Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Update Development Section

COI disclaimer: I currently produce The Bitcoin Cash Podcast. There is no "official" bitcoin cash podcast & we are simply users with interest in the coin, but I figured I just be absolutely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.189.239 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed only Bitcoin Unlimited is listed under the implementation(s) section. The current node implementations are as follows: BCHN, BCHD, BU, Bitcoin Verde, & Knuth. Those implementations also have much more recent releases than what is listed, including BU. BCHN is on V24.1.0, updated on May 29th, 2022 BCHD is on v0.19.0, updated on May 05, 2022 BU is on 1.10.0.0, updated on April 5th, 2022 Bitcoin Verde is on v2.2.0, updated on Jan 05, 2022 and lastly, Knuth is on v0.24.0, updated May 5th 2022

Hi, we are only using high quality WP:RS for all cryptocurrency articles. Things like bloomberg, wsj, fortune.com, etc. We cannot use any contributor sources as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The current development section contains a single citation to a specific bitcoin unlimited release on gitlab. Should that be completely removed, then? 47.55.189.239 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it could be removed, or you could just update the version. Sometimes these type of non-controversial edits dont get removed. I dont have any big objection to it if is just a version number. Or you could remove it as well if it is confusing. I personally have no idea what version the SW is on Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There are zero mainstream articles on this subject and the quality of this Wikipedia page is suffering for it. Why not cite directly from the blockchain which nodes are being used? Surely that would be a reliable source. 2601:283:4602:FE00:A888:66D4:ECA7:A83 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Denied due to unreliable sourcing. Quetstar (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

change "Latest release 1.9.1 / 17 February 2021; 2 years ago" to "Latest release 2.0.0.0 / 8 May 2023" 193.235.219.5 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

In 2018 split to create Bitcoin SV section, remove the unwanted . before the ending in size.. Benjamin Loison (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Motive of fork

Would like to change the wording of fork from “fork” to “preservation fork” because the intention was to preserve the bitcoin protocol in the face of a radical change (Lightning IOU system) that is not described by the original white paper. 2601:283:4602:FE00:A888:66D4:ECA7:A83 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The description "radical change" is not quite accurate. Lightning is built on top of Bitcoin as a result of the SegWit upgrade.

I don't mind the idea here, but I'm sure sources exist. The sentiment by the Bitcoin Cash crowd was to preserve what they saw as the vision of Bitcoin. If I find a reliable source I will share here. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Undo of Removal of code repositories

@Jtbobwaysf Would like to discuss the external links. This is not quite the body article but an infobox. The links are directly to the code repositories and are therefore relevant, in my mind. As a comparison, the Bitcoin page includes an External Link to Bitcoin Core. thx! ILoveFinance (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the bitcoin core implementation is well documented and we have only one link. If you added three more links to other implementations (that are also unsourced) to the bitcoin infobox I might also remove those there. We dont need a link to every open source implementation of a protocol in the infobox, that is excessive and undue. It also starts to get too close to our rule on external links. We need things to be notable for us to link to them, and an easy test for that is if they have their own wikipedia page. If something doesnt have a wikipedia page, it is likely (but not always) not notable. At Ethereum we wikilink to other the languages in the infobox, I think we can do this on these articles if you would like. But the external links are a bit too much, unless they are themselves notable (as Bitcoin Core) is. But we could also remove the external link to bitcoin core and just use a wikilink to that other article, that would be maybe ok as well (but lets discuss that over at the Bitcoin article and not here). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. All good if I add just the BCHN link back, as that is the most used node implementation? ILoveFinance (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did not realize the latest releases were removed. I think that is still pertinent information, especially to anyone that is looking for such data. Given this is an infobox, it is important, I would argue.

At a minimum, BCHN should be added back. But in reality, as there is no primary node implementation (granted BCHN is the most used), all are relevant. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure you can add the BCHN back since you feel strongly about it. I dont think any of them are particularly notable, but not a big issue. Maybe someone else watching this thread will object, but I have no strong objections at this time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Article sourcing standards

• FYI, for new editors that havent seen. This Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article applies on this article and I think there was another one where it was construed to apply across all crypto articles. WP:GS/CRYPTO after this (or around the same time, I forgot) and things were tightened further. All editors please be advised. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for this helpful context. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Removing the Bitcoin SV section

BSV is a separate currency led by a known fraudster [https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/self-proclaimed-bitcoin-inventor-did-not-invent-bitcoin-uk-judge-rules-2024-03-14/] that has little relation to BCH other than it splitting in 2018. I believe this section should be removed as it is off topic to the main subject. BSV should have its own page. I could probably create a brief page with the same information in the current BSV section. Not much need to add anything else other than the above link referencing the ruling that CSW is not Satoshi.

However, both BSV and XEC splits still deserve a mention on this page. The page is currently inconsistent in sections with the ABC/XEC split referenced at the end of the History paragraph and BSV mentioned in the intro/final section. I think it would be a lot cleaner to have a very brief subsection in the History section titled "Other Chain Splits" that list out the two forks in one place.

If this is not contested, I will make the change. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I support that change. TZander (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreements, I will prepare a short BSV article and subsequently remove BSV's section from this page in the coming days. Please let me know if any disagreements! ILoveFinance (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• The issue is if the proposed split will result in two notable articles. At this time I oppose a split until we can see if it results in a new article that is also notable. Is BSV sufficiently notable to be a standalone article? Currently I do not see enough WP:RS to make any proposed eg Bitcoin Satoshi Vision notable. If it is not notable, then we cannot just remove the objectionable content from this article because the BCH supporters dont like it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I believe it is warranted for Bitcoin Satoshi Vision to have its own page. Especially in light of the recent CSW v COPAcourt case, it has popped up a lot more in media, there has been more interest (not saying positive, just interest in general), etc. If the current section is currently cited well enough, it would follow (to me) that it has enough RS for its own page.

  Otherwise, would you support having a section underneath for the XEC split? (for clarity, as written text can be more challenging to decipher in terms of tone, this is not meant to sound facetious, just a genuine question!) ILoveFinance (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please start to add WP:RS related to BSV to the relevant section on this article. Then if we can get to the point where we think that BSV is notable enough to be a standalone article, we can evaluate the split if it becomes clear it is warranted (it is not warranted based on current sourcing). Please also add sources for the XEC split, I just looked on the article and those sources are not RS and actually probably should be removed. There certainly could be a section on this article called Forks of BCH (or something like that) which could include XEC and BSV. Lets bolster the sourcing for XEC to include it in this discussion. To be clear on cryptocurrency articles we are only using major sources like fortune.com, FT.com, bloomberg, WSJ, etc. We are not using WP:FORBESCON nor are we using any blogs, corporate websites, or crypto-sites (like coindesk, theblock, binance, etc). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If BSV is unrelated to BCH other than the shared history between 2009-2018, and there is not enough WP:RS as it stands (I agree on this in its current state), why does it need a stub at all vs a one line mention like XEC? What is the relation to this page?

"then we cannot just remove the objectionable content from this article because the BCH supporters dont like it." -- this superficially appears argumentative. Is there something specific being referenced?

I will still look to add more RS as I have the time, as I think it deserves it's own article considering the news around it in the past, but this information is not relevant to the Bitcoin Cash article. The Bitcoin article has a singular reference to BCH which is inline. To keep things consistent and on-topic, the Bitcoin Cash article should reflect that mention. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Bump @Jtbobwaysf ILoveFinance (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think if you really want to pursue this, the suggested approach would be to first create a proposed article in your sandbox. User:ILoveFinance/sandbox. I would suggest that above creating a proposed article as you then can seek feedback from the proposed article prior to creating it. I think I helped some folks do this with Ripple/XRP a couple of years ago. The issue you need to contend with is WP:NOTABILITY so in your sandbox you can work on that, and then ask me (and others) what we think. Its really important to get the notability right, as you can assume that these new articles will get sent to WP:AFD by some editor, so you want to have a good plan for it to pass. I think you need 5-10 really strong sources (like wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc) to pass this. Ideally in the 10+ sources range. Then if it looks good in your sandbox, then go ahead and create the article in a subsequent step. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 1/x - Add definition of "SegWit"

@Jtbobwaysf

I suggest adding ("SegWit") to the end of Sentence 2 in the History section of the article to properly define what Segregated Witness is abbreviated as throughout the article.

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Sure it seems logical to say Segregated Witness (commonly referred to as SegWit) on time and then we continue to use SegWit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is a change you undid previously under the statement "Not an improvement." ILoveFinance (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 2/x - Correct comma placement

@Jtbobwaysf

Sentence 1, paragraph 2 of History section: There is a comma directly after footnote 12. This comma should be before the footnote (as is done in every other citation).

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Non-controversial, so I did it. I would note that generally we dont put citations in the middle of sentences but I think these are here as there has been a lot of dispute about this sentence wording in the past (see talk archives). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally not, but this article is littered with citations of that manner. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is a change you undid previously under the statement "Not an improvement." ILoveFinance (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 3/x - Removing redundant back-to-back sentences

@Jtbobwaysf

Sentence 3, paragraph 1 of Controversy section: The line "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash" is redundant with the very next sentence.

Proposal: Remove this sentence. Move footnote 32 to the "Bcash" reference in the next sentence. No new information is being added hence this is redundant.

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This change is not ok, this is not redundant. This subject of bcash has been extensively discussed on these talk pages (ad nauseum in fact) thus no good reason to change it. Extra detail is fine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specifically outline what additional detail that sentence provides. The next sentence states the same exact information. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to these two? "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.[32] Bitcoin Cash detractors call the cryptocurrency "Bcash", "Btrash", or "a scam", while its supporters maintain that "it is the pure form of Bitcoin".[26]" These sentences clearly similar but different meanings. Or are you talking about something different and I am confused? This bcash thing has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past in these talk pages and it is properly cited. Do you have any new sources? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

Where do you see me asking to remove Bcash? It is in the very next sentence stating the very same information. "Bcash" absolutely should be mentioned in this article as it is a term used frequently by detractors, as already stated, and thereby is helpful context for anyone reading this article (and, as of late, more frequently by counter-detractors in some meme-esq manner, but I do not have any WP:RS to state this additional information and it would just be bloat anyways). ILoveFinance (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Jtbobwaysf asked me for my input, so here I am. I see several related problems here:

• Per WP:CSECTION, it would be much better to integrate this content into the rest of the article. This section cites only two sources from the same brief window of time, (mostly the Verge one) so there are signs that this is not a proportionate summary of the topic. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the content should be deleted, I am suggesting that it should be expanded with more up-to-date sources and integrated into the rest of the article.
• The current mention of 'detractors' is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and should be rewritten.
• Multiple sources mention 'BCash' as a common nickname, at a glance those sources do not support that this is only used by 'detractors'. Several of these sources use it as a neutral term for the cryptocurrency. Further, BCash redirects here (and has since 2018). From that, this name should probably be included in the lead. Per MOS:BOLD, it should be in boldface. If a reliable source explains why this nickname is contested or controversial, we could, maybe, use that source to explain this in the body, but this would depend on the source.

It would be a subtle form of editorializing to change the article to imply that this term is only used by detractors. I do not think the proposed change is appropriate for that reason. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the secondary perspective.

[Editing this paragraph of my previous response as I initially misunderstood your comments] The section could likely be incorporated into the History section. Would likely be more applicable there. I would be happy to take a stab at it. Wouldn't require any large changes. Could likely also better incorporate existing sources. As a note, there do not appear to be many/any recent sources from the higher standard of WP:RS that mention "BCash," that I have seen. Then again, sources have dried up further since the era of the split so could be related. Do you have a suggestion as to how I would do this? Offer a fully rewritten section in this Talk page? That would seem to grow very quickly as feedback is offered. Making changes within the article itself could be cleaner, but if there are major disagreements, then that won't be productive either.

-

Separately, regarding lead, while "BCash" has been used across sources (though often due to initial confusion and usage has since died down), since BCash links to this page, I am amicable towards including it in the lead. I have proposed above to modify the lead to make it more accurate/informative with information from the existing sources. I have repasted it below here, for your thoughts, but additionally, with mention of "BCash."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that continues a chain of blocks from the first Bitcoin block in 2009. Notably, a fork occurred in the chain between Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is often considered an altcoin. [10][11] Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as "BCash." [32]

In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash experienced a contested hard fork where the project split into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV ("BSV"). [12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me know your thoughts. ILoveFinance (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a problematic uses of piped in text here to push a WP:POV. See WP:NOPIPE

1. This "continued a chain of blocks" appears to be an unsourced POV. Just use "Bitcoin Cash is a blockchain" and not Bitcoin cash is a [insert some pipe text]. Your proposed used of piped text here highlights why we dont want to use piped text, as your suggested use of 'continued chain of blocks' with the 2009 date pushes the narrative Bitcoin Cash is the 'original bitcoin.' Bitcoin Cash to my understanding (and the current status quo in the article) was a new cryptocurrency created in 2017 as a result of a hard fork. It did not exist in 2009. The fact that it might or might not have a copy of the bitcoin history in it (what you refer to as "continued chain of blocks"), is not relevant for an encyclopedia, it is WP:JARGON, confuses the reader by obfuscating the date of creation of this subject, and it is unsourced. MOS:LEAD summarizes and does not introduce new concepts. I can copy-paste Shakespeare on to a word doc on my computer and then edit it, it doesnt make my document somehow historical, its just a copy that I made and now I might make some edits to it.

2. You also extend the Bitcoin Cash promoter narrative by using piped in text to change Bitcoin to "Bitcoin BTC". This is improper. Again a NOPIPE issue. This is a common PR narrative among the bitcoin cash promoters that 'Bitcoin BTC' and and 'Bitcoin BCH' are both bitcoin. We need to avoid the BATTLE at wikipedia and follow the sources. Stop using piped in text to add in the ticker symbols (BSV), BCH, BTC, etc. We are not a crypto trading platform, we just are an encyclopedia. Generally the articles themselves go over the tickers, and in some cases there is even disputes about what is the correct ticker (in the case of bitcoin we have seen discussions if it is XBT or BTC, we have had many discussions on the talk pages about this even recently). Lets avoid these tickers entirely in the wikilinks and certainly no piped in text to play with this.

Please offer sources and refrain from piping. I am also ok with Greyfell's suggestion to move the Bcash altname to the lead and bold it.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Now that you've actually read my proposal and the associated article, we can have a more productive discussion! Crazy how that works...

Anyways, that aside, I will continue this discussion in the appropriate topic! ILoveFinance (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)