Proposed features/Cryptocurrencies with payment tag

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Cryptocurrency acceptance
Proposal status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: Andrasfuchs
Tagging: currency:crypto:*=yes,no
Applies to: node way
Definition: Currency key extension for cryptocurrency support
Statistics:

Drafted on: 2021-08-28
RFC start: 2021-08-28
Vote start: 2021-09-22
Vote end: 2021-10-22

Proposal

Cryptocurrencies are new ways to pay for goods and services that are gaining popularity. The most popular is Bitcoin at the moment, but others like Ethereum, Litecoin or DASH are also used as means of payment.

This proposal aims to unify the different formats that are used with the payment and currency keys to indicate if the shop/merchant/service provider accepts specific digital currencies.

There are some sites already like https://coinmap.org/, https://coinatmradar.com/, https://www.dashdirect.org/ or https://discoverdash.com/ that map cryptocurrency ATMs and merchants, but they need to use their closed, private databases in addition to OSM partly because there is no unified way to indicate cryptocurrency payments, especially for smaller coins and tokens. This proposal would allow them to work on a common database in OSM, just like OSM is a great repository for non-crypto ATMs.

I suggest to indicate general cryptocurrency acceptance with payment:cryptocurrencies=yes (like it is used now), and the acceptance of one particular cryptocurrency with currency:crypto:BTC=yes or currency:crypto:DASH=yes, where the 3 or 4 capital letter word is the used symbol for that particular currency. This is in line with the notation that OSM uses for normal, fiat ATMs. Although there isn't an ISO standard that covers these currency codes, there is clearly a consensus about them. You can check all the currencies and their symbols at https://coinmarketcap.com/ or any other cryptocurrency information portal or exchange.

I would also recommend to declare the currently used payment:bitcoin, payment:bitcoincash, payment:litecoin, payment:dogecoin and payment:IOTA deprecated (link). These were probably used in that way only because there were no clear rules defined by OpenStreetMap at the time they were uploaded.

The mayor blockchains are so called "layer 1" technologies in the cryptocurrency world. The above suggestion would cover the layer-1 acceptance, but cryptocurrencies started to support layer-2 (or second layer) solutions as well, one of them being the "Lightning Network", or LN for short. LN is a cryptocurrency agnostic technology, meaning that it can be applied on multiple cryptocurrencies to improve their properties like scalability, speed and cost of operation. In the case of Bitcoin for example, it is much more likely that the brick and mortar store will accept Bitcoin with the help of LN, because of its many benefits.

It would also be important to incorporate this information for the OpenStreetMap user, because as a customer I need to know if my wallet software on my phone is able to handle the merchant's system, so I potentially need a LN-capable wallet to be able to pay at a certain location. This is especially important because the transaction fee is always paid by the customer and they are significantly lower with LN. Other layer-2 technologies are in development and although LN is the most popular, we don't know which one will be accepted widely.

For this reason I also propose another subkey, "LN" that would be a subkey of the currency:crypto:*, like currency:crypto:BTC:LN=yes (meaning Bitcoin acceptance with Lightning Network support) or currency:crypto:LTC:LN=yes (meaning Litecoin acceptance with Lightning Network support).

I would also restrict the usage of these tags to nodes (i.e. POIs) and ways (i.e. areas) only, they probably don't make sense on relations.

The older, payment:bitcoin, currency:XBT and currency:BTC tags would be migrated to this new format.


Rationale

Cryptocurrencies can't be ignored, they are getting more and more popular. We would need a tagging system, that helps both the customers who use them and the merchants who accept them. The former would find new places to spend their coins, the latter would get new customers by offering cryptocurrency acceptance without the high fees other (non-crypto) solutions offer.

There are already many places where the community started to upload these pieces of information about cryptocurrency acceptance, so there is clearly a demand for it. Unfortunately they are in multiple formats at the moment: payment:bitcoin (used 7623 times), currency:BTC (used 6 times), currency:XBT (used 491 times). It would be great to unify them while making the format as future-proof as possible.

Tagging

These tags should only be used on nodes and areas.

The format of these keys would be currency:crypto:<layer-1 technology as coin or token symbol>:<layer-2 technology symbol if used>.

The value of the key could be "yes" or "no".

It would be also logical to enforce the creation of the payment:cryptocurrencies=yes tag if there are any currency:crypto:* keys present with a value of "yes" on a node or area.


Tagging documentation should cover well-known layer-2 technologies (like Lightning Network (LN), InstantSend (IS), etc.), their codes, and some samples.

Since they are popular, documentation should also include tokens that are smart contracts on a blockchain like Ethereum, and they should follow the same format: indicating their blockchain as layer-1, and using their token codes as layer-2, like currency:crypto:EHT:CHR in the case of Chromia.

Examples

At the moment there are no nodes that are using this new key format, but they would be used on shops that accept cryptocurrencies.

For example:

  • A shop that accepts Bitcoin would have the following tags:

payment:cryptocurrencies=yes

currency:crypto:BTC=yes


  • Another one that accepts both Bitcoin with Lightning Network support and DASH, but doesn't allow payments directly on the Bitcoin blockchain:

payment:cryptocurrencies=yes

currency:crypto:BTC=no

currency:crypto:BTC:LN=yes

currency:crypto:DASH=yes


  • Another one that accepts Bitcoin (with or without Lightning Network support), DASH (with InstantSend support) and Chromia token (that runs on Ethereum):

payment:cryptocurrencies=yes

currency:crypto:BTC=yes

currency:crypto:BTC:LN=yes

currency:crypto:DASH=yes

currency:crypto:DASH:IS=yes

currency:crypto:ETH:CHR=yes

Migration

After this proposal gets approved, there would be certain steps that would be beneficial to complete:

  1. Update Key:payment and declare the payment:bitcoin, payment:bitcoincash, payment:litecoin, payment:dogecoin and payment:IOTA keys deprecated
  2. Run an automated edit on those keys to migrate into the new format, and set their payment:cryptocurrencies value to yes on those new items
  3. Update Key:currency with all the information needed for new contributions, including a few examples
  4. Run an automated edit on the currency:XBT and currency:BTC keys to migrate them into the new format, and set their payment:cryptocurrencies value to yes on those new tags
  5. Add a note to Key:currency to explain why these are not considered valid any more
  6. Wait ~6 months before running an automated edit that removes all previously used payment and currency tags for cryptocurrencies that are not following the new format

Features/Pages affected

Key:payment

Key:currency

External discussions

Talk:Key:payment#Cryptocurrencies

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Instructions for voting
  • Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
  • Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
To get this output you type Description
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~ Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~ Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~ If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.
Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Andrasfuchs (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. 1) don’t use abbreviations or 3 letter codes, use full names 2) don’t use a colon and “crypto”, this is not necessary 3) I’m skeptical that this information will be possible to maintain in the database --Jeisenbe (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. This mixes currencies and payment providers, Lightning Network is a payment provider (not in the sense of a classical company like Visa, but it's still only a way how to process payments) and should use a payment:* key, while Bitcoin is a currency and should use a currency:* key. --Mueschel (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    If you look at how cryptocurrencies are actually used, there's no difference: the only people who hold cryptocurrencies are speculators. Everyone else treats cryptocurrencies as if they were payment providers, cashing out as fast as possible to avoid exchange-rate risks. --Carnildo (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. If abbreviations are used for fiat currencies, no objections for applying by analogy to cryptocurrencies, even without ISO standardisation (we can't wait ISO forever) and keeping the database up-to-date is our (mappers) responsibility, let's see what happens --Pedroasmribeiro (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This is a good step for a better tagging for crypto. This technology is going to grow a lot in the future so having a good tagging scheme in advance is important. --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Greatwolf (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. per "use a payment:* key, while Bitcoin is a currency and should use a currency:* key", and "don’t use a colon and “crypto”, this is not necessary" --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Darellur (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pozo (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I support the idea of standardizing efforts around an existing mapping service rather than building haphazard and less maintained solutions in silos at individual crypto projects. --Strophy (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. This sounds like a worthy undertaking. I give it my blessing and can't wait to see how it turns out in practice. --Tao of Satoshi (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --BLE (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Spades (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dholliday5 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. I like and support the idea of having shared mapping service for all crypto users. --Kot (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Gubbes (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Bananabrain (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Ageofdoge (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Dkoedijk (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Voting yes please ----MAP3311 (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I think cryptocurrency adoption needs to mature a little before it gets added. --Zaneo (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. Although I personally think cryptocurrency: would be a bit better than currency:crypto:, I also see the value in having all currencies be under currency*, --Eiim (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I think having tags for arbitrary cryptocurrencies creates a vector for abuse by promoters of niche cryptocurrencies. I am also concerned about the large number of new accounts participating in this vote which may represent an organized vote from an outside community. I would like to see crypto adoption mature before applying an OSM "approved" label on crypto payment tagging. --ZeLonewolf (talk)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as Mateusz, keep the tagging simple. --Jdcarls2 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Crypto is still stuck in the niche, and isn’t worth establishing in OSM yet. --SherbetS (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I second Mateusz and SherbetS reasoning. Keep OSM simple instead of filling up the database with niche interests that may no hold up to a future. --Chris12345 (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Generally I don't have anything against adding info for crypto currency, but there are few things that should be fixed. 1) This needs a table of shortcuts for currencies so we won't end up with 10 versions for each. Standard currencies use ISO 4217. I don't know if there is something like that for crypto. 2) currency:crypto:BTC=yes should be currency:BTC=yes as others pointed out. 3) currency:XXX=yes should only be used for ATM, vending machines or currency exchange places otherwise we'll end up with tons of tags on every restaurant or pawn shop. --Mashin (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Pidy (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. 1. OSM keys should not contain abbreviations.
2. The accepted currencies should be values (separated by semicolon), not individual keys to keep the key space simple.
3. This voting seems to be taken over be new users with a conflict of interest. At least five votes in favour cannot be counted because their seem to be either sockpuppets or lacking sufficient OSM contribution. Therefore, this voting is a joke. --Nakaner (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. It is quite good to be able to find places where we can pay with crypto. --Unsigned comment by Dummyacc001
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Philjonz (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Heads up - The Litecoin crypto community on Reddit may be brigading the vote https://archive.is/wip/a8Qia Danseobang (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Note that it is not the only place, there was a clear brigading earlier. As usual cryptocurrency speculators waste time of other people and cause need to add extra regulations to limit their damage Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as ZeLonewolf, Mueschel and Mateusz Konieczny, and that's coming from someone that dabbles with cryptocurrencies from time to time. --Ianlopez1115 (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Yup, ZeLonewolf, Mueschel, Mateusz Konieczny...and others here are correct. This appears to be one of the most nakedly obvious examples of sockpuppetry OSM's Proposal/Voting process has ever seen. Shame on those who have promulgated this travesty. If/as/when cryptos "rise" to something like ISO 4217 legitamacy (at least to streamline and standardize the miasma of the thousands of them that exist presently to the ones that might emerge as actually useful) AND we get more than one country, zero banks and more than an underground of activists and often money laundering criminal activity involved in cryptocurriences "going mainstream," OSM deserves to revisit this. While there ARE cryptocurrencies and there ARE merchants (and others) who accept them as payment, this Proposal is a failure for so many reasons. To wit, who ARE all these (redlinked) people voting for this? No. Not even "sorry, No," but simply, No. Stevea (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Note Proposed features/motorcycle friendly/tag description that was even more blatant. And invalidated like this one should be. To all brigading people: you just lower opinion of cryptocurrency community (which is already quite low, for obvious reasons). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Cryptocurrency is super dumb and a huge waste of everyone's time and energy. -- Ezekielf (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Unmaintainable ephemeral data. Additionally, the brigading going on with this proposal are making it hard to take it seriously. It's fine to gather support from within the OSM community; it is not OK to stimulate random people to register an account here just to vote.
Screenshot of coinsnews.com at 2021-10-19 09-13-35.png

--JeroenHoek (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason --WalkerB (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I am not an expert on crypto-currencies, but I do not see what benefit "payment:cryptocurrencies=yes" brings. Surely, a potential user of an ATM, or customer in a shop, needs to know whether the particular currency that they hold will be accepted? So, "payment=bitcoin", or "payment:bitcoin=yes" might be useful, but "payment:cryptocurrencies=yes" is redundant. I am also concerned at the apparent brigading of votes by those with no history of supporting OSM. --PeterPan99 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal. --Miche101 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal.
1. Abbreviations do not work as they are not distinct.
2. The proposal introduces lots of new keys which does not work well with payment=*, e.g. looking at amenity=telephone. Instead one key with multiple values for the currencies will work the same.
3 This proposal seems to be promoted to some people with personal interest or even undermined by some.
In general, I miss links to tagging@-list threads for the RFC and the vote. --Skyper (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. No because of this coinnews.com trolls. --EinKonstanzer (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Multiple reasons. In general, I believe detailed payment info should not be in the OSM database at all, but rather on the website of the object. In particular, the fluctuation of cryptocurrencies is extremely high, particular currencies coming in and out of fashion, and I doubt that it is possible to maintain such rapidly changing information in OSM. Third, I generally object to pushing a proposal with votes from people who have never shown any activity at OSM prior to their vote. Behind a vote should be a certain interest in and understanding for OSM. --Nop (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I think that detailed payment method recording is of little use, and doubly so when it comes to crypto currencies. This is just asking for mass edits from fanboys of whatever the latest crypto currency fad is. Also, if this proposal should be accepted I will dispute the result on the basis that many "yes" votes come from people who have no history of Wiki contribution and are very likely not even OSM mappers. --Woodpeck (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to even allow this vote to draw to a conclusion. It sends the message that a future, more successful brigading attempt from a better organized outside organization would be allowed to proceed to a conclusion with its results counted. We should set a precedent now that such tainted vote campaigns will not even be considered. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this vote is so tainted by manipulation as a not-even-furtive bare-faced slap to the integrity of OSM that it should be immediately nullified. Yes, this feels and is against OSM's established orthodoxy of being magnanimous, but when faced with this sort of fraud, bad faith and jerking OSM around like we are a puppet on the end of a string, we must respond in kind. This includes saying a firm, direct, immediate "NO!" to this sort of abuse of our process. This attitude and conclusion comes from multiple, long-time, serious Contributors of our community of volunteers, not from "on high" (DWG, the Foundation, etc.) I, for one, am already disregarding the validity of this vote, regardless of its outcome. I ask other right-thinking OSM Contributors to do the same. This is "astroturfing" plain and simple and I do not stand for it. Do you? Stevea (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Dooley (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I agree completely with the reasons of EinKonstanzer, woodpeck and Nop --Aeonesa (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Adding my vote to the list. I agree with all above negative opinions. --pkoby (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Because of the reasons already given by others. --Shaun das Schaf (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I abstain from voting but have comments I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I have issues with some of the syntax in proposed tags, but overall I believe we should be able to tag payment methods use on the ground. If somewhere takes digital currency, we should have a standardised way of recording that. I strongly disagree that a few people should overrule this vote because they don't like the outcome, or that there are too many new people. If it passes and you don't like it, ignore it and move on, or make a "better" proposal that includes deprecating this one. --CjMalone (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
CjMalone, I don't mean to "pick a fight" or even seem argumentative, though I do ask: at what point when "naked aggression" takes place against OSM's established principles (like Voting and our nearly-always-positive spirit of magnanimity) do we draw a line and say "No, we do not tolerate this manipulative behavior that rudely disrespects our process"? If this isn't a paramount example, what would be? Let's have the self-respect and dignity as a project to both be able to say No to such (brazen, obvious) abuse and then actually do it. Stevea (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I could take hours replying to this, but I can't. I don't have the energy or vocabulary. But maybe you could understand my position better if I said this. "Who can the rules during a vote? Who can override a vote? Who can cancel a vote?" My opinion to that is, nobody should have be able to do that, it doesn't matter how important the vote is or isn't. --CjMalone (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Both on formal and on substantive grounds, reasons abound. --Hungerburg (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Axelr (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I second Nop, same reasons --Vademecum (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Crypto acceptance isn't real enough to be included in OSM, this tagging could be abused by new coins, businesses that accept 50 types of crypto would be annoying to map since removing 50 crypto tags would be wrong, and I don't appreciate people trying to get votes from outside the OSM community. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason --Skinfaxi (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. reason --Strubbl (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 22 votes for, 34 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Note that voting was affected by multiple votes by people not involved in OpenStreetMap and directed here from external sites. In case such activity would be succesful it would result in ignored/invalidated vote. New people are welcomed to edit in OpenStreetMap, but please do not brigade votes in this way