Talk:Bitcoin Cash
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. |
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:
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.
|
![]() | 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | 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:
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 56 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Maybe. The draft's RS support is very skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @David Gerard: I have added multiple additional RS to the article. torusJKL (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I looked at the older deletion and it was pretty close, a number of keep votes. Since that time this SV is the subject of ongoing controversy in that Craig Wright has taken many people to court in the promotion of his 'real bitcoin' concept. I am not sure if this news about Wright has made its way into mainstream press yet, but there might some. What is different between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV is that they worship different masters, with SV for Craig Steven Wright and Cash for Roger Ver. Separating the articles would be useful from an encyclopedic perspective if we are close on the sourcing level. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- “Worship different masters” is a pretty strong statement and hints at some bias from this editor. I’m worried this user may object to edits and improvements if they feel BCH and BSV proponent are unable to be fair and objective due to their perceived religious motivations.Beakerboy (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I support a split as the content is different. This is not a religious article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- “Worship different masters” is a pretty strong statement and hints at some bias from this editor. I’m worried this user may object to edits and improvements if they feel BCH and BSV proponent are unable to be fair and objective due to their perceived religious motivations.Beakerboy (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- We all know that SPA is quite a disparaging remark, and if someone has been editing a long time and recently became obsessed with a particular subject, that doesn't mean they are an SPA. I am sure we are guilty of being obsessed with a particular subject for some period of time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
Bias not fitting an encyclopedia
The article actually does not even support the blatantly biased claim that Bitcoin Cash was created with "the goal of creating money out of thin air".
In fact, the article says:
"When it split off a year ago, Bitcoin Cash jump-started the forking craze in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names (hello, Bitcoin Diamond)."
It seems very clear this article is saying that other projects saw Bitcoin Cash's fork as an excuse to make forks with that goal - forks with no meaningful support whatsoever. There's absolutely no evidence this is the case for Bitcoin Cash itself though. Unlike later forks, Bitcoin Cash is accepted for payment alongside Bitcoin. It has a substantial following and I believe this claim should be struck from the page unless actual evidence can be produced for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapbox (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Bitcoin Cash
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Bitcoin Cash. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
- What I think should be changed:
Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that came in to existence when numerous involved parties within the bitcoin community disagreed on software implementations, namely increasing the blocksize vs. Segwit [is a fork of Bitcoin]. [Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017.[5][6]]
[] to be removed.
[In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash split further into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.[7]'] this entire sentence has no bearing on the existence Bitcoin Cash and is an event that happened long after it's inception.
- Why it should be changed:
The original formulation does no justice to why Bitcoin Cash has been created in the first place. Similarly statements such as "spin off" "forked off" and "alt coin" is a complete misuse and misunderstanding of blockchain technology.
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
92.64.157.100 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Start-Class Cryptography articles
- Low-importance Cryptography articles
- Start-Class Computer science articles
- Low-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- WikiProject Cryptography articles
- Start-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- Start-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Low-importance Free and open-source software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles of Low-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles
- Start-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- Start-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Start-Class numismatic articles
- Low-importance numismatic articles
- WikiProject Numismatics articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
- WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests