowledge that 'legal to use' and 'legal tender' are separate concepts, otherwise any discussion is going to be a big waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I dont know what the definition of legal tender is in El Salvador. Do you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You're jumping the gun. I know what the term means in English, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. The English definition of 'legal tender' can be found at Wikt:legal tender:

1. (law) Any form of currency that, by law, cannot be refused as payment to extinguish a debt equal to the amount offered.

Other dictionaries are similar:,. If you don't accept this, or are using some other definition, this conversation is going to be frustrating for everyone. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Legal tender article also says this: "There is no obligation on the creditor to accept the tendered payment, but the act of tendering the payment in legal tender discharges the debt." It would appear to meet this criteria to me. Now I see that I am looking at the wikipedia article versus the wiktionary article. It does not appear to meet the criteria in the wiktionary article as I think payment is now optional, meaning it can be refused. Is that the logic? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

It does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, either. Here's a scenario:

I agree to paint your fence for $20 dollars. You offer to pay me with a $20 bill, but I refuse. That's my problem. You get to keep the $20 and I get nothing. Your offer to pay in cash discharged the debt. As far as the law is concerned, I have no legal recourse.

Here's another scenario:

You offer to pay me $20 worth of bitcoin. Again, I choose to refuse. This time, it's still your problem. You still owe me 20 dollars. Since bitcoin is not legal tender, your offer does not discharge the debt. I would have legal recourse to get that money in cash.

That's what the "legal" means in "legal tender". This applies in both the U.S. and El Salvador.

Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The wikipedia article says "the act of tendering the payment in legal tender discharges the debt" thus it seems we are debating something beyond the scope of this article. We are debating our intrepreation of some change in El Salvador makes it legal tender or not. We have sources going both ways and now we are debating if we should follow the wikitionary defitinition or the wikipedia definition. Sounds to me it is still currency in El Salvador as it is legal to use and is not being treated as property/commodity like it is in the US. Should we instead work to align the wikipedia article to wiktionary (if it is possible) and then return to interpret this article based upon that discussion? If we dont want to do that, then we need to decide which definition to use, wiktionary or wikipedia, which seem to be quite different. Maybe as virtual currencies take rise, this becomes more of an modern discussion, certainly in light of the IMF's/NGO(state sponsored) opposition and efforts to push us through the press to push a POV here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Neither Wiktionary nor Wikipedia are reliable sources, and even if they were, it would be WP:OR to 'align' article content to one of them. We go by reliable sources, and if such sources differ, we describe both perspectives, with due regard to balancing per the weight of sourcing available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Since this part of the discussion is about "legal to use" vs "legal tender" and if legality of bitcoin should include "legal tender" status or not, maybe this conversation should take place on the talk page of Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory article instead of here? Sibshops (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

If we do not share a common understanding of these basic terms and concepts, as I said, any discussion of this is going to be a waste of time. This is an encyclopedia, and words matter here.

Regardless, Wiktionary and Wikipedia are already 'aligned', and Jtbobwaysf's comments here mean we do not have enough of a shared baseline for this discussion to be productive. Grayfell (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• So what is to be done with the summary in the lead of this article, as in the body we are sort of waffling on if it was revoked as legal tender, but in the lead we are stating it was. The lead should summarize the body. Or just delete it entirely from the lead? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I see no contradiction between the body and the lead. We are not waffling, as the current wording is a reasonably neutral summary of multiple cited sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

We previously agreed and the body text has now been changed to remove the legal tender claim. Correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I second deleting the sentence from the lead. It seems like too much weight is given to how bitcoin is used in a single country and is also difficult to summarize. Sibshops (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed it since we cant agree on it. Anyhow, at this point in time it is just another country that allows its use in some way (there are many). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Nice. As an aside, I thought we did reach an agreement. This is a case of WP:BALANCE where we have to describe both. Some sources say it's referred to as legal tender and other sources say it lost it's status as legal tender.

From WP:BALANCE:

When reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.

Sibshops (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I thought we had reached and agreement for the body and I felt like the LEAD was not a summary of that. We can always make a new summary and put it back in the lead. Here is how it is dealt with on Legal_tender#El_Salvador, it still says it is legal tender. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm... if we do want something in the lead how about:

El Salvador experimented with bitcoin as legal tender in the early 2020s before scaling back its use.

Sibshops (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I am ok with it. Lets see what Grayfell (talk · contribs) says. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources are clear on this issue. Replacing reliably sourced content with vague, borderline euphemistic language would be inappropriate. Your personal failure to understand what reliable sources are saying has become disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

To me this whole discussion is odd. We have discussed the sources a lot in this section, and we have agreed to make a change to the article body. If the sources are good enough for the body, then we summarize them in the lead. Which sources are you talking about, is it the same sources we have been discussing in this whole talk page section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, I kind of see Grayfell's point. The term "voluntary legal tender" is an oxymoron.

• Legal tender -> acceptance is not optional
• Voluntary acceptance -> acceptance is optional

So does WP:COMMONSENSE apply here? Should we say it's not legal tender to better inform the reader of the status? Or try to apply WP:BALANCE and thread the needle to incorporate various sources which still refer to bitcoin as legal tender. Sibshops (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Should we say it's not legal tender to better inform the reader of the status? The way to go, it is a fact that most authorities do not recognize it as legal tender even if it is accepted here and there in a small minority of cases. Threading the needle would be a false balance imo. Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems I am the only one taking this position now, so if that is the case, I am not opposed to deferring to the others. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Naw, I don't think you are the only one. There are at least 3 others who are just not commenting at the moment.

And to be fair, you raise good points about WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. And it's not crystal clear if it is a case of WP:BALANCE or WP:FALSEBALANCE, either. Overall, it's sort of a matter of de jure "legal tender in name" vs de facto "legal tender in practice" and how we want to communicate it.

I'm noticing that this is an issue across other pages as well. I'm wondering if maybe an RFC is in order to save us from a lot of future discussion. Then the other pages can be updated to the outcome of the RFC, too. Sibshops (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

It does impact a number of articles, and I think it would be ideal if we could find a consensus for those and then of course summarize it in the lead of this article. Seems we are mostly discussing the lead here and leaving the other articles alone, which is the wrong approach. I do support your idea to have an RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)