Talk:Monero

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monero article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Monero, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Monero is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

David Latapie (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Disclosed here.)
Nemesis0618 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA percontribs)
Fluffypony (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Disclosed here)
RentaCat (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Amoebatron~enwiki (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
SamsungGalaxyPlayer (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
92.203.154.11 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Jleiman (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Verifiedaccount (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional mostly-SPA per contribs)
Fireice (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Disclosed here)

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

Antanst (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.
‪Throat0390 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Picking a block explorer[edit]

There is no "official" Monero block explorer. There is no block explorer run from getmonero.org. This Monero page links to a block explorer. The Bitcoin page on Wikipedia does not. Should this article still link to an unofficial block explorer like it does now? What is the reasoning for that? If it should link to an unofficial block explorer, which one should it link to and why? SamsungGalaxyPlayer (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no official one, it's better we do not link to any. Yes, the Bitcoin article is a good precedence for this. Readers aren't dumb and can find one through a search engine if they want one. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

hello i request the deletion of the category "ransomware" because the monero project itself isn't involved in these or any crimes. and so it's a political motivated decision to link criminal activities of individuals to a medium of exchange or any object to defame it. everything can be used for crime e.g. cash, gold, any cryptocurrency and any valuable exchangable item. and it's a wrong decision to inform curious and clueless people (who just want to learn something about the medium itself) about any criminal activities. instead it's defamation and propaganda. wikipedia should be an objective and political neutral platform, and nothing else as an encyclopedia.

so please accept my call for objectivity and neutrality and delete the category "ransomware". would a company or any corporation be directly involved in a crime (so they're the criminals), then you're completely right if you link these crimes to the wikipedia article of the corporation. otherwise it's defamation. the same thing for the german monero page. a user called Joshi71 just reversed my deletion of "kriminalität" without an explanation, no wonder because again it's political motivated defamation. a new editing is still pending, please take care of it.

i just checked the bitcoin page and found unrelated crimes as well in the category "economic and legal concerns", the "use in illegal transactions" part. but unsurprisingly i cannot see any crimes on the wikipedia page of gold (the precious metal). but gold was definitely used by criminals in the past, you would lie if you wouldn't say so. even ISIS used gold. so this is clearly an action against cryptocurrencies!

i am willing to publish this letter to the press in case you refuse to delete reports of crimes of individuals without an involvement of the monero and bitcoin project.

kind regards crypt95 Crypt95 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Callme mirela 🍁 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the advertising.[edit]

@Grayfell removed the advertising example and asked to "provide context for advertising". I'm unsure what this means, but the article already confirms that monero is used amongst anarchist/anti-establishment groups, quoting from the privacy section:

These features have given Monero a loyal following among crypto anarchists, cypherpunks, and privacy advocates.

So the advert stating

Marketing material distributed by the Monero community promoting crypto anarchism

Does seem justified and placed into context within the article. And if the citation is not enough, I'm sure more can be found. Pouring grain (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this is about this edit.

The very simple answer is that neither 'getmonero.org' nor 'monerooutreach.org' are reliable sources. Further, Wikipedia uses independent sources to demonstrate encyclopedic significance. So the goal should be to use reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why some bit of information is encyclopedically significant. Those sources were not sufficient for this.

I advise against looking for sources to support your own first-hand knowledge. Instead, look at what reliable sources are saying and summarize them without interpreting them. Only dip-into primary sources for extremely basic information or to clarify something that is only partially explained by reliable independent sources.

It's also worth emphasizing that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, so we need to be saying something more substantial than "marketing material exists, here is an example". Our goal is to provide context, nor merely compile trivia. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment and I now understand the issue. I'm new to Wikipedia so the policies can be sometimes overwhelming. For the topic of WP:RS I think I will use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for additional sources that could be of use to the article, but have concerns over.

Pouring grain (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do have some extra restrictions (informal but widespread consensus) to use only high quality WP:RS on all cryptocurrency articles. So that means no blogs, press releases, WP:UGC, and other low quality stuff. I would suggest you look for sources that can be found as greenlighted on WP:RSP. Things like fortune, bloomberg, nyt, wsj, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary inclusion of the criminal activity source.[edit]

Regarding the third paragraph - "It is used in illicit activities such as money laundering, darknet markets, ransomware, cryptojacking, and other organized crime."

How aren't other cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies also used in illicit activities? 173.246.209.202 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this point. I checked the source, and it was also a dead link. So i removed it for now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: This isn't a valid point, it's just the usual whataboutism we always see with cryptocurrency articles.

Being a dead link is not a justification for whitewashing the article, per WP:LINKROT, but just as importantly, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The article already has a lengthy section on #Illicit use, where this is already explained with multiple sources. As always, the lead is merely a summary of the body of the article.

Further, the sentence immediately after the one you cut no longer makes sense. You can cut the dead source if you want, but you do not have consensus to remove this content from the lead. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my WP:ONUS to find dead sources. Maybe you can find it if the content is important to you. We are not doing unsourced content in crypto articles, you are aware of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay closer attention to what I am saying. The sources are already in the article. That's what WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY means. Since you do not have consensus to remove this content, I am restoring the status quo wording. The onus is on you to change the status quo. You could do this by explaining why sources used in the #Illicit use section are inappropriate, or why you think that wording was not an appropriate summary of the body. As I said, being a dead link doesn't even make a source unreliable, much less justify ignoring multiple other sources already cited in the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for adding Monero sign[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Previously I wanted to add Monero sign (ɱ) to the page however @Grayfell reverted the change and mentioned the sign can cause confusion with similar signs and asked for citation.

This seems to be valid concern however only Bitcoin page has citation but lots of cryptocurrency pages with their sign included without citation. Some examples are: Dogecoin, Litecoin, Namecoin, Primecoin, Auroracoin and much more.

And if citation is still required these links may be used:

https://unicode-explorer.com/c/0271
https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-crypto-signs-symbols/

Throat0390 (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a lot of pages about cryptocurrency have unsourced or poorly-sourced information. Problems at other articles are not a valid excuse to add new problems to this article. I have made some adjustments to the Litecoin article, but as always, much much more work is needed.

As for these sources, "Cryptobriefing.com" is not a reliable source. Even with the caveat that it should not be cited, it does explain that the use of most of these symbols is inconsistent. It also barely mentions Monero at all. About the ɱ for Monero it says "Though these symbols are appealing and stylized, observers from outside the crypto world may not instinctively recognize them as currency signs".[1] Wikipedia isn't part of the "crypto world"; this is a general-audience encyclopedia. If reliable sources do not support the wide-spread use of this symbols, this is nothing more than jargon and heavy-handed branding.

But as I said, this doesn't appear to be a reliable source, anyway. Crypto outlets rarely are.

I also do not see any indication that Unicode-explorer is reliable. It doesn't appear to have any indication of fact-checking, nor any explanation of its editorial process, nor any indication of who hosts it or why. The simple standard for reliability is that a source has a (positive) reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, per WP:RS.

To clarify, I'm not disputing that some people have used this symbol for Monero (or other symbols for Litecoin, etc.). I am saying that without a reliable source, this is both needlessly confusing and also indistinguishable from trivia. Just because bitcoin and "real" currencies have a symbol doesn't automatically mean that every cryptocurrency also has a symbol, and it would be up to reliable sources to tell us what that symbol is. As the unreliable source mentions, users of these cryptocurrencies have pushed these symbols specifically as a marketing tactic, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have set the request to answered, as there is no consensus. You can continue to discuss this, but please do not reopen this request until consensus has changed. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I did a search of google for this odd symbol which linked to Voiced labiodental nasal. While interesting to me in that I have never heard of it (wikipedia editing is fun in that it shows us some really odd things). But back to the subject, at hand, I dont see anything even on google that suggests this is the system. Even when i search for the sumbol and the word crypto, i only see some complaints on reddit that we dont include the symbol. This is not the level of content quality that we include, we tend to follow at wikipedia, and we dont lead. I too am opposed to this inclusion without a few good RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]