Bitcoin 是 Wei Dai 的 b-money 提案 http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt（1998 年发表于 Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks）和 Nick Szabo 的 Bitgold 提案 http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html 的一个实现。
Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai's b-money proposal http://weidai.com/bmoney.txt on Cypherpunks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo's Bitgold proposal http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2005/12/bit-gold.html
时机很奇怪，偏偏是我们被 slashdot 报道、第三方（3rd party）报道迅速增多的时候。我希望大家不必急着结束讨论、做出决定。维基百科通常会让这类问题公开征求意见多久？
The timing is strange, just as we are getting a rapid increase in 3rd party coverage after getting slashdotted. I hope there's not a big hurry to wrap the discussion and decide. How long does Wikipedia typically leave a question like that open for comment?
尽快精简词条、减少宣传色彩会很有帮助。只需要让人们知道它是什么、它在电子货币领域处于什么位置，不要试图说服他们它有多好。他们多半只想要一个笼统说明它是什么的东西，而不是解释它如何运作的长篇大论。
It would help to condense the article and make it less promotional sounding as soon as possible. Just letting people know what it is, where it fits into the electronic money space, not trying to convince them that it's good. They probably want something that just generally identifies what it is, not tries to explain all about how it works.
如果你去 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin 发言，请不要说「可是 bitcoin 真的很重要很特别，所以规则不该适用于它」，也不要争辩规则愚蠢或不公平。那只会帮倒忙。要论证的是这个条目如何满足规则。
If you post in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin please don't say "yeah, but bitcoin is really important and special so the rules shouldn't apply" or argue that the rule is dumb or unfair. That only makes it worse. Try to address how the rule is satisfied.
在 google 搜「bitcoin」，看能不能在 infoworld 和 slashdot 之外找到更多重量级报道。可能已经有记者刚从 slashdot 那篇文章听说它，正在写最新的东西。
Search "bitcoin" on google and see if you can find more big references in addition to the infoworld and slashdot ones. There may be very recent stuff being written by reporters who heard about it from the slashdot article.
希望别被删。一旦删了，就很难扭转人们认定它该被删除的先入印象了。机构的惯性就是维持上一个决定。（编辑：至少我猜是这样，世界通常这样运作，但也许维基不一样）
I hope it doesn't get deleted. If it does, it'll be hard to overcome the presumption. Institutional momentum is to stick with the last decision. (edit: or at least I assume so, that's how the world usually works, but maybe Wiki is different)
当前版本尚未建立逐条校对状态记录。来源核验、历史审校与当前译文校对是不同事项。
译文内容版本：ac2ceb2ada3e。用于比对文本，不代表校对等级或更新时间。
请填写对应原文、现译文、建议译法和理由。复制后通过你联系本站作者的渠道提交；此处不会自动发送。
