Wikidata:Property proposal/cryptocurrency address
cryptocurrency address edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | address for this project or organization's cryptocurrency wallet |
|---|---|
| Represents | cryptocurrency (Q13479982) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | projects and organizations |
| Example | |
| Source | https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Donation-accepting_organizations_and_projects |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
Motivation
Similar to Property proposal/donation platform, this is valuable for donations. We probably need tight controls on this to, eg. spot new users changing this statement. NMaia (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment @NMaia: Please make examples correct links David (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Which link is incorrect? NMaia (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- For your first example, Firefox reports "The address wasn't understood". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- You need a program that can open links like that, like a bitcoin wallet. This is a similar scheme to 'mailto'. I took the link directly from https://f-droid.org NMaia (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- For your first example, Firefox reports "The address wasn't understood". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which link is incorrect? NMaia (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Support But, is a link with 'bitcoin:' scheme valid? Would be better using a HTTP link like https://blockchain.info/address/15u8aAPK4jJ5N8wpWJ5gutAyyeHtKX5i18? --Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Díaz ★ diskutujo 22:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this information is useless because it cannot be trusted. We would need to add a big warning sign not to send money to this address without having checked at the organization. A cryprocurrency account is different to similar information (e.g. traditional bank account, street address...) because there is no way to withdraw a transfer -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Like all statements, reliable references would be necessary to be sure of its accuracy. I don't see how this is an argument against having the property. --Yair rand (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Even with references we can't ensure in any way that such information is always correct. Which is problematic, but not all that critical with most statements. But information on where to send payments for particular persons/organizations? That would be a prime target for abuse and fraud attempts. I think that this particular information might be better left to the official websites and other places where it can be controlled (and quickly changed if needed) by the owners themselves. We simply don't have the manpower or tools to check each and every addition and edit of such statements to prevent abuse. --Kam Solusar (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- This should be on hold until phab:T138708.--GZWDer (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like all statements, reliable references would be necessary to be sure of its accuracy. I don't see how this is an argument against having the property. --Yair rand (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sticking to the argument that it cannot be trusted, how about a link to the website page, see also property proposal just above this one donation platform here Germartin1 (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Abuse potential of this would be enormous and the effort to maintain it huge. It is not apparent from the data whether the address is correct or not, so we could not advise anyone to actually use it for any donations - on the contrary, we'd have to advise not to use it but go to the homepage and check it there. If so, why have it? We'd just be attracting fraudsters. Laboramus (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done per above − Pintoch (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
