Talk:Bitcoin faucet

'Promotional' content in article

I've removed some promotional material in this page, which was partially reverted. I think the following content doesn't belong in this article, as per WP policies WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMOTION:

• 'There are also faucets that dispense Dogecoins or other alternative cryptocurrencies.' - There is nothing noteworthy about Dogecoin in particular. A Google News search does not show coverage of any Dogecoin faucets by reliable sources. I don't see any reason for mentioning a specific cryptocurrency in the lead, when the altcoin faucets are already mentioned in general.

• and they add up to make a larger payment that is sent to your 'on blockchain.info or Microwallet periodically' - This sentence is factually incorrect (bitcoins are not sent to blockchain.info, blockchain.info is one wallet provider. I think the writer meant blockchain), but I don't see any reason for mentioning those two wallet services specifically. One arguably reliable source, [1] gives trivial mention to 3 wallet providers - "Microwallet.org, Coinbox.me and BitChest.me", so why is Microwallet given undue weight by being mentioned specifically when it doesn't have any more coverage? I propose replacing this with 'sent to a wallet', and perhaps describing offchain wallet accumulators in general.

• 'List of bitcoin faucets' external link: WP:LINKSTOAVOID, "Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.' I don't think this link adds any encyclopedic value to the page. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed some more link spam disguised as references, and started a rewrite of the "Purpose" section. But the article needs more work, it still reads like a "how to start a bitcoin faucet and get rich" manual instead of an encyclopedic descriptive article. GermanJoe (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Image text

"Named after real faucets, bitcoin faucets dispense cryptocurrencies instead of water." is this for real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.82.229.106 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A very good question - unencyclopedic image removed (of course details about the term's origins could be added in prose, based on independent reliable sources). GermanJoe (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)