I would like to create this page, describing bitcoin in an easy manner. ---
"These bitcoins are valuable because they require the spending of real resources (CPU time and electricity) to produce,"
this seems to me the cost-theory of value, which is a fallacy. Digging holes in the ground requires spending of resources too.
Good page, but I was expecting a more concise introduction. Perhaps give it a more punchy, concise start?
--Mcnalu 14:43, 15 May 2011 (GMT)
The idea for the "resources" talk was that people who spend CPU time and electricity to mine bitcoins will not want to simply give it away for free. The people who buy it from them later in exchange for something valuable also won't want to give it away cheaper, and so on. I think this kind of talk makes sense if you wish to promote Bitcoin because if you talk to people about it, basing its "worth" on how many people are already using it (how "useful" it is), you are conceding to Bitcoin's being subject to network effects, which, if it is, it is not going to survive. I hate to see great ideas like this going down because of stupid chicken-and-egg problems.
I suppose it's easy to present this all as useless electricity wasting, but at least it's based on something real. You spend this much electricity/CPU time, you get this many bitcoins. The alternative is the "good" old papers+guns system. What is that based on?
I haven't been following the arguments about the "gold standard" and whether it's "good" or "bad", and things like that. Haven't been in the forum much lately. Perhaps we could argue indefinitely about this. IMO, it's better for Bitcoin if the introduction talks about tangible things (maybe electricity isn't "tangible" but at least it's not dependent on people).
I'm going to change the phrase to talk about both the "usefulness" and the resources.
--Prcarter 06:29, 8 September 2011 (GMT)
This introduction shows Bitcoin's place and how it relates to the traditional banking system. It's to make people conscious of what is really going on and of the level of trust they are already placing on banks and those printed pieces of paper we base our survival on. I would hate a "buy bitcoins, they are cool"-type "promo".
--Prcarter 06:40, 8 September 2011 (GMT)
Yes, "maintaining account balances" tones it down a little.
--Prcarter 06:44, 8 September 2011 (GMT)
I had to change this back. Bitcoins do not have value because they take labor or electricity to create. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#The_relation_between_values_and_prices While it is true that the value will tend to the cost of production, that is incidental. --Atheros 02:59, 25 October 2011 (GMT)
I've started filling-in a few sections of the Italian version it.bitcoin.it. If you don't mind, I am using this page as the basis. So, I'm translating it and tightening it up at the same time. Would it be OK? I've also added a summary, using the bitcoin entry in wikipedia.
Gianco 19:50, 16 June 2011 (GMT)
Banking and Money, in general
I am not sure about all the users of this site who are interested in and trying to understand BitCoin (as I am), but personally, I found myself, even quite recently, without an understanding about how banking and money works at all. The Khan Academy video series on banking and money was very helpful, I thought perhaps you might want to include a link in the Introduction and Basic Concepts. http://www.khanacademy.org/#banking-and-money I think the more regular people can understand these basic things, the more they will be interested and engaged.
Thanks and great work so far it seems
Cruiser moves 12:44, 23 June 2011 (GMT)
Confusion : how the Money is valued
The introduction is not upfront enough as to how Bitcoins get their value and why people are prepared to except them as money.ie We need on overview of the introduction to explain this without the explainations as to how they are created and cannot be duplicated. I gather what happens is that as long as there are enough people with things to sell and willing buyers then the money then gets its value due to its expanding usage.That is someone who has sold something can then turn around and buy something else with a bitcoin. Is that right? And since the coins themselves are made scare by the design of their creation(time and energy) and their intrinsic unforgability (due to the mathematics) they then can be traded with confidence.Yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9Bones (talk • contribs) at 07:37, 3 August 2011