Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin Cash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gal Buki (talk | contribs) at 12:12, 21 April 2021 (→move Bitcoin SV to its own article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Bcash altname again

bitcoin cash is not referred to as bcash. That's a putdown term. It's like calling bitcoin core - bcore. please remove! thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.183.89 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the information conveyed is already noted under controversy; this is arguably not the preferred nomenclature of bitcoin cash users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry[reply]

This has been discussed many times on this talk page. Please go through the history (as the talk page history gets archived. You can find that at the top of this talk page. We would need a new consensus to override the previous consensus. This content is exceedingly well cited with WP:RS Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the content is extremely poorly cited. I already succeeded to remove some blatant violations of Wikipedia principles, but there are others that are by no means better. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate what I mean by extremely poorly cited, I just tagged the first of the citations, because it does not directly support the claim, does it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to the "consensus" that purportedly exists: actually, as the history of the talk page confirms, there is hardly any in that respect. Also note that, in fact, the "bcash" related lead section claim does not summarize the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have participated in numerous talk page discussions and launched multiple RfCs on this subject. I dont think we have anything new to discuss here do we? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you do not have anything to discuss. Nevemind, I will take care of the issues. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking you a question if you have something new to discuss? Or are we just rehashing old issues you have raised in the past already? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re "are we just rehashing old issues you have raised in the past already?" Obviously not. Or did you find any RfC at the history which specifically mentioned the poor citation I tagged? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the tagged cite and the article literally, repeatedly, refers to Bitcoin Cash as "bcash". The tagger appears not to have looked at the article. So I've removed the tag - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the source does not say that sometimes it refers to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, I assume that I should take you as the source confirming that. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be poorly cited with unreliable sources. Also, what is "consensus" means in this context? Wikipedia editors? The citations are not reliable so this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash?

To be clear, the question under discussion was "Do the sources support the claim that Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic". The consensus answer is no, Bcash should not be listed as an alternate name. The IBT source which started this thread is largely considered unreliable for this claim, and the consensus here (as in previous RfCs such as May 2018 and July 2019 [which follows up on June 2019]) is that most of the provided sources are either unreliable or do not claim that the term "Bcash" is a significant alternative name. Here as in previous RfCs, editors point frequently to articles in The Verge by a single author. Editors supporting listing "Bcash" as an alternate name point to these articles as evidence that the alternate name exists and is sued, while editor opposed to listing the term note that the author uses the term infrequently and has equated the term with "Btrash" limiting the significance we should assign to the name. One editor also notes that financial markets independent of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash do not use the neologism "Bcash" (edit: whether this is accurate is disputed, see discussion following close). Finally, the "no" responses outnumber "yes" responses by about 2-to-1 showing that editors generally found the arguments against including "Bcash" more persuasive than arguments for inclusion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the article, there is a claim that

Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.

One of the sources, actually the first one cited to confirm the claim is [1]. Does the source directly confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modified question per the suggestion of User:MJL:

Since User:MJL, the editor closing the RfC: Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? suggested me to modify the above question, and since several editors discuss the modified question below anyway, I replace the original question by the question modified as follows:

In the article, there is a claim that

Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.

In support of the claim, these sources are cited:

Do the sources support the claim that "Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic", i.e. do the sources confirm that the requirement specified in MOS:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES is satisfied? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • No
    • The source [1] is unreliable per WP:RSP.
    • The source [9] was written by Jon Evans, who is not a TechCrunch staff member. Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus that articles published by TechCrunch, especially when their authors are not staff members can support any claim, especially such articles shall not be cited to support any notability (significance) claim.
    • The source [7] says that "A new digital currency is about to be created" or "This will create a new, separate digital token called Bitcoin Cash.", etc. In other words, the source says that it is a forecast. As such, the source has been obsoleted by the creation of Bitcoin Cash that provably happened after its publication. Since Wikipedia is not a crystalball, this source is not acceptable.
    • The source [8] says that "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin." Thus, it actually contradicts the significance of the Bcash term, saying that the usage of the term is essentially as significant as the usage of the Btrash term, i.e. not at all. The sources [2] and [4] are written by the same author and depict essentially the same picture.
    • The source [3] mentions just one person, the Litecoin founder Charlie Lee to use the Bcash term, which does not really add to the significance of it. The same holds for the source [6], which also names just Lee as a user of the term.
    • The source [10] also names just one man, Aurelien Menant to use the term. Taking all these findings into account, there is no support for the claim that the Bcash term has significant use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; while consensus seems to be that (RSP entry) is a rag, the Verge article also calls it that. It seems like there is some complicated politics thing going on here about which name people ought to use; that said, this is an encyclopedia, so I don't think it matters a whole lot if people are calling it that for complicated politics reasons. What's significant is that they call it that (even if they were just cribbing that nickname from the Wikipedia article, they're a RS so we have to repeat whatever they say). Maybe there is some other source that covers the controversy about the complicated politics thing, that can be added to illustrate that some people really don't want to call it that... who knows? But that's definitely what it says. jp×g 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Ladislav Mecir - Idealigic (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is just too trivial for the lead. Putting aside the IBT (which is a low-quality source), the other sources only use the term in passing or by quoting someone using it, and often not in the sense it's being cited for here - in particualr, the Verge source that people are trying to use to argue for inclusion above mentions it only once, in passing, halfway down the article and says Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin. The term also should never be used in the article text, since it's a neologism. --Aquillion (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and it looks incredibly awkward in the lead paragraph. What is even the importance of it for including it in the article? It's like saying "Bitcoin is sometimes referred to as BTC". Who cares? HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bitcoin's Ticker symbols are BTC & XBT and Bitcoin Cash's ticker symbol is BCH. The subject of this RFC is not ticker symbols. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Per Ladislav Mecir. Comatmebro (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – Per Molochmeditates presenting The Verge RS stating exactly that; backs up the lesser quality IBT source's usage of the term as an alternative. Also, I guess since there's some anecdotal evidence here that the use of the term "bcash" is somehow seen as a sort of pejorative by some proponents for political reasons, by reason of basic principles of cause & effect, it would be common sense to conclude that yes, Bitcoin Cash is in fact sometimes referred to as bcash. HiddenLemon // talk 08:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Expanded comment – It appears that the author of this RfC decided to raise the goalpost by modifying the question shortly after the above !vote and comment. The original question regarding the actual claim made in the article that, Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash, has been changed in order to promote discussion of the non-claim that Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic. Having been surprised to discover that such a trivial shorthand name draws such a (seemingly forced) outrage by presumed WP:Advocates of the subject, I looked through the past talk page archives on this term. The author of this RfC clearly appears unable to maintain a WP:Neutral stance here as evidenced by the years of promotional rehashing of this exact contention. That said, the dispute here is that the term "Bcash" is sometimes used to refer to Bitcoin Cash, as that line in the article states. The validity of the claim is quite easily verifiable as others have provided RS to show.

      Beyond that, given that there exists this continuous and excessive push by other editors to assert that the term is somehow derogatory, offensive, and vehemently opposed to, it would be common sense to assume that all editors agree that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash.

      Claiming that it's not would contradict the argument that the term has a negative connotation, or any connotation at all associated with it. Yet, editors disagreeing with the claim are consistently making both arguments simultaneously. This repeated conflict creation appears to be tantamount to WP:Tendentious editing or at best, WP:Civil POV pushing.

      If there are some administrative methods to make a final resolution through some sort of arbitration and/or other similar formats, I'd think it could have been tried long ago. Surely this issue should not need to be re-debated for sport every so often... especially not when the issue seems to be a resilient platform for WP:Activists to engage in promotion of insignificant wordplay akin to WP:Propaganda thats primarily built on Strawman and WP:Specialized-style fallacy arguments. Is this term even worthy to give it due weight in the article, regardless of its context and presentation? Its hard to even tell by having to go through all the WP:USTHEM nonsense.

      HiddenLemon // talk 21:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's not fitting for the lead. The name was coined by detractors and is used infrequently when looking at the whole of terms used to name this crypto and it's typically only in comparison to bitcoin by decorators to bitcoin cash in favor of bitcoin and rarely except in passing commentary and not published news or other sources. A single news source (that arguably has a bias against that was mentioned earlier in this thread) just not make a common pattern for the alternative naming. We already have a section for the names coined by detractors to this crypto. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 19:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The source is unreliable and it's not terrible relevant to the article, let alone the lead, either. The fact that this is a term (alongside Btrash) used by detractors is probably the biggest argument. This isn't that different from people on internet forums referring to the "Call of Duty" videogames as "Call of Doody" or to "Star Wars" as "Shit Wars" or whatever. Sure, that is a thing people say. Should it be on Wikipedia? Hardly. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. None of the sources are recent. They all are from up to 6 months after the initial creation of the coin. A major event at the time, Bitcoin had never forked before like that. Facts were hard to get and reporters didn't know who to ask. The Bitcoin Cash creation event was 3½ years ago with no bcash references for the majority of its lifetime. The references are easy to explain as a miscommunication. TZander (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. While the name might have been used in the beginning, there isn't a single third-party market (that is, not affiliated with either bitcoin or bitcoin cash) using it. For example, all major exchanges like Bitstamp, Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, Blockchain.com etc. use Bitcoin Cash; a few use just BCH; none use bcash. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It seems like the crypto journalist Leigh Cuen is using bcash to disassociate the Bitcoin Cash fork and its supporters from Blockstream's Bitcoin Core fork.

Here's an article from coindesk in the same time frame of the fork (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-supports-fork-doesnt) which doesn't use the bcash moniker.

And another article from NYtimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/business/dealbook/bitcoin-cash-split.html) dated July 25, 2017, where the professional journalist is able to write out the whole name of Bitcoin Cash throughout the article.

Sources 2, 4, and 8 (Jeffries, Adrianne) are the same author, in a compressed date range (9-Apr-18 to 1-May-18) on the same platform (The Verge). This is possibly unreliable. Please remove 2 sources.

Source 3: Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin, is obviously biased against the Bitcoin Cash fork, as his coin thrives on Bitcoin Core's inabilty to process blockchain transactions. https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/1004420298496569345 In this twitter message, he calls bitcoin cash a ----coin. Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.

Source 9: The article involving Evans Jon uses the bcash epithet in the title of the article, and proceeds to call it bitcoin cash in the body. Please remove.

Source 10: Aurelian Menant's exchange- Gatecoin - is shut down. https://www.coindesk.com/gatecoin-crypto-exchange-to-shut-down-on-courts-orders (mentioned in the tech transformers article). Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.

The sources you have listed (twitter, coindesk, etc) are not used on this article, and are not RS on cryptocurrency articles. We are not using twitter, coindesk, etc as WP:RS on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/14/litecoin-bitcoin-cash-lee-ver/ shows that the author (Charlie Lee) cited in the article (Source 3) is engaged in some kind of naming attack on Bitcoin Cash due to his personal position in his cryptocurrency Litecoin. From the talk pages I looked through, it seems multiple people have stated that the Bcash moniker is used again to bring about negative connotations about Bitcoin Cash, although it is a viable software fork of the Bitcoin open-source software.

Here's another article from the Wall Street Journal where the author is able to also spell out the whole name Bitcoin Cash https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-was-meant-to-be-the-better-bitcoin-its-down-nearly-90-1535115600.

I think a more accurate statement on the Bitcoin Cash summary page would be: Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash by its detractors [10]. as mentioned in this article where the author groups the terms Bcash, Btrash, scam together. (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/17229796/bitcoin-cash-conflict-transactions-fight) This has already been referenced under Section 2 Controversy; why is it popping up again in the summary subsection? Bcash nickname sources [10] should be inserted after [21] under Section 2.

Another article by the Wall Street Journal detailing tax implications of the Bitcoin Cash fork from the Bitcoin Core software where the journalist is able to type out the whole name 'Bitcoin Cash'; https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-one-knows-how-much-to-pay-in-bitcoin-cash-taxes-1503658800 .

(Mazdamiata200 talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cuen, Leigh (22 August 2017). "Why Some People Love Bitcoin Cash". International Business Times. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  2. ^ a b Jeffries, Adrienne (1 May 2018). "A Bitcoin podcaster brilliantly trolled his own hacker". The Verge. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  3. ^ a b Browne, Ryan (20 December 2017). "Litecoin founder Charlie Lee says he's sold all his holdings in the cryptocurrency". CNBC. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  4. ^ a b Jeffries, Adrienne (9 April 2018). "Twitter briefly shut down @Bitcoin, sparking wild conspiracy theories". The Verge. Retrieved 2 November 2019.
  5. ^ Shen, Lucinda (8 August 2017). "Bitcoin Just Surged to Yet Another All-Time High". Fortune Magazine. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  6. ^ a b Ambler, Pamela (9 August 2017). "The Rapid Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin Cash". Forbes. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  7. ^ a b Graham, Luke (31 July 2017). "A new digital currency is about to be created as the bitcoin blockchain is forced to split in two". CNBC. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  8. ^ a b Jeffries, Adrianne (12 April 2018). "THE ONE TRUE BITCOIN – Inside the struggle between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash". Verge. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
  9. ^ a b Evans, Jon (10 August 2018). "Cryptocurrency insecurity: IOTA, BCash and too many more". Techcrunch. Retrieved 12 August 2018.
  10. ^ a b Kharpal, Arjun (3 August 2017). "TECH TRANSFORMERS: 'Bitcoin cash' potential limited, but a catalyst could be looming for it to take off". CNBC. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  11. ^ Ou, Elaine (10 December 2017). "An Expert's Guide to Navigating the World of Bitcoin: A Q&A between Julie Verhage and Elaine Ou on crypto-assets and the resources involved in bitcoin mining". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
It seems you should pull the existing RfC and start over. Also it appears you seek to conflate the RfC by adding the extra word "significant", which is not contained in the present text of the article. You are putting forth the argument that this nickname is significant, which is found nowhere in the article. You are also putting forward it is an altname, which if it was, it would be in the first sentence (aka). You dispute that it is a formally an altname, as far as I recall, and I believe prior RFCs have also come to this consensus if I recall. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I did it as suggested by MJL here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jtbobwaysf's above reply. My recent "Expanded comment" may have been better suited to be added here to the discussion section, but since it elaborated on my original comment I made it a sub-bullet point under my !vote. (comment diff) TL;DR: This whole issue is a recurrently ridiculous and unproductive game. HiddenLemon // talk 21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems to be recurrently ridiculous and unproductive, why not remove or edit the sentence in the lead summary? I agree that it is ridiculous and the constant RfCs on the topic from different users seems to point that whomever placed that sentence there is not doing their job of maintaining neutrality. The sentence could read 'Bitcoin cash is called bcash by its detractors', since that is what seems to be happening, and you have one side of wikipedia editors not wanting to add that attribute of controversy (putting their own personal viewpoint into a neutral article). Obviously the best action is to just remove the sentence, since the attribute (that bitcoin cash has a name controversy by its detractors) has already been pointed out in section 2 controversy. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry[reply]
Hi, Mazdamiata. I appreciate your effort to propose a compromise solution, but as described above by, e.g. Aquillion, the problem is, that the available sources do not justify the use of the Bcash term as a MOS:ALTNAME of the article subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that Ladislav's repetitious RFCs on basically the same question - whether "bcash" needs mention in the intro as an alternate name used in RSes for Bitcoin Cash - have reached the stage of being querulous - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David Gerard. I think that it would be much more comfortable for you to consider it from the point of view of the quality of information Wikipedia can serve to its readers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a behavioural problem on your part. You were nearly topic-banned from all cryptocurrency articles previously. - David Gerard (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question regarding close

@Wugapodes: you closed the above RFC and noted in your closing comments that Redgolpe (talk · contribs) commented that financial markets weren't using the term Bcash. I was curious if that was true, googled it, and see that most financial markets have used the term at some point in time, and some continue to use the term. I have added sources today that demonstrate that major market operators continue to use the term, including Bitfinex, LocalBitcoins, Paxful, BitMEX, Gemini, and Gatecoin (in the CNBC source). In the past these type of sources are removed from crypto articles, as we have not been using corporate sources on cryptocurrency articles. However, in this case the matter if financial markets have or continue to use the term has been raised and highlighted in the close summary. I added the sources today as it would be impossible to discuss this claim if we don't at least look at these type sources, with both bitfinex and paxful using the term within the last year. I thought I would ping you and ask the degree to which this factor affected your close decision. I added the sources one by one but you can see the summary of the diffs [1]. If I have made an error by adding another section to a closed RFC (I did do it outside of the dont edit box), please forgive me and feel free to move my question down to a new section at the bottom of this talk page. Maybe you could comment here on the weight you gave in your close to this industry use of the term matter. Please note it is my recollection that these corporate sources have been removed in the past from the article by the nominator Ladislav Mecir and he has again removed those new sources in the past couple hours. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a comment under the close is perfectly acceptable, and in fact the best option when new information comes to light. Closes aren't the end of discussion, but a jumping-off point for further discussion so that everyone is on the same page. With that in mind, the reason I mentioned Redgolpe's comment is that it was a novel argument that was interesting but not discussed. I thought editors might find it a useful piece of information to investigate and discuss after the closure, and it might turn up new sources or inspire new compromises. For my part, I know very little about cryptocurrencies and took Redgolpe at their word, so I've noted in the close that the accuracy of the statement is disputed. To your specific question, I didn't give the argument much weight since it was only one comment and not widely discussed. I think the outcome would be the same even if the comment were incorrect or never made. That said, consensus can change, and if discussing this point changes peoples' minds then the close should be disregarded. I'll look into the recent edits. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything needing admin action at the moment. It looks like Ladislav Mecir has been offline since your revert, so I would give them a chance to log in and join the discussion. If you two reach an impasse let me know and I'll do my best to mediate if that might help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wug·. I know that, e.g. the source [1] was discussed in the RfC, since it was a forecast. That is the reason why I removed it from the article body. Do you think the deletion was unjustified? Another source I deleted from the article body was [2], because I know that it now directly confirms the subsequent sentence, not the one that was the subject of the RfC. Then there are several other sources cited, sources which do not directly confirm the sentence in question as discussed in the RfC. Thank you for your opinion on these issues. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Mecir removed the content at 06:26, 13 March 2021, I reverted that removal at 16:18, 13 March 2021, and then Mecir again removed the content at 12:10, 14 March 2021. It appears to me that the March 14 edit by Mecir violated WP:GS/Crypto by continuing to WP:TE within a 24 hour cooling off time limit, and generally speaking represents a continuation of a long pattern of TE often related to this bcash name on this article, of which there has been countless RFCs. @MER-C: and @David Gerard: please have a look (pinging you both because are involved in GScrypto). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the recent reverts are a smoking gun, but looking into this dispute more it seems this RfC is part of a pattern of disruption that really does need to be stopped. It seems like LM has been on this "Bcash" horse since at least 2018. Other editors have pointed out that LM's repeated RfCs are disruptive, and given the follow-up to the close I'm expecting that yet another RfC is waiting in the wings to waste more editors' time. So for the pretty clear tendentious editing I've banned Ladislav Mecir from Bitcoin Cash and related pages under WP:GS/Crypto which should hopefully allow people to get on with their work here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Graham, Luke (31 July 2017). "A new digital currency is about to be created as the bitcoin blockchain is forced to split in two". CNBC. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  2. ^ Jeffries, Adrianne (12 April 2018). "THE ONE TRUE BITCOIN – Inside the struggle between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash". Verge. Retrieved 7 April 2019.

The sidebar lists inaccurate / outdated information for items like 'Implementation'. The ABC client is listed but if you look at their website you can easily confirm that they are not a BCH client. Looking at bch.info you can find 6 actual implementations.

The sidebar lists 'Latest release', which is not relevant since this is a crypto-currency, this is not a software. 6 implementations have different 'latest releases'.

The sidebar lists 'Website' which is similarly outdated. More explanation and plenty of references can be found on this special page on bch.info.

The Bitcoin Cash page needs to be updated as new facts become available, the wikipedia page looks like it got stuck in 2018. Thats like the Android page can't refer to facts of the last 10 years for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZander (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I changed the sidebar to include the one node implementation that has been able to get their own Wikipedia article. I wonder if there is any standard on what should be in the sidebar? The Implementations section could easily become a messy list of every node software. If I were voting, the “Latest Release” would be the protocol definition, again so it is not a list of different versions of each of the implementations. I know ABC was working on a defined protocol. Has anyone taken that up after the split? Were you involved with that at all? I wish there was a BCH industry group to manage these things.Beakerboy (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

See attached article which shows the split between Bitcoin Cash: lead implementation BCHN and Bitcoin Cash ABC: lead implementation Bitcoin ABC (which implemented a 8% block reward redirect) on Nov 15, 2020, mining SHA256. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/13/2126220/0/en/Bitcoin-Cash-Undergoes-Hard-Fork.html Mazdamiata200 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: @Mazdamiata200: The provided source is a press release, which is not wp:independent. It is also unclear what changes you want to make. ~ Aselestecharge-paritytime 14:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bcash name

Ladislav, you removed the text from the lede per the RFC close here, and I added it back & moved it down to the controversy section. First, you deleted a large number of sources. Second it seems one of the sources ("vergeone") state the word is being used to as a detractor, yet there are other list of sources that seem to indicate the bcash term is neutrally. The closing editor confirmed here that the close did not call for removal of content. I dont have a position on the btrash name, it seems clearly that is meant to detract. Maybe you or someone else could propose some text on how to unify the two statements. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources again

@Ladislav Mecir: you again removed sources on the article.

  • CNBC you said was WP:CRYSTAL for this diff
  • Verge removal [2]: please explain what you mean by it confirms the subsequent sentence. Is there a prohibition on using a source twice in an article?
  • 6 various corporate sources here. Is it your position that these sources are not RS?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BitcoinABC split

I added a sentence about the BitcoinABC split which was reverted by @Jtbobwaysf:. I think we all can agree that this split occurred. BitcoinABC was, for a while, the most popular node in Bitcoin Cash. Many existing sources in the article refer to ABC. It no longer is. I’m not at all interested in writing about the politics and opinions of either side of the split, but it certainly seems, to me at least, important to note that there was a split, and the consensus chain is not the ABC chain. If this news was not noteworthy enough for the Washington Post or New York Times to report, what can we do about this? Can we use the BitcoinABC website where they now state that they follow the BCHA chain instead of BCH?

I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream sources need to be used for anything with an editorial take on a subject, but I would think that there would be a lower bar for things that are plain facts. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would fit this IMO. Beakerboy (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we have been in general reverting everything that doesn't have good sources. Are you referring to the split that created Bitcoin SV? That is what I get when I google that. Or is this related to the more recent event where the ABC software created some sort of fee paid to developers and then that was another fork. Are there any sources for this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m talking about the later. Yes there are sources, but I have been unable to find any from Reuters or the AP. For example, I included one from in the sentence you reverted. [3]. Let’s figure out how we can get to ‘yes’ given the material we have to work with.Beakerboy (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please find some other better source. I am unsure this is WP:DUE at this point in time. I did a little search for the usual crypto RS (ft, fortune, bloomberg, wsj, etc) and I got ft on CSW. Anything else we can find? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m guessing you are merely a Wiki admin-type and do not follow crypto correct? That’s probably a good thing in one hand in that there is no worry about bias on the part of administrators. What happens in most cryptocurrencies in not important enough given everything bad that happens in the world for the major news outlets to report on. Why should they? However, that does not mean they didn’t happen. Like I said above; I agree that editorial aspects should heavily rest on large mainstream news outlets, but for things that are just plain facts, why is there not a lower bar? Does this mean that Wikipedia editors are only allowed to include topics that the New York Times considers had broad enough appeal to write about? I realize these questions are maybe a little off-topic, and possibly above your pay-grade. This seems a lot more cut and dry from the people crying about their feeling being hurt by the whole “bcash” nonsense. Again, tell me what you need to get to a yes on what is clearly a fact, and also was a very important event for BCH. To distill it down to an analogy that a non-crypto person would follow, what basically happened would be like if Microsoft said they were changing Windows to enforce a subscription-based model, and in response all PC manufacturers said they would switch to Linux with Wine...and then Microsoft went through with their change anyways. ABC was the largest software client used by miners. Their threat to change the protocol to fund themselves was a big deal, it happened. I guess if the rules are that because CNN didn’t report it it didn’t happen, then those are the rules...Wikipedia will die by the sword it lives on. I’m not going to risk being banned from this article by getting into a fight over this. But you are trying to convince a volunteer with no motive not to add undisputed facts to an article.Beakerboy (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coinbase, a major bitcoin exchange, had a press release about this. [4]Beakerboy (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not an admin I am just an editor like you that edits a range of subjects. We have had promotional problems in the crypto articles so the GS and the tighter sourcing rules were I believe primarily put in place to that end. Here poloniex and kraken both talk about the pending fork before the fork, like coinbase did in the example you gave. I am generally familiar with some mainstream crypto concepts, but as it runs off into the weeds (such altcoin forks) my knowledge wanes. I do read that this dispute was between Roger Ver and Amaury Sechet (I guess an important developer), but I am not sure how much meets the criteria for inclusion, and what is more important (us staying on the same sourcing rule set) or including something that is WP:OBVIOUS as you mention. Let's ask another editor, David Gerard we are discussing here if/how to include the BCHABC hardfork. Thoughts? I think we could just include that it had a hard for on a particular date, and if no other editor removes it (as unsourced content), then it can stay (I wont remove it as it isn't controversial). But my opinion is we dont use the coindesk sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this with me, and the advice on which sources are rock-solid going forward. Amaury is the lead developer for BitcoinABC, so he was important in this fork. Roger Ver is more a business and marketing guy. I’m guessing there were both technical and philosophical reasons the fork resulted one way over the other, but I’m not planning on addressing that editorial aspect without better sources. If I did I’d make a new section about prominent hardforks and combine it with the existing BitcoinSV fork section.Beakerboy (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. I would suggest to wait for 24 hours from the original insert of content, and then just add something really vanilla to the article. Maybe later we can find something in google books that we can use. Seems the mainstream press wasn't much interested in the fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

move Bitcoin SV to its own article

Since the split in November 2018 the two chains Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV have diverged significantly.

Bitcoin Cash is going forward with its goal to be electronic cash while Bitcoin SV has made big changes by reactivating most of the original protocol and removing most of the limits that still exists in the other Bitcoin variants.


In addition there are published articles from reliable sources:


The decision to delete and redirect Bitcoin SV to Bitcoin Cash was based on the lack of reliable sources and significant coverage.

Both arguments are not valid anymore and hence Bitcoin SV has become notable and should receive its own page. torusJKL (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin_Cash&oldid=1019080178"