Methodology

Selection criteria

• The statement clearly concerns Bitcoin, its viability, use, regulation, security, or valuation.
• The statement is specific enough to be checked later against its source and original context.
• A screenshot alone is not editorially sufficient when authorship, date, or context cannot be plausibly traced.
• Private, doxxing, purely abusive, or factually irrelevant material is not accepted.

Source standard

Preferred evidence includes the original URL, an independent archive copy, author or account, exact quote, publication date, and brief context. Missing information remains missing and is never invented.

Images preserve the visible record. Linked original and archived sources should let readers verify the entry themselves.

Satire, irony, and unclear claims

Recognizable satire or irony is not presented as a literal prediction. If tone, quotation boundaries, or context remain ambiguous after review, the claim can only be labeled Unclear; it is not presented as disproven.

Claim status and interpretation

The archive separates documentation from evaluation. An editorial claim status is published only when it includes a specific rationale and a publicly verifiable HTTPS evidence source. An unlabeled entry has not yet been assessed under this standard; inclusion alone does not mean the claim is disproven.

• Clearly disproven: reliable later evidence makes the central, testable meaning of the claim demonstrably false.
• Partly realized: material parts occurred while others did not, or the statement combines claims with different outcomes.
• Open: the relevant time horizon has not elapsed, or available evidence does not yet support an outcome.
• Unclear: meaning, irony, satire, quotation boundaries, or context prevent a reliable assessment.

The rationale and its evidence are visible on the entry page. A status may be corrected or removed when new sources emerge. Internal review notes and moderation evidence remain private.

Corrections and takedowns

Every entry page includes a private report form for incorrect metadata, missing context, broken sources, duplicates, and legal concerns. Reports are reviewed before the public entry changes.

General notes can be sent through the feedback page. For direct requests: bitcoinohnestrom@proton.me.

Depending on the findings, metadata may be corrected, context added, sources updated, or an entry removed. This page does not promise a particular legal assessment or response time.

Bitcoin metrics

Price, multiplier, and all-time-high figures provide historical context. They are not investment advice and do not replace a substantive review of the original claim.