Disclaimer: I'm obviously biased due to my long-term involvement in Bitcoin.
I am in favor of narrowing the scope, and based on comments and close votes by some of the more active contributors here, I believe there is sufficient mass for this. My reasoning is that people come to the Bitcoin stackexchange for questions on Bitcoin, and (mostly) low-quality ...
I agree that we should narrow the scope of Bitcoin.SE. If you look through questions that are tagged as altcoins, you'll notice that many are left unanswered, and many are also fairly low quality questions.
I would suggest that we don't narrow down the topic too far. I think we could take an approach similar to what Bitcointalk.org does - to also allow ...
I just stumbled across some additional text that could be changed for better clarity:
An Eth-related question was posted on Bitcoin.SE.com, and then migrated to Ethereum.SE.com. If you follow the link to the (now migrated) question, it includes this text:
This question came from our site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts.
Here is a screenshot of ...
There are stack exchanges sites such as ethereum.SE.com, which have a scope that is restricted to Ethereum. There are some other altcoins that have sites in Area 51 as well. The Bitcoin.SE.com site includes altcoins, because at first it was the only cryptocurrency SE site, and so of course it would make sense to allow altcoin questions.
Now, years later, ...
Are questions about other crypto-currencies on-topic?
Not any more.
Since about 1st July 2019 the scope has been narrowed to Bitcoin only.
Proposed Timeline for Scope Change
Proposal: Narrow topic of Bitcoin.Stackexchange to questions applicable to Bitcoin
I'd say that this is mainly off-topic because it simply concerns hardware more than crypto currencies. The fact that he plans to mine a cryptocurrency is irrelevant in this question and not important. There is no mention of mining as well...
I think it's fine to ask questions like "Is it true that...?", if you want evidence to confirm or refute some claim. But with the usual caveats:
Volume: Please try not to ask a gigantic number of questions in a short time. Prioritize those that are of broad interest, or have unusual features that need specific expertise; don't just ask a question for ...
Pieter said it well: "sufficiently generic things should probably remain on topic here anyway". Other answers on that discussion appear to also endorse general cryptocurrency/blockchain questions.
From what I understand, the main frustration was with being the kitchen sink for all the hyperspecific, lazily written, or obscure altcoin questions that hardly ...
Lightning network is a caching layer for on-chain Bitcoin transactions. The transactions are denominated in Bitcoin, expressed in script, and can either be squashed off-chain or written to the blockchain. Most lightning wallets encompass LN and on-chain transaction capabilities. IMHO, LN is part of Bitcoin.
Omni/Tether is a completely separate protocol that ...
I would say this is on topic, as an answer would cover fact-based, technical differences between a wallet and an exchange. The question relates to Bitcoin and crypto, and does not require opinion based answers.
Yes, because it is factually answerable, and the answer will stay the same, such questions can be a good fit.
However, such questions may be answerable by a simple websearch, so it would probably make sense to ask only if it is harder to determine than that and then explain what previous research has been done, and that it was unsuccessful.
The way I interpret this closing reason, we do not want questions that ask for an evaluation or comparison of services. Examples for off-topic questions:
What's the best exchange in country foo?
How do you like service ABC?
Is X or Y better for Z?
Is ABC a scam?
Let's collect all XYZ by posting one book/service/course/wallet per answer…
These sort of ...
I don't like to really consider other sites and overlap when talking about what's on-topic during a beta. Well, I consider them, but I don't like ruling out questions purely because another site would accept them.
A resounding theme here is, pure hardware might be interesting to people into crypto currencies, but if the question has nothing to do with ...
I am the contact from Trezor team you mention in the text.
Just to offer an explanation:
Right now, we have a huge influx of new users, overwhelming our user support.
I noticed this post, which lead me to think it would be a good idea to link the users from our support page to Stack Exchange:
it would ease the load for our user support
it would move the ...
The nearest we have to this (that I can easily find) is
How can I buy Bitcoin via a Credit Card or Paypal?
The Q is horribly dated, it talks enthusiastically about MtGox and seeks answers for MtGox.
There are 28 answers. I have no idea whether the services mentioned in various answers are still useful or have gone out of business.
This question ...
My personal, and probably not universally, held opinion.
The Bitcoin stackexchange site is for questions about technologies that support the bitcoin currency. That includes on-chain transactions, but also other layers.
Omni, in my view, does not support the bitcoin currency. Rather the opposite, it uses the Bitcoin blockchain to support other assets. I ...
What's the difference between a Bitcoin Wallet and a Bitcoin Exchange
So the diffrence is,Exchange provides you trading option where you can trade your BTC whenever you feel like its profitable for you.
And Bitcoin Wallet is a software program which stores btc address where bitcoin are stored. You can store your btc in exchange wallet for as long as you ...
According to the Help Center:
...and [the question] is not about …
politics or philosophy
a site or software recommendation
I'm not sure but I think these questions may be better suited for Money Stackexchange
The focus of the linked question appears to be about using a Bitcoin specific library to solve a Bitcoin specific issue. It seems likely that a Bitcoin library can be pointed out that solves the asker's problem and I'd vote on keeping it.
If however, there is no library that solves this problem, and this becomes a "how do I implement this feature" it would ...