Editorial Method

Flirting With Bitcoin exists because there is a shortage of Bitcoin content produced under clear editorial standards. Most of what circulates online is either promotional material dressed as education, engagement-optimized commentary designed to generate clicks, or anonymous speculation with no accountability. This page explains how we do things differently, and why.

If you are reading this, you probably care about the integrity of the information you consume. That matters. The editorial process described below applies to every guide, podcast episode, field note, and tool page we publish. No exceptions.

How Editorial Decisions Are Made

Every piece of content starts with a simple question: does this serve the reader? Not does it generate traffic. Not does it ride a trending topic. Does it provide genuine value to someone trying to understand Bitcoin, manage their own custody, or navigate the monetary landscape with better information?

Topics are selected based on a few criteria. First, relevance: is this something that affects the practical decisions our readers make? Second, durability: will this piece still be useful six months or two years from now? Third, competence: do we have the direct experience and verifiable knowledge to write about this with confidence? If a topic fails any of those tests, it does not get published.

We do not publish content on a fixed schedule. Some months produce several new pieces. Other months produce one, or none. The cadence follows the work, not an editorial calendar designed to keep algorithms happy. Every piece ships when it is ready, and not before.

The editorial pipeline is straightforward. An idea gets drafted. The draft gets tested against the sourcing standards described below. It goes through at least one full revision focused on clarity and accuracy. Then it is reviewed for factual claims, numerical data, and any technical assertions. Only after that process is complete does a piece go live. For guides that cover operational topics like self-custody or security, the steps described in the content are tested firsthand before publication.

Sourcing Standards

Trust starts with sourcing. Here is what we require before any claim makes it into a published piece.

Verifiable data over anonymous tips. We do not use anonymous sources. If a claim cannot be attributed to a verifiable origin, it does not appear in our content. That means on-chain data that anyone can independently verify, official protocol documentation, published academic or institutional research, direct first-hand experience with specific tools and processes, and public statements from identifiable individuals or organizations.

Primary sources over secondary reporting. When we reference data, we go to the source. If a claim originates from a research paper, we read the paper. If a protocol change is discussed, we read the BIP or the pull request. If a tool is recommended, we have used it. We do not relay information through a chain of secondary reports without verifying the original.

Labeled speculation. Some topics require looking forward. When we speculate about future developments, potential outcomes, or evolving trends, that speculation is clearly labeled. You will never read a speculative claim presented as established fact on this site. The distinction between what we know and what we think is always made explicit.

No unverifiable metrics. We do not cite statistics that cannot be independently confirmed. If a number appears in our content, the source is available, the methodology is known, or the data can be reproduced by the reader through public tools.

Why No Sponsored Content

Flirting With Bitcoin does not accept sponsored posts, paid placements, or advertising revenue. This is not a temporary stance or a phase. It is a foundational editorial decision.

The reason is simple: sponsorship creates incentive distortion. Even with good intentions, a publication that depends on sponsor revenue begins to shape its coverage around what will attract and retain those sponsors. Topics that might embarrass a sponsor get softened or skipped. Products made by sponsors get treated with kid gloves. The editorial line drifts, slowly and often imperceptibly, toward the interests of the people paying the bills.

We choose not to enter that dynamic at all. When a hardware wallet, a software tool, or a service is mentioned on this site, it is because we have tested it and found it relevant. Not because someone paid us to mention it. That distinction is worth protecting, even when it means leaving money on the table.

Why No Affiliate Recommendations

Affiliate programs create a similar problem. When a publication earns a commission for every reader who clicks a link and makes a purchase, the incentive to recommend is no longer purely editorial. It becomes financial. That does not mean every affiliate recommendation is dishonest. It means the reader can never be entirely sure whether a recommendation was made because the product is genuinely the best option or because the commission was attractive.

We remove that ambiguity entirely. There are no affiliate links on this site. When we recommend something, the only incentive is that it works well and serves the reader. That is the standard, and it applies to every recommendation we make.

The Review and Fact-Check Process

Every piece published on Flirting With Bitcoin goes through a structured review before it goes live. The process has several layers.

Drafting. The initial draft prioritizes getting the argument and information structure right. At this stage, the focus is on what needs to be said and in what order.

Fact verification. Every factual claim is checked against its source. Numerical data is re-verified. Protocol-level assertions are tested against current documentation. If a claim cannot be verified, it is either removed or explicitly flagged as unverified.

Technical review. For content that involves operational guidance, such as self-custody procedures, wallet configurations, or security practices, the steps are tested on real hardware and software. We do not publish custody instructions we have not personally executed.

Clarity pass. The final revision focuses on readability. Jargon is replaced with plain language where possible. Sentences that require re-reading are rewritten. The goal is that a reader with no prior Bitcoin knowledge can follow the argument, even on technically dense topics.

Post-publication monitoring. After a piece goes live, it is monitored for reader feedback, corrections, and changes in the underlying facts. Guides that cover fast-moving topics like wallet firmware or protocol updates are reviewed periodically and updated when the information shifts.

Corrections Policy

Mistakes happen. When they do, we fix them openly. The corrections policy is simple and non-negotiable.

If a factual error is identified in any published piece, the correction is made directly in the content. A note is added at the top of the article indicating what was changed and when. The original error is not silently removed. Readers who encounter the corrected piece can see exactly what was updated and why.

For minor issues like typographical errors or formatting problems, the fix is made without a formal correction notice. For substantive errors that affect the accuracy or meaning of the content, the full correction process applies.

If you find an error in anything we have published, please reach out through the Contact page. Every report is reviewed and, if confirmed, corrected promptly.

How Tools Are Maintained

The tools published on this site, including calculators and reference instruments, follow a maintenance process designed for long-term reliability.

Each tool is built with clearly documented assumptions. The Satoshi Savings Calculator, for example, uses user-defined inputs rather than baked-in price predictions, precisely so that the tool remains useful regardless of market conditions. When a tool depends on external data or changing parameters, those dependencies are documented on the tool's method page.

Tools are tested after every significant update to the site's codebase. If a browser update, a framework change, or a data source modification affects how a tool behaves, the issue is identified and resolved before or shortly after it impacts users. We do not ship tools and forget about them. They are maintained as actively as any other content on the site.

When a tool's methodology is updated, the changes are noted on its companion page. The reasoning behind the update is explained so that users who relied on previous behavior understand what changed and why.

The Standard, Summarized

If you have read this far, you care about editorial integrity. Here is the full standard in compressed form:

• Every claim is sourced from verifiable data or direct experience.
• No anonymous sources. No unverifiable metrics.
• Speculation is always labeled as speculation.
• No sponsored content, paid placements, or affiliate links.
• Recommendations are based solely on first-hand testing.
• Every piece is fact-checked before publication.
• Operational guidance is tested on real hardware and software.
• Corrections are made openly with clear attribution.
• Tools are actively maintained and their assumptions are documented.
• Editorial decisions serve the reader, not algorithms or sponsors.

This is the standard we hold ourselves to. It is not perfect, and we do not claim to be infallible. But we do claim to be honest about our process, transparent about our limitations, and committed to fixing our mistakes when they occur.