Talk:Bitcoin Cash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:48, 1 July 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bitcoin Cash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Bitcoin Cash, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptography: Computer science Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet Start‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law Start‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Numismatics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Open Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cryptocurrency Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Just Like Bitcoin Before It, Cardano Is Banned From Wikipedia". Cointelegraph could not find a Wikipedia article for SpankChain (SPANK). Other projects like Dogecoin (DOGE), GridCoin (GRC), and PotCoin (POT) do have one, however. Most of the top ten projects, including Bitcoin Cash (BCH), have one too.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 56 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

There's too much junk in this article

The article should state what Bitcoin Cash is and why it was created (which it does). It could state, briefly, that there is controversy around the need to create Bitcoin - with a link to online sources that discuss the controversy, perhaps. A brief section titled "History", stating what actually happened and about a quarter of the length of the current blow-by-blow he-said/she-said history section would be reasonable.

All the rest is junk. Details of who said what about Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning the current price of any cryptocurrency is pointless because prices change daily. Maybe there could be links to a couple of the (many) websites that track cryptocurrency exchange rates, but even that is redundant because any search engine will find them. As for volatility of cryptocurrencies, again it is ephemeral information, anybody who wants to know what it is right now can look at the exchange-traded options or at one of the volatility indexes like BVOL24H or one of the indexes calculated by T3Index.

Does anyone seriously disagree that most of this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and should be deleted? Longitude2 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we delete cited content? The article is not too long. We are listing historical prices in the Bitcoin article as it is encyclopedic. But I do think some style changes would probably be useful. Thoughts? Maybe we address your thoughts section by section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that good sources should not be removed, but the article certainly could be reorganized. Many wikipedia articles suffer from what I call "section syndrome" where a couple editors focus on specific sections, and not the overall organization of an article. Then people come in and add a sentence, and each section becomes a list of facts. IMO the article should have a section on why BCH exists, what the unique features and philosophy is, what influenced it, and what did it influence (fork from and what forked off it). The problem with "History" sections is they become lists. If @Longitude2: does some of this in their sandbox, I'd be happy to collaborate. Beakerboy (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup of the prose a bit today, some of it seemed to repeat itself. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bitcoin Cash open Official Twitter Handle ( @BTCTCH ) . Zoyahssn (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

Gal Buki (talk · contribs · logs) proposed at the AfC Help Desk that the Bitcoin SV section be split into a separate page called Bitcoin SV, which is currently a redirect leading to this page. The user has already created a draft: Draft:Bitcoin SV. They didn't know how to create this split discussion, so they asked me to start it for them. There is an old AfD regarding this. Seeking consensus for this split. Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The new Bitcoin SV article has multiple reliable sources from published research papers, news companies not related to blockchain, the w3c Github repository and from organizations run by country states. In addition the BSV blockchain has deviated in many ways from Bitcoin Cash hence adding it as a chapter in Bitcoin Cash would be inappropriate and misleading in the parent article. torusJKL (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support a split as these are separate article subjects and it appears that there are sufficient RS on the split article to pass AfD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The draft's RS support is very skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I note there's a fair bit of BSV in Financial Times, if not entirely complimentary at times. That's a bit more RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I have added multiple additional RS to the article. torusJKL (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. The draft article almost reads like it was written by a non-native English speaker. My apologies to the author if they are. It requires a bit of proof reading. Beakerboy (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have already declined Draft:Bitcoin SV once, because I was relying on the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV. I have created a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV. I do not know much about cryptocurrency, and I do not think that I want to know much about it. However, I will try to comment. I think that the previous article needed deleting, but at the same time I am not sure that redirecting it to a different Bitcoin variant made sense. I personally consider the whole subject area to be a mess; I am not sure that there is any right answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for retrieving the old article. I think it is fair to say that the new article is nothing like the old one and the arguments against the old article (no RS and too early) do not hold against the new. torusJKL (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest query: Does User:Gal Buki have any conflict of interest? They have been a single-purpose account, editing only with regard to this topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 16 years both in the English as in the German Wikipedia. During this time I have created multiple articles and worked on many others. I find the suggestion that my account is a single-purpose account disturbing and far from the truth.

As for conflict of interest. I'm not paid to write the article and I don't believe I get a financial gain by working on this article. The majority of text in the article has an RS and is not for publicity but to show facts and uniqueness that should have a place in an Encyclopedia. torusJKL (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: it appears this editor has indeed been around a lot longer than this SV article. You might consider to retract that statement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtbobwaysf - Yes, but they have become a single-purpose account since the previous SV article was deleted, and all of their subsequent edits have had to do with that article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: This has gone far enough. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am currently working hard to get the draft we are discussing to a level that is good enough for you. It is perfectly normal that someone would invest the limited time he has to get the one draft, where he is the sole contributor, ready and doesn't at the same time do other contributions. I would also like to point you to the following quote on "who not to tag" from the single-purpose account page "Recent edits by an established editor which focus on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, they are welcome to focus on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.". I think I qualify. I kindly ask you to drop the absurd claim and remove the note. Thanks. --torusJKL (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 :::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} it appears this editor has indeed been around a lot longer than this SV article. You might consider to retract that statement. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 ::::[[User:Jtbobwaysf]] - Yes, but they have become a [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] since the previous SV article was deleted, and all of their subsequent edits have had to do with that article.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
-:::::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} This has gone far enough. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am currently working hard to get the draft we are discussing to a level that is good enough for you. It is perfectly normal that someone would invest the limited time he has to get the one draft, where he is the sole contributor, ready and doesn't at the same time do other contributions. I would also like to point you the the following quote on who not to tag from the [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] page "Recent edits by an established editor which focus on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, they are welcome to focus on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.". I think I qualify. I kindly ask you to drop the absurd claim and remove the note. Thanks. --[[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
+:::::{{ping|Robert McClenon}} This has gone far enough. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am currently working hard to get the draft we are discussing to a level that is good enough for you. It is perfectly normal that someone would invest the limited time he has to get the one draft, where he is the sole contributor, ready and doesn't at the same time do other contributions. I would also like to point you to the following quote on "who not to tag" from the [[WP:SPA|single-purpose account]] page "Recent edits by an established editor which focus on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, they are welcome to focus on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.". I think I qualify. I kindly ask you to drop the absurd claim and remove the note. Thanks. --[[User:Gal Buki|torusJKL]] ([[User talk:Gal Buki|talk]]) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)