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.[1] 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.[2]

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.[3][4] 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.[5][6] 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:[7],[8]. 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)[]

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)[]

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)[]

The “2008-2009 Creation” section links to https://www.wired.com/story/after-10-years-bitcoin-changed-everything-nothing/ when referring to the initial announcement on the “Cryptography” mailing list. I’d like to suggest to (also?) link directly to that mailing list archive of that very post: https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-October/014810.html Jschauma (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

This is a primary source: not ideal. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[]

One of the sentences in the lead has a really big link for just one thing, which I think is a bit distracting:

- From 2021 to 2025, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender currency before revoking it.

I suggest we shorten it to:

- From 2021 to 2025, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender currency before revoking it.

(I would do it myself but the page is protected) (`<`) Funni Dot (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I would like to suggest adding a short neutral paragraph about physical Bitcoin art to the article, possibly in a culture-related section. I may have a connection to one of the artists/projects mentioned in the sources, so I am requesting review instead of editing the article directly.

Suggested text: Physical Bitcoin art is a form of visual or material art inspired specifically by Bitcoin, rather than by cryptocurrency or non-fungible tokens in general. It may include handmade works such as embroidery, painting, textile art, sculpture, prints, or objects that reference Bitcoin’s monetary system, decentralization, mining, cryptography, scarcity, and Satoshi Nakamoto. Some artists and curators describe this approach as Bitcoin-only and separate from NFTs or other cryptoassets.

Sources:

• Bitcoin Magazine, "How Companies Are Adding Bitcoin Art to Their Corporate Collections", https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-art-corporate-culture-treasury
• Bitcoin for the Arts, "Stitching Sovereignty: Aksana Zasinets and the Thread of Bitcoin in Contemporary Art", https://www.bitcoinforthearts.org/stories/aksana-zasinets
• BuyBitArt, "About", https://buybitart.com/about
• BTC Prague, "FractalEncrypt", https://btcprague.com/speakers/fractalencrypt/
• Timechain Artifacts, "BTC Prague Art Gallery 2026", https://timechainartifacts.com/12-BTCP26

Alexbtcfree (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

We would need non-cryptocurrency website sources for this one. Vgbypw (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I understand that cryptocurrency-related sources are not enough for this request.

Would the following non-cryptocurrency / art-related sources be more appropriate?

Sidorova, E. “The Cyber Turn of the Contemporary Art Market” — discusses the 2018 Paris exhibition “Bitcoin Art (R)evolution” in the context of the contemporary art market.

https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-03567070/file/2019-07-sidorova-cyber-turn-contemporary-art-arts-8-84.pdf

dminti Digital & Crypto Art Chronology — includes the launch of Cointemporary Bitcoin Art Gallery in 2014, described as temporary online exhibitions of Bitcoin art.

https://dminti.com/digital-art-chronology/

Artmajeur — artist/artwork listing for Aksana Zasinets and “World of Bitcoin”.

https://www.artmajeur.com/aksana-zasinets/en/artworks/19715923/world-of-bitcoin

ArtConnect — artist profile and artwork listing for Aksana Zasinets, including “WORLD OF BITCOIN” as textile art / handmade cross-stitch embroidery.

https://www.artconnect.com/aksana-zasinets-0n2xL4IqOJsBIGCkYAZWT

Art Laguna World — artwork listing “UNKNOWN BITCOIN” by Aksana Zasinets.

https://artelaguna.world/artist/zasinets-aksana/ ~2026-35121-06 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you! Of these, only the article by Elena Sidorova is a true RS. Unfortunately, it only mentions 'bitcoin art' as a part of the quoted art exhibition's name, and doesn't use it as a standalone term otherwise. DMINTI source is 50/50 in my opinion. I think it's too weak to for this entry. Perhaps other editors have something else to say on this topic. Vgbypw (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I understand.

I looked for more non-cryptocurrency sources. I agree that these sources may not be enough for a separate “Bitcoin art” section.

Maybe a smaller sentence about Bitcoin in contemporary art and the art market can be better.

I found these sources:

ARTnews, “MAK Vienna Becomes First Museum to Use Bitcoin to Acquire Art”

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/mak-vienna-becomes-first-museum-to-acquire-art-using-bitcoin-a-harm-van-den-dorpel-3995/

Hyperallergic, “Buying Art in Bitcoin”

https://hyperallergic.com/buying-art-in-bitcoin/

MAK Vienna press release, “MAK purchases digital art work by Harm van den Dorpel with Bitcoin”

https://www.mak.at/jart/prj3/mak-resp/data/uploads//downloads/presse/2015/Harm_van_Dorpel_e.pdf

Elena Sidorova, “The Cyber Turn of the Contemporary Art Market”

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/3/84

Furtherfield, “Artists Re:Thinking the Blockchain”

https://www.furtherfield.org/artists-rethinking-blockchain/

The Guardian, “Simon Denny: the artist explaining blockchain with Pokemon”

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/aug/26/simon-denny-artist-blockchain-pokemon

Surface Magazine, “Simon Denny Decodes Bitcoin”

https://www.surfacemag.com/articles/artist-simon-denny-petzel-gallery/

Maybe this smaller text can be acceptable:

“Bitcoin has appeared in contemporary art and the art market as a subject, a payment method, and a technology used for provenance. In 2014, Hyperallergic reported on Cointemporary, an online art gallery where artworks could only be bought with Bitcoin. In 2015, ARTnews reported that MAK Vienna became the first museum to use Bitcoin to acquire an artwork. Academic writing has also discussed exhibitions and artworks connected with Bitcoin, blockchain, and the contemporary art market.”

Thank you for your time and help. ~2026-35121-06 (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I found one source from Mozilla Festival. It says that “Bitcoin Threads” is a hand-embroidered art installation by Aksana / 5Ksana.

https://pretalx.com/mozilla-festival-2025/talk/GKAQQN/

This source can show that the artwork was part of Mozilla Festival. ~2026-35121-06 (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

None of the websites given here counts as mainstream media coverage, and therefore probably fails WP:DUE. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:03, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you. I understand the WP:DUE concern.

I looked again for stronger mainstream media sources. I found some better sources, but I understand that they may still not support a separate “Bitcoin art” section.

The strongest source I found is Bloomberg Businessweek. It uses the phrase “Bitcoin-art-puzzle phenomenon”. It also says that these artworks started to enter the mainstream through galleries, museums, international exhibitions, and video games. It also mentions the Paris exhibition “Bitcoin Art (r)evolution”.

I also found The Guardian and SFGate articles about Kuno Goda’s work “200 Bitcoins”. These articles show Bitcoin as a subject in physical/pop art.

I found Reuters and Financial Times sources about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as payment in the art market.

Maybe a smaller text would be more neutral:

“Bitcoin has appeared in contemporary art and the art market as a subject and as a payment method. Examples include Bitcoin-themed artworks and art sales where Bitcoin was accepted as payment.”

Possible sources:

Bloomberg Businessweek / Olga Kharif, “Your Bitcoins Are Hidden in the Painting”

https://www.inkl.com/news/your-bitcoins-are-hidden-in-the-painting

The Guardian, “Warhol-style 200 bitcoin print bought by anonymous buyer”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/03/warhol-style-200-bitcoin-print-bought-by-anonymous-buyer

SFGate, “Bitcoin gets the pop art treatment”

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/bitcoin-gets-the-pop-art-treatment-5393493.php

Reuters, “Christie’s ready to take crypto payments for Keith Haring painting”

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/christies-ready-take-crypto-payments-keith-haring-painting-2021-06-24/

Financial Times, “Top auction houses courted the crypto crew - is it enough to save them?”

https://www.ft.com/content/100fe736-df81-4991-bb02-4ef67ff6b29c

The Art Newspaper, “Crypto-creep accelerates as Sotheby’s accepts Ether and Bitcoin for $5m Banksy painting”

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/05/04/crypto-creep-accelerates-as-sothebys-accepts-ether-and-bitcoin-for-dollar5m-banksy-painting ~2026-35121-06 (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[]

These are indeed interesting, perennial sources, especially for the Guardian piece; I would be looking into it later and see how the article should address these reports.

Thanks, again, for the sources. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you very much for your time and for looking into it.

I understand. I will wait and will not add more comments now.

Best regards. ~2026-35121-06 (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I think the Guardian piece is interesting, since an artwork about bitcoins being sold for bitcoins is probably worthy of a mention in an article about ... well, bitcoins.

The reuters piece seems a bit short for me (on its own), but I think together they do support the sentence “Bitcoin has appeared in contemporary art and the art market as a subject and as a payment method. Examples include Bitcoin-themed artworks and art sales where Bitcoin was accepted as payment.”. I'll append the guardian piece behind the sentence as an example, I think. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 18:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I can't find the FT piece's original text, as they're not successfully archived in the Wayback machine. Found it, here is the full text via ByebyePaywall: [9]. Too sleepy, I'll be reading it tomorrow. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 19:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thank you for checking this.

I agree with your idea. The Guardian piece is a good example. Together with Reuters, it supports the sentence about Bitcoin in contemporary art and the art market.

Thank you also for checking the FT piece. I can help look for another reliable and accessible source if needed. Alexbtcfree (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[]