Talk:Bitcoin Cash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should Bitcoin SV have its own article?[edit]

Draft:Bitcoin SV was submitted recently, but I believe it should be discussed here first whether to split this off of this article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, nah, it's too soon to reopen discussion on this. Nothing's really changed except that it's being delisted this week. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It was delisted from where? (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It would be good if it had its own article, but we need WP:RS for it, as it seems that it is not notable except in relation to its split from bitcoin cash. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Bcash altname[edit]

The consensus is for B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not (diff).

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) asked me here to review my close. DannyS712 (talk · contribs) previously closed the RfC and then self-reverted his close after discussion with Ladislav Mecir here. Here is a revised RfC close:
    1. The consensus is that "[Bitcoin Cash] is sometimes referred to as Bcash" should be used instead of "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates ... [and] detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'."

      Editors found that option A's formulation is not neutral in saying the "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by its advocates and neutral people while the "Bcash" name is used by detractors. That is because editors found that aside from The Verge article, the sources say that Bcash is another name used to refer to Bitcoin Cash and do not say that it is largely detractors who refer to the cryptocurrency as Bcash.

      Editors found Option B to be preferable because it takes a neutral position.

      Markbassett (talk · contribs)'s nuanced position is worth considering:

      Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

      There is no prejudice against a new RfC that incorporates Markbassett's suggestion in noting that (1) the "Bcash" name is used without any negative meaning to refer to Bitcoin Cash and (2) detractors refer to the cryptocurrency as "Bcash".
    2. Ladislav Mecir noted both here and on DannyS712's talk page that Option B's wording "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" is not sufficiently sourced. I did not find sourcing presented in this RfC verifying this assertion. There was little discussion of whether the naming is contentious. Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) wrote, "This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it)." There is no consensus to retain or remove the "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" wording owing to the lack of discussion.

      Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations notes: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The "contentious" wording is unsupported by a reliable source, so I am therefore removing "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" as a normal editorial action not based on this RfC close. Any editor can restore the sentence if the statement is sourced with "an inline citation to a reliable source".

    Cunard (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

Bitcoin Cash has an WP:ALTNAME "Bcash." A new source exists from The Verge [1] that asserts the term Bcash is pejorative. This vote is if we:

  • A: Should follow the verge source take the position that the ALTNAME is pejorative, diff [2]
  • B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not, diff [3].

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Description, an attempt at a neutral formulation[edit]

Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the description of the issue should be neutral. Here is my attempt to describe the issue neutrally:

There are two versions of the text discussing the cryptocurrency naming.

  • Option A uses the formulation "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates such as Roger Ver,[2] investors, entrepreneurs, developers, users, miners[3][4] or people trying to remain neutral such as Andreas Antonopoulos.[1] Its detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'.[1]"
  • Option B uses the formulation "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash.[2]"

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Option B This single source is not sufficient to change a neutral position on this article that has stood for some time now. The 'bcash name is bad' is part of the bitcoin cash advocate POV and does not belong on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Option A As this is the truthful version, which happens to be supported by WP:RS (and not contradicted in any WP:RS). Ladislav Mecir's version does a great job at achieving neutrality and objective truth. 84percent (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Option A. The sources cited by option B do not confirm the text option B uses. For example, the BizJournals article[3] does not confirm the claims in the option B text, it just advertises the Riot Blockchain's business. Similarly, the Reuters article[4] does not confirm the option B text, mentioning just Riot Blockchain's services. Option B characterizes the 'Bcash' word as a 'nickname', which is also not confirmed by any of the cited sources. Note also that the 'Staff Writer' last name of the author of the Reuters article is not confirmed by Reuters in the current version of the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, I didn't make anything up, please WP:AGF and see the archive here[4] the source was signed as "Reuters Staff". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I do assume good faith, but cannot assume that you do not misrepresent the source, when that is what you do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B for being both neutral and factual.

☑ The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious
☑ it is sometimes referred to as Bcash

Also, 'Bcash' is not pejorative while 'Btrash' and 'a scam' obviously are. Option A fails in making this distinction. 'Bcash' is used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident. That is not being pejorative. Oska (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was (rudely) challenged on my third sentence above - that people use the name Bcash to avoid confusion with the original Bitcoin. I have given a greater explanation and sources for this statement in the discussion below, referencing a detailed article by Aaron van Wirdum which includes quotes from commercial providers who have opted to use the alternate name and who explicitly gave the reason of avoiding confusion for this choice. Oska (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B (invited by a bot) A is POV, especially in including 'a scam' as one of the "names." (Please keep discussions out of the !vote section.) Jojalozzo (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B As per Oska's remarks Dryfee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Note that this bcash altname is the subject of prior RfC's here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash and Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time Jtbobwaysf described the issue nonneutrally (see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash). That is why I attempted to make the formulation more neutral. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Jtbobwaysf, I suggest striking your version to increase readability of your Rfc for new contributors. 84percent (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I have never seen an involved editor revise an RfC. Then the second involved editor (you) ask the RfC creator to strike his RfC text (not to mention you continue to edit the content being discussed after the RfC is created here [5]). I will instead ping an uninvolved editor and get some advice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. No problem; I'm happy to help. 84percent (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I did another RfC on this bcash altname subject on this article. Want to ask your some procedural questions and seek some advice. First, Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) has re-worked the RfC description claiming it was not neutral here [6] and Ladislav then removed a source here [7]. Also 84percent (talk · contribs) carries on to edit the disputed content that is subject of the RfC here [8]. Maybe you could take a look, and let me know what you suggest. FYI, you have my permission to edit the RfC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oska:, You say that "Bcash" is "used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident", however this is not supported by any of the sources; it's blatant original research. Can you produce a reliable source agreeing with that view? You also write that "Bcash" is not pejorative, however there is a reliable source which explicitly states that the term "Bcash" (or "Btrash") is used by Bitcoin Cash detractors.[5] 84percent (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@84percent: if you want sources for what I've said just ask for them; no need to heat things up with aspersions of "blatant original research". Your bad faith is not appreciated.
Now, to provide some sources that confirm what I stated above.
In an article [6] by Aaron Van Wirdum, one of the most respected and informed journalists in the Bitcoin/crytocurrency space, he says:
Many proponents of the coin, judging by popular sentiment on social media like Reddit and Twitter, prefer the initial name: Bitcoin Cash. But an increasing number of users, including many who are more skeptical of the new coin, consider this name too close to “Bitcoin” and therefore confusing. They instead refer to the new coin as “Bcash.”
He then goes on to quote a number of important commercial voices in the space who are not even necessarily 'detractors' (as their services support the use of the coin) but chose the Bcash name to avoid confusion on the part of their users:
It was one of these exchange, Bitfinex, that also announced a full name change for the cryptocurrency itself. As opposed to ViaBTC, Bitfinex decided it would use the name “Bcash” instead of “Bitcoin Cash” as the descriptive name: “to avoid confusion with Bitcoin.”
Bitfinex’s lead was followed by two of the three wallets that initially decided to integrate the new coin: hardware wallet Trezor and multicurrency wallet Jaxx. In a statement on Twitter, Jaxx COO Charlie Shrem explained that they, not unlike Bitfinex, made their choice in order to avoid user confusion.
“We have hundreds [of] thousands of users who have no clue what’s going on,” Shrem wrote. “Saying ‘bitcoin cash’ is confusing as hell to them. Unless you’re in user ops for a big company you probably have no idea how much people don’t understand technicals of bitcoin. 99.9999% #bitcoin users aren’t on Twitter or Reddit and don’t know anything technical about it.”
Similarly, when asked by Bitcoin Magazine, Trezor architect Marek “Slush” Palatinus explained:
“The reason we prefer to use ‘Bcash’ is to protect users from using the wrong wallet by accident. This would be a huge problem especially because Bcash has the same address format as Bitcoin, so we cannot protect users on the application level. We asked the Bcash team to change the address prefix before launch, which would solve it. But they refused.”
These concerns do appear to be backed by real-world data. A survey conducted by Pierre Rochard suggests that some 25 percent of regular people don’t know that “Bitcoin Cash” is distinct from “Bitcoin.” And so far there are, indeed, a number of reports on social media from users that accidentally sent BTC to a BCH wallet or vice versa.
And here is another article that talks about BCash in a neutral manner without going into the controversy about the name:
which provides a simple example of the BCash name being used as an WP:ALTNAME for Bitcoin Cash.
Oska (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately, none of your sources qualifies as WP:IRS. Specifically, the Bitcoin Magazine is known to not be a WP:IRS and the website is not reliable either. This applies in general to the option B text, which actually does not cite any reliable sources confirming its wording as illustrated above on several examples. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Known by whom? Bitcoin Magazine is in the top tier of journalism on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies generally. And, using good journalistic practice, the article I linked directly quotes and links to original sources. Oska (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
See this RfC. Also note that your "...using good journalistic practice, the article I linked directly quotes and links to original sources" actually translates to the fact that the article cites reddit and twitter as its sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
This will be my last response to you here as I feel you are wasting my time with misleading objections. Are you trying to deny that a number of the major crypto exchanges and a number of the major hard wallet providers use the name 'Bcash' and have done so on the explicit rationale of avoiding confusion? No, you can't do that because it is a fact and van Wirdum's article links to those exchanges and hard wallet manufacturers stating that. Now it doesn't matter where they make those explanations - either on their own websites or on twitter or on reddit (both of the last two being major places for cryptocurrency discussion). They are going to make the explanations where they feel they will be best seen. So trying to take this discussion into the weeds with a derail into questioning sources is simply a time-waster. The fact is that Bcash as a name is widely used and used by major players in the space. And they have explained their reasons for doing so in a non-pejorative manner. We need to mirror those facts in the article and we need to quote those sources from the media in which they chose to make their explanations. Full stop. Oska (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe you have proved my first point for me (that there is not a single reliable source supporting this view), as to my understanding crypto blogs and websites, including Bitcoin Magazine and WeUseCoins, are not accepted as reliable sources for crypto articles; coverage on blockchain-related articles requires mainstream RSes. My second point, which you may want to revisit with WP:VER in mind, is that there is at least one reliable source stating the naming is nickname is pejorative. If there is a reliable source stating that, and there are no reliable sources contradicting that statement, I suggest that we include that detail. Furthermore, you write that "Bcash" is used by people who seek to avoid confusion: this could indeed be true, however it doesn't discount the point that "Bcash" is used pejoratively by Bitcoin Cash detractors; it's very possible that both statements are true, i.e. there is more than one reason why some people use the shorter moniker. However, only the latter should be included as the former is currently an unverifiable theory. 84percent (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. B doesn't take a position on why the name exists or what it means. B simply states that it exists and we have lots of RS for it... Jtbobwaysf (talk)
Quite obviously, not. B presents the 'Bitcoin Cash' name as 'controversial' or 'contentious', while the 'Bcash' name is presented as if it were neutral. No source you cite actually supports that, some of them are just mentions of services of some unimportant company and do not confirm any of the B claim, and exactly no source does confirm the B claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This RfC's Option B doesn't suggest controversial. It says "contentious." Are you seeking to add that the altname bcash 'controversial'? This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"Are you seeking to add that the altname bcash 'controversial'?" - quite obviously, not. As opposed to your effort, I do not seek to add any information that is not confirmed by WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, then i guess i dont understand your point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I think that some of the contributors overlooked that the problem with option B is that its wording is not confirmed by the cited sources and that the other sources they suggest are not acceptable per this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Jeffries, Adrianne (2018-04-12). "The one true Bitcoin". The Verge. Retrieved 2019-05-01.
  2. ^ Bcash Nickname Sources:
  3. ^ Miller, Ben (4 May 2018). "What's Riot Blockchain up to now? Mining more bitcoin, apparently". BizJournals. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  4. ^ "BRIEF-Riot Blockchain Produced About 100 Bitcoins And 61 Bcash For April". Reuters. 4 May 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  5. ^ Jeffries, Adrianne (12 April 2018). "THE ONE TRUE BITCOIN - Inside the struggle between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash". Verge. Retrieved 7 April 2019.
  6. ^ van Wirdum, Aaron. "Bitcoin Cash or Bcash: What's in a Name?". Bitcoin Magazine. Retrieved 5 May 2019.

Discussion about previous RfC close[edit]

This discussion about a previous close of this RfC is copied from User talk:DannyS712 for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
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.

Hi, I want to discuss your close at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. What I am missing in your close is a reflection of the problem that the "option B" you chose as having consensus is not confirmed by the cited sources. Can you explain it to me, please? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Both option A and B agree that Bitcoin cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash. The source from A, [9], says "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam," - thus both proposals agree that it is sometimes referred to as Bcash. The sources for B specifically also use Bcash: "Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,”", "Bitcoin Cash, now also known as “Bcash,”", "parts of the community are referring to the new token as Bcash" - those are the first 3 of the sources cited specifically for option B. I checked the cited sources before the close, since so much of the discussion was about how it is named, and see evidence that it is indeed, at least sometimes, called Bcash. DannyS712 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Right, that part of the "option B" seems to be confirmed by the sources. Nevertheless, there is also the first part of the "optionB" stating: "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious;" and this part is not confirmed by the cited sources. In my opinion, this part reverts the facts, trying to inform the reader that the "Bitcoin Cash" name is contentious without having any source confirming this claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: (edit conflict) There wasn't any (as far as I could see) discussion about whether or not it was contentious, and given that an RfC had to be held it seems to me that it is contentious. That being said, I was primarily persuaded by the arguments about NPOV and DUE weight. The consensus favored option B, and from a policy perspective it is at least as acceptable as option A. Does that make sense? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reponse. It does make sense, as far as the second part of the "option B" is concerned. As far as the first part (the part having a prominent position in the "option B") is concerned, it ignores the fact that the contentious nature of the "Bitcoin Cash" name is not confirmed by any cited source. I know that there are editors trying to cite the discussion as the proof, but that is against the Wikipedia policies, as far as I am informed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: yes, the discussion itself can't be cited, and I'm sorry I personally can't track down a source at the moment, though I believe that those who were supporting B have some (I didn't read all of the sources listed) - maybe tag a CN template there? DannyS712 (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think that what is necessary is to appeal the close based on the fact that the Wikipedia policies were replaced by a logically incorrect conclusion that if there is a disagreement on formulation, the subject itself must be contentious in nature. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: I did not say that it was contentious because an RfC was held, I said that it seems to be contentious because an RfC needed to be held. The close was based on the consensus that I saw at the discussion. Maybe wait a few days and see if the contentious part is sourced? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think that your suggestion misses the purpose of the RfC. It is to find whether the Wikipedia policies are held. Since they are not, the "option B" should not have been picked as consensual, so an appeal is justified. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: I have reverted my close - clearly there is more to this than just what was written in the discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe my contributions were also a part of the problem, since I may not have explained the issue as well as I intended. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

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.

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.

Genisis Block v4[edit]

@Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the genesis block content here [10]. This content you have added many times before and we have discussed on talk here [11] and [12] and [13]. The newest source that you have provided says: "The process, known as a hard fork, meant both versions of bitcoin shared the same blockchain history up until that date but from that point on would be two entirely separate entities." There is no source that I have seen that says that bitcoin cash has a ledger start date prior to the creation of the article's subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the cited independent reliable source specifically discusses the Genesis (note that it is not "Genisis") block. The article brings more information on the discussed blockchains than that. Since these informations are notable and reliably sourced, we should not delete them from the article together with the citation as you seem to propose to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
You have failed to show anything relating to the genesis block, and I have reverted it. You have been pushing this POV for a long time without a source and this is a continuation of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
That is obviously wrong, and your deletion of the citation is not encyclopedic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@David Gerard: care to comment on this? Or do you suggest to just do an RfC on it? Thanks? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for admin help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, there is an RfC above Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_about_Bcash_altname where it seems the RfC was removed by the legobot here [14]. Maybe the RfC should be extended (or closed by an uninvolved editor) first? Please also feel free to let me know if the admin help tag was wrong as well, dont know the procedure here. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The RfC tag was removed because the usual time for that elapsed. If you want it closed you can post a note at WP:ANRFC. You'll instructions on how to do that on the page. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Request that communications be kept on this talk page[edit]

@Cunard: I have no objection to removing the contentious label per your edit [15]. It seems the controversy is limited to these talk pages and we have not found an RS to substantiate that the altname is controversial. I also appreciate your explanation of your close.

@DannyS712: @Ladislav Mecir: & @Markbassett: and I request that communications relating to this bcash naming issue be kept on this talk page so that the record can be preserved (as any editor can delete his/her personal talk page). Note that this bcash altname is now the subject of I recall 3 RfC's and I guess will be the subject of more in the future. Thus if we can keep the subject of the discussion here, it would be more efficient for editors in the future. I guess there might not be any policy to enforce this request, nor am I suggesting as such, just a request out of courtesy.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs). I copied the discussion between DannyS712 and Ladislav Mecir about DannyS712's previous RfC close to this talk page for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. I think the only discussion about this outside of this talk page has been related to the previous RfC close. I think Markbassett has only commented about the subject on this talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Cunard! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Likely I only commented in response to RFC ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Post RfC source removal[edit]

@Ladislav Mecir: in this edit [16] you removed a source for the bcash altname your edit summary stating "delete miscited source, see also the RfC)". However, the Verge source says "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,”. I have reverted this edit. Please explain why you are removing the source. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: you are now here [17] playing around with the sources subsequent to my revert here [18]. Your current edit removes the WP:CITEBUNDLE with some nonsensical explanation. It appears to me that your WP:TE now might have violated the spirit of the blockchain 1RR (by editing the same citations within 24 hours after revert) and certainly I am not going to revert this and get into an edit war of a subject that just finished another RfC (the third on this content) that you were apparently unhappy with the result of. I'll ping a couple uninvolved editors that frequent these blockchain pages, @Jytdog: @MER-C: and @David Gerard: and see if they care to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, jytdog. Your claim that my edit [19] "removes" anything is verifiably false. I just unified the citation format to the format all citations in the article use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Ladislav, I have again reverted your removal of the WP:CITEBUNDLE. Please explain your understanding of why citebundle is not the correct approach on this altname that is subject to edit warring. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC related to a citation[edit]

Should the citation[1] be used to confirm the claim that "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash."? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


  • No The source merely mentions the achievements of Riot Blockchain Inc. It does not contain information sufficient to confirm the claim. In that sense, the source is miscited and its citation violates WP:SYNTH. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes The source says "RIOT BLOCKCHAIN INC - PRODUCED APPROXIMATELY 100 BITCOINS (BTC) AND 61 BCASH (BCH) FOR APRIL 2018". Clearly, it mentions Bcash (BCH), and BCH is the established ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash, just as the ticker symbol (BTC) is the established ticker for Bitcoin. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No The citation simply does not say that Bcash stands for bitcoin cash. It doesn't even mention the term or the word "cash". The two cryptocurrencies are mentioned in the same sentence so it's probable that they are related, but it is WP:OR. Surely Bitcoin Cash article has much better sources for the name and the ticker, what's the reason for this RfC at all ? WarKosign 06:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Who cares? Given the current tone, context, and incoherence of the lede, I cannot see the article being of much value till it is radically rewritten. JonRichfield (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Question Is RS noticeboard the correct venue for questioning a source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Jtbobwaysf wrote that "Clearly it mentions BCASH as BCH, and BCH is the established ticket for Bitcoin Cash..." - not really. Neither is the linking information present in the source, that is why it is a WP:SYNTH issue, nor is 'BCH' the only ticker used in various sources and by various exchanges, as you mistakenly claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Google search [20] recognizes the ticker symbol BCH just as it is used in the article as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not use Google search as a source either, that would be yet another sourcing problem – a synthesis of an article and a Google search result... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
If you are asserting that BCH is the not ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash, then you have not properly framed this RfC. Anywhoo as we go off into the weeds, Yahoo Finance [21], CNBC [22], WSJ [23] all recognize BCH as the ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash and the article of course states BCH is the ticker symbol as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
"If you are asserting that BCH is the not ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash" – I know what I said above, and I also know what you said above. Your WP:SYNTH is pretty obvious, no matter whether you combine the Reuters source with the Google search result or any other source you see fit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The article shows the ticker symbol as BCH (and I recall it always has). The source you are questioning as part of this RFC refers to Bitcoin (BTC), the altname Bcash (BCH), and a cryptocurrency mining company which is mining those two cryptocurrencies. Where is the synth coming from specifically? This source is no different from the dozen or so other sources that also confirm it including google [24]  It looks like a duck to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"...and I recall it always has..." - a false claim, and also a claim that is completely irrelevant. It does not matter, since a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reliable source anyway. "Where is the synth coming from specifically?" - from the above description that the editor using the citation combined it in his mind with a result of a Google search. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It appears you are now questioning if BCH is the ticker (which is not the subject of this RfC). Relating to the RfC, it is obvious the citation connects BCH to Bcash under the general subject of cryptocurrencies. The google search is not a source listed on the article and is probably ok for the sake of a talk page discussion. However, if you disagree you can just ignore it as it seems the BCH ticker symbol used in the article is undisputed other than your WP:WL here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is yet another problematic thing about this particular citation. It is the fact that the author of the cited text is claimed to be a "Staff Writer", while this information has been retracted by Reuters, signaling that it is not true. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
You raised this issue in the above RfC last month (also about this bcash subject). The archive shows "Reuters Staff" here [25]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the archive shows that. Nevertheless, the current version shows that the information was retracted by Reuters, i.e. most likely, incorrect, which is what I mentioned in the comment. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Reuters retracted anything (eg a retraction statement). There is only evidence that at one point in time it showed "Reuters Staff" and today it doesn't. Are you asserting that because of this change it is no longer an RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


Caps usage[edit]

@Ladislav Mecir: in this range of edits [26] you change Bitcoin to read bitcoin throughout the article. What is the logic for this? I read through the talk page here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_10#Capitalization_:_Bitcoin_vs_bitcoin and it seems there is a standard that we are using at wikipedia and Associated Press has even released a standard. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You missed that there was a newer discussion coming to a consensus here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Difficulty reset rules[edit]

Could anyone lay out the rules regarding when the Difficulty Index is reset down in the event of insufficient hashing power? Thanks Lawrence18uk (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we do not follow that here on this article as there are not sufficient WP:RS to track it. I too am not aware if Bitcoin Cash has a different difficulty reset rule than Bitcoin, but I do recall there was a change to the reset made a few years back. @Ladislav Mecir: might now. Maybe we can find an RS for it too. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: These statements dont make sense to me as the reader at first read:

  • "The algorithm used is the same in both cases."
  • "Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks."
  • "Bitcoin Cash also used an addition to the DAA, called an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA) algorithm. EDA was active from 1 August 2017 to 13 November 2017."
  • "To address the problem with stability, a change of the Bitcoin Cash DAA was implemented and the EDA cancelled. The change took effect on 13 November 2017.After the change, the Bitcoin Cash DAA adjusts the mining difficulty after each block."

It seems to me that there have been changes over time. It also seems that maybe bitcoin cash uses a different system than bitcoin at present and this should be made clear to the reader in simple terms. I don't understand it enough at this point in time to make the changes myself, thus I thought first I would point out the readability issues to you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"The algorithm used is the same in both cases." - OK, changed to "The proof of work algorithm is the same in both cases." to make things clear. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks." - changing to "Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same difficulty adjustment algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup lede, etc[edit]

@JonRichfield: I did some cleanup of the article per your comment above. Do you think it is an improvement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes. I added a link to fork —Fork (software development) because many readers whose interest is money rather than IT development might not know what it means, but the rest is clear as far as it goes, and does not strike me as being puffery etc. Whether I understood it correctly, you will have to decide and correct if wrong. How well the new lede fits the rest of the article I cannot tell, because I am not into ecash and do not have time to ramp up and assail the walls of text, but I have no immediate objections as it stands. Superficially it seems reasonable. JonRichfield (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I see you reverted a cleanup today with this edit [27] noting some RfC. Are you objecting to the edits in general or just moving the altname to the lede? If it is just the altname issue, where do you suggest the altname be moved to? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

JonRichfield - your link to a software fork was not really an improvement. It was rather misleading, since it messed up a software fork and a blockchain fork, that do not refer to the same thing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: I am happy to agree that the two different kinds of fork are not functionally equivalent, so kindly do not mix up mixing up the mixing up terminology, with a possible misinterpretation of the intent of the wording. If you feel deeply about it I, for one, will not revert your changing it to Fork (blockchain) so have fun, though it does not seem to me that the term is at all applicable in context. It is not clear from the wording whether it was strictly a software fork, and it certainly does not look like a blockchain fork, then or now, or even a true fork at all in terms of most common usages, so if you insist on changing that link, do at least get your ideas straight first. From your very reaction it is clear that some form of link is necessary (if not a buzzword totally different from "fork"), or this discussion would not have arisen in the first place. I am not directly concerned with this article, but responded only to requests for comment.
As for your intemperate discourtesy to @Jtbobwaysf:, you fail to comprehend either the nature of the mess or the function of a lede, let alone what a blockchain fork might be. The lede at the time I responded to the RFC was a total mess, incomprehensible and most of it out of place. No one likely to need to look up the article could have made any sense of it or wanted to read the rest of the article. In between there had been great improvements, and the version that Jtbobwaysf asked me to criticise is a vast improvement, being compact and informative. The rest of the material that had been in the lede, such as is of any substance, belongs in the body of the article, preferably written by someone who could do so clearly, accurately, and readably. I don't see my way to swelling the wikiwarrior walls of text in this spitfight. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jon, indeed this article is subject of a lot of WP:TE and I recall it was this article that caused the Blockchain sanctions. I welcome more editors to edit this page, it needs some additional eyeballs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf - your edits were not a cleanup of the lead section at all. They were just a buch of nonconsensual edits violating this specific RfC and the consensus in other matters discussed here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I see that you dont consent. But there was nothing that violated any RfC or other supposed consensus. The RfC only said not in the opening line. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
"I see that you dont consent." it is not at all about me. I can cite many other discussions in the archives. Also, I did not even take part in all the discussions that came to a consensus on the contents of this article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
please be specific Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


Per WP:PRESERVE i'll put this here. Dont know where else it fits, and it is a fringe definition. "Bitcoin Cash is payment network."[1] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"it is a fringe definition" - hmm, this is interesting. Can you cite any source that contradicts it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Lee, Timothy B. (20 December 2017). "Bitcoin rival Bitcoin Cash soars as Coinbase adds support". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 June 2018.