Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:07, 14 May 2018

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages'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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Numismatics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen Cryptocurrency This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

RfC on split notion use in the article

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.

Should the article mention the "split" notion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation The sources discussing blockchain rule changes mention that there are rule changes that are backwards compatible in the sense that the old software recognizes the blocks created by the new software as valid. Such rule changes are called soft forks by the respective sources. Then there are rule changes that are not backwards compatible in the sense that the old software does not recognize the blocks created by the new software as valid. Such rule changes are called hard forks by the respective sources. Specifically for Bitcoin Cash, the related rule change (the increase of block size limit to 8 MB) is classified as a hard fork, since any block bigger than 1 MB is not considered valid by the old software.

The available sources mention that a rule change can cause a chain split if some users continue using the old software, while other users start using the new software and a block is created that is considered valid by one of the software versions but invalid by the other. If, on the other hand, all users start using the new software, the chain does not split. Examples of both result types—when the chain did split (Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Classic), as well as when the chain did not split (bitcoin rule changes preceding Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Metropolis hark fork, replacement of EDA by DAA) are mentioned by the available sources. (See the citations below.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support
  • This status quo version of the article citing this Fortune article mentions the split notion.
  • The sources discussing network rule changes such as this CoinDesk article discern between types of rule changes such as a hard fork or a soft fork and their consequences, claiming that the rule changes (whether a hard fork or a soft fork) either can cause a chain split or not.
  • Sources such as The New York Times, Fortune, CNN, The Telegraph, CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk, The Merkle, TechCrunch, Express, CNBC, arsTechnica, The Verge, Slate, Business Insider and Bloomberg mention the chain split in relation to Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is this an RfC on whether to revert back to this confusing revision, which multiple anonymous editors tried to change before getting reverted with the justification "WP:STATUSQUO"? If so, I oppose what is being suggested here. If the proposal is on replacing "hard fork" with "split", then this RfC is basically a rehash of the discussion that happened on the bitcoin talk page where it was agreed to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork. I had already demonstrated over there that the majority of sources call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, and I don't have the time to write it up all over again. I will put this here though, taken from the official website's FAQ (bitcoincash.org): "... Yes. Bitcoin Cash is the continuation of the Bitcoin project as peer-to-peer digital cash. It is a fork of the Bitcoin blockchain ledger, with upgraded consensus rules that allow it to grow and scale." Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is not about replacing the notion of a hard fork by the notion of a split. That is why any comparision of the number of sources using the notion of a hard fork to the number of sources using the notion of a split is not relevant. See also the threaded discussion below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you state above in your support that you wanted to revert to an earlier revision of the lead? A revision which replaces the simple "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" with "The bitcoin cryptocurrency experienced a split and one chain coming out of this...". In any case I would oppose talking about chain splits in this article because the vast majority of sources describe what happened on August 1 as a hard fork and so does the official website's FAQ. Laurencedeclan (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you find out that both the notion of a hard fork as well as the notion of a split should be used per the available sources. Per the sources, the notions describe separate and distinct aspects of the cryptocurrency. To your argument that "official website FAQ" does not use the notion - Misplaced Pages is not bound to use only the notions found in the FAQ. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose your argument that "multiple anonymous editors tried to change" the text as irrelevant. The fact is that multiple anonymous editors also tried to rename this article and the cryptocurrency it describes. That is not a reason why it must or should be done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support that both the terms chain split and hard fork should be used. It sounds to me that a hard fork results in a chain split. Maybe these terms are new and definitions are vague (we are talking less than a few years for these terms). How about this "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a hard fork, aka chain split, of the cryptocurrency bitcoin." Or could also be "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a chain split that resulted from a hard fork of the cryptocurrency bitcoin". Either seems to get the point accross to me, or another suggested formultation might do a good job as well. I am opposed to these formulations discussed above that have promotional text that for sample say 'bitcoin cash is an upgraded version of bitcoin,' 'bitcoin gold is a continuation of satoshi's vision that it does xyz,' ect. There are already 4 forks that I have read about, cash, gold, united, and segwit2x. On a side note please take a look at SegWit2x#Launch_as_a_new_currency and comment over there if this segwit2x text needs help, or blanking entirely. But in general I think we need to do our best above to explain that a hard fork did occur and a chain split resulted and that created bitcoin cash AND we need to attempt to limit the promotional text that says 'this new fork is a new and improved version of satoshi's vision' (which sounds a lot like a 'new and improved Rembrandt/Picasso'). I think I do not support this that says "the goal was to increase the number of transactions" unless we can find good sources that say that, as the goal might have been to lower transaction fees, or to give miners more control. Thus there might have been multiple goals and I dont think we editors should propose to know which goal prevails. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I prefer the "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a chain split that resulted from a hard fork of the cryptocurrency bitcoin." variant. It looks more explanatory to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. 'I do not support this ... that says "the goal was to increase the number of transactions" unless we can find good sources...' - there are many sources that can be used to confirm that claim, some of them already present in the article. Note that the claim describes what the goal of the rule change was, not whether the change succeeded in achieving it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue is i believe it is likely that there were multiple goals and I think we should skip the goal in the lede and then in the article we address all the goals. There should also be sources that state that the miners were opposed to second layer (segwit fix), others were looking for lower fees, and others looking for more transactions (as you mentioned). But it seems to be clear they were not interested in more off chain transactions (per lightning) and what they wanted was more on chain transactions and maybe less off chain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a little on the reasons for the creation of coindesk, and move it into the history section. There is no reason to put 'the reason' in the lede when there seem to be multiple reasons, see . Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot - not enough info in the original request. Please be respectful of other editor’s time. What specifically do you want help with? TimTempleton 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: might be a good idea to put this explanation in the top part, so others see it that are coming from the bot. It also took me reading over a week or so to understand of your comments above this RfC as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of the difference between split and fork in this context, and absent any compelling argument otherwise, support just leaving the word fork, which is explained with a Wiki-link to the hard fork section. Using the term bitcoin split could crate confusion with when a coin splits 91-1 ]. Of greater utility would be having something in the lede that explains what the original bitcoin was called to distinguish it from Bitcoin Cash. I gave up after a quick search left me unable to determine if it was Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Classic or something else. TimTempleton 21:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment "absent any compelling argument otherwise" - so, you did not even try to read and see that both fork and split terms are used by the sources meaning different things, and want to censor the use of the word split based on such a poor justification as "absent any compelling argument" resulting from no attempt to read any source at all? That does not look encyclopedic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the source you cite mentions a stock split, which is something else than a blockchain/cryptocurrency split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to badger editors who don't immediately agree with you - I'm saying I'm not following the argument and this discussion doesn't help. I understand that there are two different meanings of split here - I included the link to illustrate another problem with using the word split. You're the one asking for feedback - surely you can make your case better? TimTempleton 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- More information is better than less, and details about how forks are performed is informative. All that is really needed is suitable references and citations for the technology for what constitutes hard and soft. It should be included, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the article should talk about chain splits, but I believe that Ladislav wants to use this RfC to change the lead from "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" to something along the lines of "Bitcoin Cash is a chain split". To clarify, do you support changing the lead? Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"I do not disagree that the article should talk about chain splits" - Glad you changed your mind, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I only opposed changing the first sentence of the lead, which should state "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork of...", reflecting the majority of both official (see website) and independent reliable sources. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"I only opposed changing the first sentence of the lead, which should state "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" - that sentence was opposed by an editor correctly marking it as using unexplained jargon. See older discussions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support; as Damotclese said, the more information the better. Bitcoin is a topic of intense public interest – and a great deal of confusion and incorrect assumptions, due to the highly technical nature of cryptocurrency. Be specific and precise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as written, but don't reinterpret or mis-use the result The RFC in essence says "should mention" , but such a brief vague statement leaves it open to a lot of apparently controversial mis-uses. So it's simply "should mention", nothing more. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I support North8000's take on this here. Well said. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have a couple of points I raised above on the talk page, so I will add them here.

• Here i compare the google search results for "Bitcoin Hard Fork" with 850,000 and "Bitcoin Chain Split" with 622,000. Of interesting note is that google understands these are related subjects and ranks this Forbes article #1 for Hard fork and ranks it #5 for Chain Split (even though the title is "What Will Happen At The Time Of The Bitcoin Hard Fork? - Forbes".
• Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section had this same split/fork discussion and I understand the consenus was to use fork. Why is this being rehashed here? Has something changed?

What are your thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This concern of yours has been addressed in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text. In there, it was claimed that the rule change increasing the block size limit to 8MB is classified as a hard fork, and that in this case, the change led to cryptocurrency split as confirmed by the sources. It does not make any sense to compare the numbers of occurrences of the hard fork classification (which should be present in the article anyway and is present in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text), exactly like it does not make sense to delete the claim that the controversy related to rule change led to cryptocurrency split as is also present in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You said statusquo 3x in one paragraph. Is this WP:SQS? If hardfork term is being used on Bitcoin, why is split supposed to be used on Bitcoin Cash, I think MOS:ARTCON should apply. This all sounds pretty nuanced to me, maybe you could just explain why split is better so that we can understand it please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Is this WP:SQS?" - funny that you mention it. The fact is that the WP:STATUSQUO version is not in the article now, since you changed it. I never reverted your edit. Hope you do remember? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"maybe you could just explain why split is better so that we can understand it please" - you should read what I wrote above in response to your question. You should also remember that both the hard fork and split notions were used before you rewrote the text, and that is what this RfC is about. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So is your assertion that a hard fork results in a chain split? This is at least what I read on that medium post I posted above, and it sounded similar to what you were saying. For me this is all a bit of nuance, and I am not really understanding the point of it, and I dont understand why the issue is being rehashed from the discussion over Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section so that is why I was asking. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"So is your assertion that a hard fork results in a chain split?" - not necessarily. Per the cited sources, a hard fork may result in a chain split if some users continue using the old rules while other users start using the new ones. If, on the other hand, all users stop using the old rules and start using the new ones, the chain will not split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So this means that a hard fork could occur, but a split might not occur. So it sounds to me that a hard fork is like a software update. I can think of some examples of hard forks, such as recent ethereum Metropolis hark fork (not the DAO fork) that didn't create a chain split. "Chain Split" sounds like a reasonable term to me. How would we treat Bitcoin Gold? Is this also a chain split? Wondering, as I think we should get a standard language and use it across all the articles, rather than debating one by one. Let's see what some others have to say. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"How would we treat Bitcoin Gold? Is this also a chain split?" - Yes! One of the sources cited here mentions Bitcoin Gold as a split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: do you wish to comment on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: this is in response to your oppose vote above, as I thought I would try to keep the threaded discussion down here in this section. It initially appears that Ladislav explains that a fork may or may not cause a chain split. In the case of Ethereum in some cases it did not cause a chain split, and in one case it did (ethereum classic). It also seems that the segwit soft fork did not cause a chain split (i supppose that is by defifition of a sf) and in the case of bitcoin cash this intential hard fork did cause a chain split. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note "... soft fork did not cause a chain split (i supppose that is by defifition of a sf)" - this is slightly off topic, but independent reliable sources claim otherwise, meaning that a soft fork can also cause a chain split when the old software creates a new block that is not acceptable by new software. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• This RfC is now being used to justify reverting any edits to the lead, despite it having zero relevance (the text of the RfC is about including the "split notion"). Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Smith, Jake. "The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Will Show Us Which Coin Is Best". Fortune. Retrieved 21 December 2017.
2. ^ Amy Castor (27 March 2017). "A Short Guide to Bitcoin Forks". CoinDesk. Retrieved 1 July 2017.
3. Popper, Nathaniel (2017-07-25). "Some Bitcoin Backers Are Defecting to Create a Rival Currency". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-07-28.
4. Roberts, Jeff John (3 November 2017). "Bitcoin's Coming Split: What You Need to Know". Fortune. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
5. Shin, Laura (31 October 2017). "What Will Happen At The Time Of The Bitcoin Hard Fork?". Fortune. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
6. Larson, Selena (1 August 2017). "Bitcoin split in two, here's what that means". CNN. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
7. Titcomb, James (2 August 2017). "Bitcoin Cash: Price of new currency rises after bitcoin's 'hard fork'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
8. Dinkins, David. "If Hard Fork Happens, Chain Backed By Majority of Miners Will Likely Win". CoinTelegraph. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
9. Hertig, Alyssa (23 October 2017). "Bitcoin Gold: What to Know About the Blockchain's Next Split". CoinDesk. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
10. Buntinx, JP (30 May 2017). "Should You be Concerned About a Bitcoin Chain Split on August 1st?". The Merkle. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
11. Dillet, Romain (8 November 2017). "SegWit2x backers cancel plans for bitcoin hard fork". TechCrunch. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
12. Kettley, Sebastian (2 August 2017). "Bitcoin LIVE news: Latest price as Bitcoin cash fluctuates after cryptocurrency fork". Express. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
13. "Bitcoin Split - Again. Here's The Difference Between Bitcoin Cash And Bitcoin Gold". CNBC. 8 November 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
14. "Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash By CNBC News - Split of Bitcoin". CNBC. 1 August 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
15. "Meet Bitcoin Cash, The New Digital Currency That Split Bitcoin In Two". CNBC. 1 August 2017. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
16. Lee, Timothy B. (20 December 2017). "Bitcoin rival Bitcoin Cash soars as Coinbase adds support". arsTechnica. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
17. Liao, Shannon (August 1, 2017). "Bitcoin has split in two, so you can have double the cryptocurrency". The Verge. Retrieved 13 February 2018.
18. Thieme, Nick (4 August 2017). "Bitcoin Has Split Into Two Cryptocurrencies. What, Exactly, Does That Mean?". Slate. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
19. Blodget, Henry (10 August 2018). "What you need to know about Bitcoin after the split". Retrieved 22 January 2018.
20. Chen, Lulu Yilun; Lam, Eric. "Bitcoin Is Likely to Split Again in November, Say Major Players". Bloomberg. Retrieved 22 January 2018.

• (Summoned by bot). Comment: I urge caution as much of the article will escape the target Misplaced Pages users' comprehension and be subject to a technical warning. For example, the first paragraph in the "Idea forms" section is incomprehensible to most readers, even those with a technical background. Misplaced Pages is not intended to be a technical manual. I recommend liberal use of links to more focused discussion of particular technical issues.--Rpclod (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Page title should be changed

Title should be changed from "Bitcoin cash" to "Bcash" as bcash is not bitcoin and has nothing at all to do with bitcoin. Keeping the title as is only leads to unneccessary confusion; we don't call North Korea a Democratic People's Republic.

Additionally, the article needs further context from the creators of Bcash, such as this illuminating quote from bcash co-founder Jihan Wu: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/731902686379933697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.80 (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your suggestion. Note, however, that the majority of sources (cited in the article) claim otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a horrible suggestion, as there is nothing derogatory or inflammatory about using "North Korea". "Bcash" on the other hand started as a smear term used in a social media campaign to redirect users towards sources controlled by its opponents and to defame Bitcoin Cash. This was done in spite of the Bitcoin Cash community having decided to add "cash" at the end of the name in order minimize any such confusions, even though many Bitcoin Cash users consider it the rightful heir of the name "Bitcoin" alone for more strictly adhering to the design paper. Several other coins already existed that used "Bitcoin" as part of their names, without adhering to that deisgn, even building on the original code or having the genesis block. Bitcoin Cash does this and has as its explicit aim to be the Bitcoin described by Satoshi Nakamoto. The neutral and factual choice is to title it "Bitcoin Cash" and nothing else. 81.226.12.42 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Genesis Block & Block #1

Currently the article uses the bitcoin dates in 2009 and doesn't cite any support of these dates. I challenge this content. I don't see much in a quick google search for bitcoin cash genesis block, other than this. I deleted the content and Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference to a blockchain explorer which can be used to find the respective blocks. Other sources are available, but I think that this one suffices. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this block explorer to be considered a WP:RS for the purposes of determining this? Does any coin split by definition have the same genesis block as the legacy chain? 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As known, the Bitcoin Cash blockchain is publicly accessible. There are other explorers, the one mentioned is just one of them, but all show the same contents. There are other sources generally claiming that Bitcoin Cash uses identical blocks up until the split time, which is yet another confirmation that the old blocks of BCH and BTC are identical. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

idea forms text (BIP91)

@Ladislav Mecir: and @Laurencedeclan: i see you are editing some text and adding a source to text that says: "It was designed to force miners to vote for Segregated Witness." I removed the two sources on that sentence as they dont in any way support miners voting nor being forced to do something. I am not sure what the text means, so I left it. Thought we could discuss it here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Both sources claim that the blocks of miners not voting for SW shall be rejected. That enforces voting for SW. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

first "not voting" does not equal to "voting" and more important when i read the sources, neither referred to voting at all...find some other sources or correct the text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

By requiring the exact formulation of the source, you are being ridiculous and trying to force me to violate the copyright. Nevermind, I will restore the sourced info. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is the editor's responsibility to do the formulation (aka yours). It seems you are talking about voting, which is not something I have often read about. Is there voting in bitcoin? I changed it to "supporting," i guess you could also use the technical term signaling, but certainly, if you want to imply there is voting in bitcoin you need sources for that, otherwise it is WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources using "voting on Segregated Witness" instead of "signaling for Segregated Winess", let me mention as an example. You are really being ridiculous and deleting a status quo information. Such an approach is not really constructive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That source also doesn't refer to voting relating to bitcoin. It talks about slushpool doing something. "Voting" is not a statusquo term, first time I have seen it in the article(s), and if the concept is introduced it needs to be vetted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the source thoroughly enough. It is exactly what it is: the source uses the term: "vote on Segregated Witness" and "signal for Segregated Witness" interchangeably. Another source that does it is . Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This source you are referring to says :"Slush Pool will signal support for Segregated Witness by default, but users can opt out if they want. This solution isn’t quite ready yet at the moment, however. As a temporary solution, only users that “vote” in support of Bitcoin Core automatically vote for Segregated Witness." That refers to something that slushpool is doing internally in their pool. Who knows, the key point is it refers to slushpool, not bitcoin or bitcoin cash.

The second reference in the source says voting says "“No random attempts at changing BTC ... and also no SegWit indicators,” kano said when asked which software the pool supports. “So I guess that means ‘core’ without SegWit voting.”" Seems like they dont support segwit indicators. Refers to a lack of voting. A lack of voting doesn't evidence in any way that voting exists.

Neither of these in any way support the text you seek to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can also point at saying "Of issue, Toomim said, is that miners use coinbase messages in blocks to include vital information for their business. This includes votes on various BIP proposals and bookkeeping details such as the fact they mined the block in which the coins were included." If you want to remain constructive, you really should refrain from deleting status quo information without any challenge at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This source also seems to not refer to voting. If you are having such trouble to substantiate the term "voting" then use another term. "Miners using coinbase messages..." is fine with me, and this is not voting. But you cant say miners using coinbase messages is voting, that is your WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Neither approach is kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"...source also seems to not refer to voting" - aha, now I see. The formulation "This includes votes on various BIP proposals..." seems to not refer to voting. Have a nice day. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this source is discussing slushpool and some mechanism that slushpool has internally on determining how slushpools customers wants them to signal (sounds like they let their customers vote). Am I incorrect? All I have ever read is that miners signal for a BIP and after the BIP activates they choose to follow it, or not. I suppose a mining pool must have its own mechanism for determining how it will signal to best reflect the interests of each of the pool's customers. Clearly a pool doesn't signal for each customer, as that would not be feasible, as I understand they only could signal for the blocks they actually mine (I might also be wrong here, please advise). Overall, the fact that we are discussing one source should reflect that this concept of voting is a WP:FRINGE concept within this space (or it might not even exist and is simply WP:SYNTH, as if the term voting was mainstream there would be dozens of sources on this. Maybe someone else will chime in on this subject. It seems that we should be discussing this subject on Bitcoin scalability problem and do something there for BIP91, and then use that treatment across the various articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I added this text over at the scability problem article. Maybe we could get into a constructive discussion based upon what BIP91 actually is, rather than discussing whether not it is voting, which it seems the sources don't support anyhow. Feel free to edit the text I added over there, I just added something really to bring the sources over and start a discussion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Am I incorrect?" - Of course! You are misrepresenting the source. How can a coinbase be just "internal" when it is in the public blockchain is beyond my understanding. Nevermind, I do not think it is productive to continue this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

aka Bcash

@Ladislav Mecir: in this edit you deleted cited content with the that said

Bitcoin Cash (also known as BCash)

Note the cointelegraph and bitcoin magazine sources were used later in the article, and we have previously discussed those sources before. My logic was to leave them down in the article as this small content is bordering on WP:OVERCITE I will revert your edit, as the content is properly sourced, and we can discuss it here. Please explain this edit. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you find a mainstream media source that supports this naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment was unsigned, please sign it. Here is another source from google books I think given that most of the industry rags are represented, a published book, and some non industry news such as Breibart we have more than enough to do an AKA name for this article. Also when I search for BCash in google I am just getting Bitcoin Cash results, as it seems that google recognizes they are the same subject as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the sources and the claim to WP:STATUSQUO since the sources are not WP:IRS. As an example, take the weusecoins.com website. It is a promotional commercial website, i.e. provably neither independent, nor reliable. The issue has also been discussed before and you know the result of the discussion. Restoring all the unreliable sources is not constructive. Take this as a warning, please. Edit warring is not appreciated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You again deleted the content . Please assist in restoring the content after reading this list of sources. This content adding "aka bcash" has been added numerous times by various editors (often anonymous), and normally you revert it, so I thought I would check sources, and now see there is a long list of sources, some quite fine as WP:RS. Please explain your assertion that above are not RS. I'll add more sources here such as You can let me know which of these you think are also not WP:RS, but there are a few mainstream ones that I found per Billhpike (talk · contribs) request, such as Fortune (magazine) CNBC and Forbes (and note forbes is staff writer, not guest post). Your thoughts? Don't you agree we have enough sources here?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned 24 sources above. My findings are:

• The sources such as Breitbart, Bitcoinist, Coindigo,(look like two citations of the same text) CoinBureau, WorldCryptoNetwork, TrustNodes, the Oracle Times, the BraveNewCoin or the ccn do not have the requisite reputation for fact-checking.
• The sources such as 99bitcoins ("Buy bitcoin") or WeUseCoins have an apparent conflict of interest.
• The Btcmagazine says that
  • "Many maintain that the name Bitcoin Cash simply is what the new coin is called" and that "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or even a 'social attack'."
  • "Bitfinex decided it would use the name Bcash instead of Bitcoin Cash." Btcmagazine, however, did not succeed to inform its readers that Bitfinex was criticized for this decision, and it returned to the Bitcoin Cash name soon.
  • "So far, most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name Bitcoin Cash."
• The CoinTelegraph says that
  • the exchanges Bitstamp and Bitfinex using the Bcash name were criticized. The exchanges returned to the Bitcoin Cash name soon.
  • "A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally."
• The John Clark's book is self-published.
• The Merkle, the Cryptona and the CoinGeek say that "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."
• The Verge article does not mention the Bcash name as an alternative of Bitcoin Cash.
• The CNBC does not confirm the claim as formulated.
• The Forbes is the only source which seems to confirm the claim, but it contradicts several other sources mentioned above and claiming otherwise.

Summing up, you lack consensus to use the formulation that "screams unprofessional and petty." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You seek above to disqualify the sources one by one. However, the totality of the sources is clear that there is a pattern of aka using the term bcsah (not as the new article name, but as an aka). There are also a few obvious WP:RS as you will see below.

You said: "The sources such as Breitbart, Bitcoinist, Coindigo,(look like two citations of the same text) CoinBureau, WorldCryptoNetwork, TrustNodes, the Oracle Times, the BraveNewCoin or the ccn do not have the requisite reputation for fact-checking." In this case these sources are useful as they demonstrate a pattern of usage of the aka term by both industry publications as well as mainstream media (breitbart).

You said: "The sources such as 99bitcoins ("Buy bitcoin") or WeUseCoins have an apparent conflict of interest." I agree

You referred to source btcmagazine, which is Bitcoin Magazine an often used WP:RS and the headline of the source is: "Bitcoin Cash or Bcash: What's in a Name?", as well as lots of other text in the article that goes over the bcash name. The text you quoted presents the POV of the debate that rejects the bcash name.

Bitcoin Magazine: As Bitcoin Cash, or Bcash, is slowly but surely turning into a functioning cryptocurrency

You referred to the CoinTelegraph (another often cited RS) which is titled "Bitstamp Criticized For Listing Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Despite Community Outrage." Again your response is a POV, and here is another POV from the same source

CoinTelegraph: Throughout the past month, several major Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex have either listed or referred to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash in several instances.

You referred to the source The Merkle (another often cited RS), with the source title "Here’s Why Calling Bitcoin Cash “BCash” Is a Terrible Idea", yet another source that goes into the naming options.

TheMerkle: Over the past few months, we have seen various discussions regarding Bitcoin Cash. One of the main “problems” involves how people tend to refer to this altcoin these days. In the Bitcoin community, it is often known as BCash

You referred to the CNBC source (clearly an RS) titled " What will Bitcoin Cash be worth?" does confirm the formulation (aka BCash) and the source states:

CNBC: Aurélien Menant, founder and CEO of Gatecoin, a regulated bitcoin and ethereum token exchange based in Hong Kong, says parts of the community are referring to the new token as Bcash.

You acknowledge that the Forbes source supports the content, but you assert the source is wrong. This is a widely used RS, and the source states

Forbes staff writer: "Bitcoin Cash, now also known as "Bcash"

You ignore another RS from Fortune that states again like Forbes refers to the aka for Bitcoin Cash as Bcash stating '

Fortune Magazine: "new Bitcoin spinoff, Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,” 

In summary, there exists a clear pattern of aka naming above to support the aka BCash text. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• "You seek above to disqualify the sources one by one."—when I deleted your flood of unreliable sources recently, you just added more to the pile.
• "...In this case these sources are useful"—unreliable sources are not useful, see WP:IRS.
• Bitcoin Magazine: "So far, most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another... have also chosen to use the name Bitcoin Cash.", and all other informations mentioned. Note also that the source failed to inform that the use of the Bcash name by Bitfinex etc. was very limited in time (just days).
• "CoinTelegraph: Throughout the past month, several major Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex have either listed or referred to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash in several instances."—and it also mentioned that Bitstamp quickly (within hours) changed their mind, failing to inform that Bitfinex also quickly changed their mind (within days). See also the above claim by Bitcoin Magazine.
• "Here’s Why Calling Bitcoin Cash “BCash” Is a Terrible Idea"—this is in no way confirming that Bitcoin Cash is being called Bcash, only that such an idea exists.
• CNBC does not confirm that Bitcoin Cash is being called Bcash. It only confirms that Aurélien Menant says so.

The fact is that the claim you introduced "screams unprofessional and petty." I am curious how, knowing the sources, you want to find consensus for an edit like that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about the content of the source and the POV (and also not responding about some sources such as forbes and fortune), and I am simply just confirming these are WP:RS. NPOV is needed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"I think we are talking about different things."—we are both discussing the edit you want to make, as far as I know. I agree that the Fortune may be treated as reliable, however, note that the great majority of Bitcoin Cash articles published by the Fortune uses only the Bitcoin Cash name, not mentioning Bcash at all. The same holds for the Forbes. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see MOS:LEADALT which states: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Significant usage of the alternative BCash name is demonstrated by the multiple WP:IRS that use BCash as an alternative name including Forbes, Fortune (magazine), Bitcoin Magazine, Cointelegraph, Aurélien Menant (CEO of Gatecoin) as quoted by CNBC, Jameson Lopp of BitGo as quoted by CoinDesk and the other twenty or so sources. Do you have any other objections to the sourcing of this content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"Please see MOS:LEADALT" - I did and know that insignificant, petty names should not be put into the first sentence. The usage is insignificant, petty, fringe and misleading (see The Merkle article) as sufficiently demonstrated by your own sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

BCash is a decentralized coin in the gaming and casino industry, not Bitcoin Cash. Misplaced Pages is not a battlefront. It is widely known that use of Bcash to describe Bitcoin Cash is a pejorative term used to promote a cause or product known as Lightning Network. If Bcash is mentioned on this page it should be within this context. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Shiftchange:, Are there WP:RS that mention this games website? You cited WP:NOTPROPAGANDA which states: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Are you suggesting we create a section to cover the naming debate? NOTPROPOGANDA does not provide a valid case for excluding widely cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"Are there WP:RS that mention this games website?" - see your own sources, e.g. The Merkle, they do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I just blanked some other promotional content from the Merkle, as it seems the Merkle allows these freelance journalists (aka user generated content). I have added a section per your comments. Seems we are in agreement that the debate exists and RS describe it. Seems there is some disagreement whether use is widespread or as Ladislav argues is WP:FRINGE and I argue useage is apparenlty widespread with a long list of mainstream WP:RS. Regardless WP:NOTPROPAGANDA does not provide a case for excluding the content. Can you find some other sources that state that usage of Bcash not liked, or is this single dubious Merkle source the only one? I have added the dubious Merkle source for now for the purposes of anchoring some NPOV views from this talk page section (I am not advocating that Bcash is the predominant name, see this talk page section is about usage of the term as aka). Maybe you guys can find some better sources to state that the term is not the predominant term. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So, now you are deleting The Merkle as a source from the article? Previously you claimed that it was a reliable source for your claims, so your behaviour looks highly inconsistent. We can discuss whether The Merkle is reliable or not, but your inconsistency in this respect is telling. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You section blanked the content I added of the name Bcash in this edit . Please explain why you think this content is not suitable. Note in the diff you will see that I included The Merkle source for NPOV, while noting that this is a low quality source but maybe workable for this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Shall I presume your silence on the subject to mean you agree that I re-add the content? Please provide your justification for sectionblanking this well sourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Also, please take care you edit the source correctly next time, your unclosed ref tag caused unnecessary problems. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes the war being waged against BCH needs to be explained in the article in detail. Use of the term Bcash would be part of that section. I started an Ideological War section but it was removed for some random reason. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Dulis, Ezra (December 20, 2017). "The Bitcoin Community Is Furious with Coinbase's Surprise Launch of 'BCash'". Breitbart. Retrieved March 4, 2018.
2. ^ Prince, Elliot (February 26, 2017). "From The 3 Best Ways to Buy Bitcoin Cash (Bcash, BCH, or BCC)". 99bitcoins. Retrieved March 4, 2018.
3. ^ Woo, Wilma (20 December 2017). "EVIDENCE EMERGES OF CNBC COLLUSION WITH ROGER VER, BCASH". bitcoinist. Retrieved 3 March 2018.
4. ^ "What Is BCash?". weusecoins. Retrieved 4 March 2018.
5. ^ van Wirdum, Aaron (7 August 2017). "Bitcoin Cash or Bcash: What's in a Name?". Bitcoin Magazine.
6. ^ Young, Joseph (6 December 2017). "Bitstamp Criticized For Listing Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Despite Community Outrage". CoinTelegraph.
7. ^ Clark, John (2018-01-05). The Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World. BookBaby. ISBN 978-0670069972.
8. ^ Buntinx, JP (13 January 2018). "Here's Why Calling Bitcoin Cash "BCash" Is a Terrible Idea". TheMerkle.
9. ^ Liao, Shannon (20 December 2017). "Coinbase halts Bitcoin Cash transactions amidst accusations of insider trading". TheVerge.
10. ^ "SCAM OF THE WEEK: BITCOIN CASH". Coindigo. 17 January 2018.
11. ^ X, Alex (20 December 2017). "Bitcoin Cash vs. Bcash: The War of Names Continues in the Crypto Community". CoinBureau.
12. ^ "SCAM OF THE WEEK: BITCOIN CASH". Coindigo. 01 December 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. ^ "This Week In Bitcoin with Adam Meister - BTC, Bcash Madness, 2x Implosion". WorldCryptoNetwork. 18 November 2017.
14. ^ K, Chris (06 December 2017). "2 New Bitcoin Clones Are Coming: "Bitcoin God" And "Bcash". By the end of the year, we will have probably meet two new Bitcoin snapshots". Cryptona. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. van Wirdum, Aaron (22 August 2017). "Why Bcash Mining Shouldn't Affect Bitcoin Much (But Bitcoin Mining Could Ruin Bcash)". BitcoinMagazine.
16. ^ Shen, Lucinda (08 August 2017). "Bitcoin Just Surged to Yet Another All-Time High". Fortune Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
17. ^ "Bitstamp Angers by Listing "Bcash," Bitfinex Surprises by Switching to Bitcoin Cash". TrustNodes. 05 December 2017. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
18. ^ LaVere, Michael (22 December 2017). "What Could Coinbase Do For Ripple's (XRP) Price". Oracle Times.
19. ^ DIOQUINO, VINCE (15 January 2018). "The Name Game: Why Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, not "bcash"". CoinGeek.
20. ^ Haywood, Matthew (24 August 2017). "Miners gaming the BCash emergency difficulty adjustment". BraveNewCoin.
21. ^ Wilmoth, Josiah (26 September 2017). "LocalBitcoins to Compensate Users for 'Bcash' Holdings, Will Not Support Future Forks". CCN.
22. ^ Ambler, Pamela (09 August 2017). "The Rapid Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin Cash". Forbes. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
23. ^ 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.
24. "Coinbase aangeklaagd om het Bitcoin Cash fiasco". cryptocoinsnieuws.nl. 08 March 2018. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Bitcoin Unlimited Origin

I have posted many references proving BUIP055 became UAHF which became Bitcoin Cash. There are tons more in github repos, on Reddit and other message boards, etc. And I confirm the history as a first person source. Please do not revert this change -- post your questions here instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrewstone (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew, we cant use reddit, github, or messages boards as WP:RS. Please review about RS and see if you can find better Reliable Sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, GitHub can be used as a source on itself. In this case, it is obviously unreliable as a source to confirm that Bitcoin Unlimited was the first to propose Bitcoin Cash, since it does not even contain such an information. On the other hand, it can be used as a source to confirm that it contained the BUIP055 proposal on May 10, 2017. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, thanks for providing the nuance that I failed to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will use github to confirm that it contained the BUIP055 proposal and that subsequent BUIP055 documentation contained the term UAHF before the bitmain announcement. This shows that the bitmain announcement emerged out of BUIP055. Gandrewstone (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But I disagree with your interpretation of reliable sources. The bitco.in forum is the official location in Bitcoin Unlimited where BUIPs are discussed and voted on. Therefore the official statements by solex on these forums, such as vote tallies, meet the requirement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". We are simply discussing the history of Bitcoin Unlimited, and so the actual historical material is the best source to confirm that history, especially since the forum bitco.in is an independent entity. Gandrewstone (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

No using githhub and random blogs is not what we do here. Misplaced Pages is not an extension of the blogosphere. The spirit of what we do here is summarize what other high quality sources say - we don't generate our own new content by describing what is found in primary sources like github. Please see User:Jytdog/How to learn how Misplaced Pages works. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Supporters

@Ladislav Mecir: and @Shiftchange: you should not be adding content like this sourced by primary sources. This is not a fanpage, and if it is, it sure needs to have WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not add the sources you mention, but I reverted your deletion per WP:SELFSOURCE. In this case, the source was used as an information on itself. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-controversial statements do not always require sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So you say that the claim that the entrepreneur Falkvinge supports Bitcoin Cash is advertising? Based on what? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that the statements must be verifiable. On the other hand, the deleted claim was verifiable using Falkvinge's own writings, as WP:SELFSOURCE allows. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

These statements are not controversial. The correct response would be to remove poor references with an explanation as to why and a citation needed template so other editors can tend to it. We are also allowed to use primary sources to reference those subjects themselves. When content that is not controversial is removed it shows bias. The article requires expansion at this time. Removing content is not advised as we are aiming for comprehensiveness. These additions are nothing to do with advertising or promoting. I will re-add the removed content and if a source is not adequate please at the citation needed template. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Examples of use-cases are not promoting anything because I write in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Why downplay the utility of BCH? Notice how a reason to remove is picked but when questioned on detail no answer is forthcoming. Undisputed facts regarding historical fees and basic differences such as no reference implementation, replace-by-fee were removed carelessly. Legitimate sources are objected to when the view expressed is not pro-BTC. This is a game for some editors who just pick the best rule to enforce or deny the content they prefer because of paid gatekeeping. Do we see many other declarations of crypto ownership on here? All the things I have wanted to include should be included because I am describing Bitcoin Cash neutrally with citations and briefly in a sentence or two. More supporters will speak up, editors will follow me with use-cases and they aren't going to appreciate the agenda-driven editing rampant across all media against BCH. We should not be removing so much knowledge about a growing new crypto. Please add a citation needed template if you have valid concerns and wait a few weeks for the best source to be found and exact wording to improve. Too many editors do not want to work constructively to improve this article. I want to cover 0-conf, Cashaddr and how signatures are preserved over Segwit but why should I bother if the censors are swarming here?

bitcoin.com doesn't automatically become an unreliable source for this article because someone suggested it was. You have to provide proof that a source is unreliable. The lead is all wrong on this article. Instead of linking to phony nonsense about a scaling "problem" it should discuss the reasons for the need to fork. It should include a link to the original Bitcoin, explain how there is no scaling problem and how BCH is superior to BTC because on-chain scaling, low fees, rapid transfer, etc. The article should also explain the internet disinformation campaign against BCH and more about the illegitimacy of BTC. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the original author

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The cryptocurrency template allows to specify the original author. Earlier, this information was in the template, but it was deleted later. Should the information be reinstated? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Per independent sources such as arsTechnica, Slate, Investopedia, The Merkle or the primary bitcoincash.org website, Satoshi Nakamoto is considered the original author. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose baseless RfQ. I will reply below in detail, as I am sure a discussion will start. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Rationale in threaded discussion below. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for two reasons. A cryptocurrency does not have an "author"; and there is no evidence that the purported author is even aware of the existence of Bitcoin Cash. Maproom (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note 'A cryptocurrency does not have an "author"'—see below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the analysis by Jtbobwaysf in the threaded discussion below that examined sources don't support the claim that Satoshi was the author. It seems to be a promotional move. Bitcoin Cash proponents want to claim that it is the true Bitcoin, but no independent reliable sources support that. Retimuko (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note "Bitcoin Cash proponents want to claim that it is the true Bitcoin"—that is not the subject of this RfC and it does not look relevant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that insisting on Satoshi Nakamoto being the original author is a part of this promotional move. Retimuko (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

*Support a field showing the developer, but name it "developer" instead - that seems more appropriate. Summoned by bot. Two separate issues - 1) whether to have a field, and then 2) what info to put in it. This RfC (not RFQ) only concerns the first issue. The second discussion should go on the talk page. TimTempleton 18:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• @Timtempleton: I understood (please correct me if I am wrong) this RfC is Ladislav's proposal to add Satoshi Nakamoto as the author of the whitepaper, not to change the template field to developer. Do you support the change to add Nakamoto as the author to the existing template field? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  Then I misunderstood - I thought this was related to having or not having a specific field on the template. So I'm striking my vote. No comment on the debate related to who should be named the author - I don't know enough about it. TimTempleton 17:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose discussion below shows the claimed sourced don't state that he is the author of BCH, but moreso state his work is the model that was used. A statement of that fact in article is fine, but stating he is orginal author, isn't accurate. WikiVirusC 14:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support pending enough reliable sources can be found to support the author name originally provided. Investopedia would not be considered a reliable source. JP Miller1 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  @JP Miller1: Are the sources listed in this RfC sufficient for your Support vote, or are you requesting more? I was confused by your use of "pending." Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  @Jtbobwaysf: To clarify, more reliable sources are needed in addition to what's included in the RfC. JP Miller1 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I want to draw attention to the biased/misleading RFC question. The question notes the template allows to specify the original author, it then claims the original author was in the template, and asks if the information should be reinstated. The true question here is whether the claimed value is backed up by the sources.
  Infobox values are simplistic, and should only be filled in if reliable sources provide a clear and relatively undisputed value. As noted in the threaded discussion below, the offered sources badly fail wp:Verification for the claimed value Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin_Cash is a derivative work which, from a purely technical standpoint, has multiple authors. We need to reflect how Reliable Sources interpret and attribute that information. In a theoretical future (for example if regular Bitcoin dies out), sources may or may not decide to attribute Satoshi Nakamoto as the primary author. Bitcoin_Cash is a fork, and it has been suggested that Amaury Séchet might be attributable as the author of the fork. I have not examined the sources on that point, so I have no formal position on whether Amaury Séchet should be inserted as the template value. If necessary, complicated or disputed information can be addressed in article prose rather than the infobox. Alsee (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

You have cited 6 sources. Trash:

• Investopedia: WP:UGC, Trashbin
• Bitcoincash.org WP:PRIMARY, remarkably even worse than investopedia. Of course they assert they are the 'original bitcoin'. Seriously?

Maybe RS:

• Arstechnica #1 Source does not support your claim, it says: "Bitcoin Cash supporters have been arguing with supporters of the conventional bitcoin network over whose version of bitcoin better reflects the vision of bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto."
• Arstechnica #2 Source does not support your claim, it says: "Forking the blockchain allows the creators of Bitcoin Cash to position themselves as the true heirs to Bitcoin's still-pseudonymous founder Satoshi Nakamoto."
• Slate Source does not support your claim, it says: "That’s why some supporters of BCC oppose the name “alternative coin,” they view what they’re doing as closer to Satoshi’s vision than BTC. Point for BCC."
• The Merkle source does not support your claim and says, "The primary reason for this decision is that SCCEX (Scandinavian Cryptocurrency Exchange) views Bitcoin Cash as the Bitcoin that Satoshi Nakamoto originally intended to create."

What a joke this RfQ is. None of the sources support your claim. This RfQ is a gross waste of time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment "Of course they assert they are the 'original bitcoin'. Seriously?"—you are misrepresenting the subject of this WP:RFC (note it is not a 'RfQ', neither it is a joke, or a claim that 'Bitcoin Cash is the original bitcoin').

• Question - Stupid question from a crypto-currency novice; how is it that there's an "author" field in this template at all. Seems very weird to think that a currency has an author. If the author is meant to be the developer who made the code, why not change the field title to "developer"? Also, is it appropriate to really attribute a cryptocurrency to a single developer, when most of them were really put together by teams? NickCT (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment The "Original author" item (this is what is displayed in the box) is meant to name the person who:

• authored the design of the cryptocurrency such as
  • designed the cryptocurrency as a "chain of digital signatures"—other possibilities exist as demonstrated by other authors
  • designed its ledger as a public chain of records called blocks—other possibilities exist as demonstrated by other authors
  • determined that the blocks shall be added to the chain every 10 minutes at average—other timings are possible as demonstrated by other authors
  • determined that the block reward shall be halved approximately every four years—other possibilities exist as demonstrated by other authors
  • designed the timestamping procedure as a proof-of-work performing partial hash inversion—other possibilities exist as demonstrated by other authors
• authored the white paper describing the main design principles
• authored the original implementation
• authored the 'genesis block' of the cryptocurrency, etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: It's a good question actually and quite relevant to this discussion. There is a POV in the Bitcoin Cash advocate community that Satoshi Nakamoto wrote the Bitcoin Cash white paper (and the subject of this RfQ). This RfQ is to assert that Satoshi is the author of the whitepaper that created Bitcoin Cash. However, there are no mainstream WP:RS that support the position that Satoshi had any role in writing the Bitcoin Cash whitepaper (by very definition since Satoshi hasn't been heard from since 2010 and this Bitcoin Cash started in 2017). It's all POV PR, including this RfQ. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: - Thanks for the background. I think the template field is a little confusing. The field isn't called "Author of the whitepaper", it's just called "Author". I really don't think an average reader is likely to read and understand the information in that field. Frankly, I think I'm leaning towards "oppose" solely on the basis that the field is void-for-vagueness. Might be worth having a discussion on the template talk page as to whether it should be changed. NickCT (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: I agree it is confusing and is possible the intent is to confuse. We also discussed this same Satoshi issue here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#original_author. It appears the author of the initial BitcoinABC release (which was later re-named Bitcoin Cash) was Amuary Sechat, an employee of Bitmain. However, some editors were opposed to using Sechat at the author if I recall, so we just deleted teh field entirely. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"it is confusing and is possible the intent is to confuse"—WP:AGF does not appear to be your strength. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"It appears the author of the initial BitcoinABC release (which was later re-named Bitcoin Cash)"—BitcoinABC was never renamed. It still has the BitcoinABC name. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"the author of the initial BitcoinABC release ... was Amuary Sechat"—the name of the person is Amaury Séchet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Amuary Sechat, an employee of Bitmain"—wrong again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, it looks to me that we are re-hashing old issues covered in on this very talk page in this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#original_author discussion. One WP:RS we have on this subject from Bitcoin Magazine is that Sechat is the original author of this article's subject saying "A first software implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol, called Bitcoin ABC, was recently revealed by its lead developer, Amaury “Deadal Nix” Sechét at the Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, the Netherlands. Sechét worked at Facebook for the past years and decided to focus on Bitcoin full time earlier this year." - Bitcoin Magazine. Do you support using Sechet's name as the author, or are you just asserting that Satoshi is the author? The RS we have on the subject all point to Sechet. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The correct name of the person is Amaury Séchet. Another fallacy of yours is the claim that BitcoinABC is Bitcoin Cash. It is not, BitcoinABC was never renamed to Bitcoin Cash. There are more inaccuracies in your above note and I do not feel obliged to list them all. In my opinion, the two are enough to illustrate the level of encyclopedic accuracy you are striving to achieve. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to Ladislav's assertion that "The "Original author" item (this is what is displayed in the box) is meant to name the person who: (insert long list of various options)": This explanation is nonsense. The author field in template refers to the white paper author, and immediately follows the white paper link template field. If you want to have a discussion about the template that should be done on the template's talk page, and please ping the related editors (including me). Your RfC here is attempting to put Satoshi in as the white paper author of Bitcoin Cash (without providing any RS). However, Bitcoin Cash doesn't have a whitepaper as far as I know, does it? BTW, the only WP:RS we have on this subject is that Séchet is original author of Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin ABC was renamed Bitcoin Cash (and there are RS that support that in the article). The sources you have provided to the contrary do not support your claims. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Omcnoe: you have repeatedly added this satoshi promotional content to this article and i have deleted it a few times. Per the dicussion here, there are no RS to support this claim and you should be not adding content that is related to an open RfC. (Adding a photo of disputed content instead of the content itself is close enough). This is WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

non-neutral edits by Shiftchange

@Shiftchange: insists on adding information that seems to push a non-neutral point of view. See edits: 1, 2, 3. Examples of promotional language: assertion that "Bitcoin Cash retained the decentralization of Bitcoin" with no sources to support that, "important distinctions", assertions like "Bitcoin Cash aims to be a medium of exchange as originally described in the Bitcoin whitepaper", "useful for making payments", "most successful spin-off and its adoption by investors was quick" without attribution. Some of that was removed, but later added again by Shiftchange. This promotional language needs to be removed or substantially rephrased to be neutral provided that reliable sources are cited to support the claims. Retimuko (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that Shiftchange seems to be too liberal when inserting ideas into the article without basing them on reliable sources. Also, he seems to want to enforce his edits no matter whether there is any consensus with them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Where does this idea come from that every single statement must be sourced? Lets remember the lead is for a summary and key facts. Detailed explanation and references are ideally suited to the body text. Besides that I have been sourcing most of my additions. If a music artist reaches number 1 on the charts it is not considered promotional to include that type of content on biographical articles. I am just describing basic characteristics of the crypto, the ones that are significant for BCH. Notice the content that is removed is done so without explaining why that content false or inaccurate. It is always some other excuse. Is anyone suggesting its not useful for making online payments? Has it not been the most successful fork of Bitcoin? Did its price go up substantially immediately after launch? I can't see how explaining these things briefly in the lead, these things that make it distinct from Bitcoin the original, especially since we are discussing a fork, is promotional in nature. Lets expand this article so our readers understand the subject fully. I would encourage you to re-phrase if I am off in my wording, but don't just remove. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I support Retimuko's efforts to removed unsourced WP:OR and promotional content from this article. Something that is unsourced should be 100% uncontroversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Another batch of blatant promotion by Shiftchange. Assertion that it is "useful" is clearly non-neutral. Assertion that it is "the most successful spin-off and its adoption by investors was quick" is based on one article in Cointelegraph. It might be acceptable with attribution and from a better source perhaps, and maybe not it the lead. Another assertion is about "common sentiment" based on a statement on bitcoin.com, the most biased source one could find. They make "official statement" that "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Please stop this. Retimuko (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Shiftchange, I just spent the past 5 minutes deleting huge quantities of unsourced content, promo content, garbage, etc. Large amounts of stuff are unsourced, some site twitter, others cite press releases. Horrible in general. Edits like are unacceptable. Misplaced Pages requires WP:RS. Don't add unsourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep making the bad mistake of believing that everything must be sourced. Ridiculous. You must challenge the content first. That challenge must be valid. Removing content you don't like is not a valid challenge. For example, are you disputing any statement about the Satoshi Vision conference I added? What needs a source? What are you questioning? What is unclear about the single sentence about a recent conference related to the subject? Our job here is to describe what Bitcoin Cash is. That includes how it is viewed and used. Describing Bitcoin Cash is not promoting it. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shiftchange:, you made this revert and justified it in the edit summary by saying "add main advantage over BTC, re-add content that was removed without valid reasons." At wikipedia we dont care what is Bitcoin Cash's advantage over Bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) you reverted content here that is the subject of an ongoing RfC. Looping in a couple other editors, to see if they care to comment. @David Gerard: and @Jytdog: we have a promotion WP:CIRCUS situation going on at this article with two Bitcoin Cash advocates. Maybe you care to take a look and advise what to do. I was templated by both Ladislav and Shiftchange asserting edit warring for my removal of large swaths of unsourced content. Should I just continue to remove it? ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to you decide what our readers want to read. Our readers would care because it is a fork of Bitcoin. Why did it fork? How successful is that process? You keep failing to address the fact that not all content must be sourced. You have to have a legitimate reason for removing content. You also remove content regardless of whether or not it is sourced with a summary of "trash". Can you see how this demonstrates bias? I am just trying to expand the article with details that you keep removing because you don't like it. Bad editing. Lets expand the article instead to get it to C class and then B class. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - the facts are that

• the edit I reverted was discussed and it is known to not have required consensus here
• the fact that you are trying to start a RfC (not really in a recommended way, see below) does not create a consensus all of a sudden, it only allows us to find a consensus in a discussion
• discussing the edit here is inappropriate, since it is not related to the edit warring behaviour of Shiftchange Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• so here and here you added unsourced promotion/trivia like In March 2018, Bitcoin Cash enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo for the Satoshi’s Vision Conference were the main themes were scaling, tokenisation and adoption. and other promotional content about uptake or advantages sourced to SPS like twitter and a company blog. Please make sure edits are based on high quality independent sources and please add neutral, descriptive content, not content that attempts to persuade people to use this currency. I remain interested in a response to my query at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So which is it promotion or trivia? The first sentence in my contribution you linked as "promotional" was sourced to a reference already in the article used to source the first sentence. Are you saying that source is unreliable or that what I wrote is trivial? Describing its rapid adoption, its high market, its support and its use is in no way "promotional". It is explanation. I only use Twitter to source relevant statements made on Twitter. I am not doing any persuasion. My contributions are always neutral. I am building an encyclopedia. We must be comprehensive to reach B Class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: I removed the charts because they are just artwork of some unknown individuals and we have no idea about the quality of the data. The phrase about "the most successful" is clearly non-neutral. Yes, Cointelegraph says something of that sort, but it is an editorial opinion, not a statement of fact. Editorial opinions even from the best journalistic outlets should be avoided, and I wouldn't call Cointelegraph a very reliable source. Just look at this article: do you see a name of the author and the publication date? I don't see any. Unless there is some problem with my browser or my vision, it is an indication of poor editorial practices. It is one thing to state facts like "the market cap was X as of some date according to this reliable source" and quite another to give an opinion that "adoption was quick" (how quick is quick?) without attribution and based on a dubious source Retimuko (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

All the recent removals are done with no reason other than I don't like it because it is too supportive of Bitcoin Cash. That is false and too bad. Bitcoin Cash has support and I will ensure it is reflected in the article. BCH enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo is a basic fact so mentioning it in the article is being neutral. The removal of that sort of information is non-neutral. One editor who removes wants to include derogatory slurs against it with Btrash. We can see the same bias spreading here that I found on Roger Ver's article. I want the article to explain BCH's use and its popularity. To deny the success of Bitcoin Cash and its advantages over BTC is clearly non-neutral, just as it would be for anything that has utility. Many people want to learn about BCH because they want to earn it. That is why my content about application gets removed because it is real world usage that demonstrates superiority over BTC. The charts are fine without inaccuracies and Cointelegraph is fine. The quality of my references is fine. They get removed regardless, for example in the lead, when I re-used an existing citation. If my contributions had been improved upon with the citation needed template and any other minor corrections needed, this article would be approaching B class. The BTC as gold and BCH as cash aspect needs to be fully explored as well as how BCH is used and is better for payments. The bias against BCH in this article is appalling. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was this readdded, both jytdog (talk · contribs) and I deleted this before? This ongoing WP:SOAP is awful. In general this summary of your recent additions looks highly suspicious. I don't understand how you think this is ok. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on altname Bcash

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

The lede should contain the often used altname Bcash and read:

Bitcoin Cash (also known as Bcash) is a cryptocurrency.

MOS:LEADALT applies the following test: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." WP:SOAP applies the following test: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." The following mainstream WP:RS have used the term bcash:

“the new Bitcoin spinoff, Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,” Fortune (magazine)

"Bitcoin Cash, now also known as "Bcash" Forbes

“Aurélien Menant, founder and CEO of Gatecoin, a regulated bitcoin and ethereum token exchange based in Hong Kong, says parts of the community are referring to the new token as Bcash.”  CNBC 

The following industry WP:RS have used the term bcash

"Throughout the past month, several major Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex have either listed or referred to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash in several instances." CoinTelegraph

"For the past couple of days, Bitcoin Cash (Bcash or BCH) was more profitable to mine than Bitcoin (BTC)." Bitcoin Magazine

The above sources demonstrate a pattern of usage of the term Bcash in both mainstream and industry publications.

Survey

• Support I support use of the alt name Bcash as there is significant use of the altname in both mainstream and industry reliable sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

References

1. ^ Shen, Lucinda (08 August 2017). "Bitcoin Just Surged to Yet Another All-Time High". Fortune Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. ^ Ambler, Pamela (09 August 2017). "The Rapid Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin Cash". Forbes. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Smith, Oli (21 January 2018). "Bitcoin price RIVAL: Cryptocurrency 'faster than bitcoin' will CHALLENGE market leaders". Express. Retrieved 1 March 2018.
4. 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.
5. Young, Joseph (6 December 2017). "Bitstamp Criticized For Listing Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Despite Community Outrage". CoinTelegraph.
6. van Wirdum, Aaron (22 August 2017). "Why Bcash Mining Shouldn't Affect Bitcoin Much (But Bitcoin Mining Could Ruin Bcash)". BitcoinMagazine.

The RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief. It also contains no timestamp, so that the first part of the survey is copied to the RfC listings, which could skew the responses. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Jtbobwaysf would you please pull the RfC, or allow me to frame this in a neutral manner? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree - both the neutrality and briefness are missing in this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Redrose & Ladislav I agree I botched this. @Jytdog: thanks for your offer to re-frame. I will PULL RfC it and watch and learn a bit here. Clearly I failed to make it brief or neutral. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

good article neutral source

Here is a good article to use. Jiang Zhuo’er is an investor who mines. He is neither a supporter of or opposed to BCH. Some of his views should be outlined here, including BCH as a competitor in marketplace and how BCH is the only coin that attracts proponents of on-chain scaling. Its important to explain how BCH fits into the crypto space. The article lacks context due to bias against BCH from BTC holders scared of valid competition. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Self-published blogs are not acceptable. Your misrepresentation of the motives of the editors who insist on following the policies is not acceptable too. Retimuko (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the exception to this rule? Professionals in the field on which they write are excepted. The statement requiring a source is a quotation. I was thinking of "BCC is a competitor of BTC that wants to do better than Bitcoin, not kill it." because it explains how this currency is a substitute good competing in a market rather than a scam. His pool mines both currencies. Keep pretending there is no misrepresentation rampant on the internet and see where that gets you. Its important for Misplaced Pages to be neutral. All majority and significant minority views need to be covered. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

quote box

How is the statement "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin and will have the bigger market cap, trade volume and user base in the future." promoting something? All this quotes contain is a statement of what Bitcoin Cash is and what it might become from one of the leading voices in Bitcoin. How can that in anyway be promotional? There are no words of encouragement. There is no product, organization, or venture that is being advertised. As the first ever investor in Bitcoin related startups our readers would be interested to know this. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Misplaced Pages

Are other editors becoming aware of what I am doing here? Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Misplaced Pages. Its not going to happen. This is what is going to happen. I am going to write the definitive article for Bitcoin Cash. This is no battleground. This is for knowledge of Bitcoin Cash. Are we comprehending what that means? Comprehensiveness. I will write knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. This article is going to improve. I am going to do that. No paid gate-keeping of any magnitude is going to get in my way. This message is for clarity for the confused among us. I am also going to get or create charts and images to improve the page. Then I will ensure Bitcoin Cash is adequately represented elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This is really inappropriate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Messages like this do not help your case for legitimacy. Free Bullets (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice there is no explanation as to why my comment was inappropriate. Why? What is this message like? My comment was fine and perfectly legitimate. Everything I have written about he on the talk page is legitimate while everything opposed to what I am trying to do is bias against Bitcoin Cash. Everyone can see how you are not addressing my concerns. Everyone can see the editors not discussing the issues and instead removing content for invalid reasons. This instant removal and dismissal because you don't like it is not going to fly. - 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftchange (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Because Bitcoin Cash is so much more useful than BTC

Because Bitcoin Cash is so much more useful than BTC we need a features section that provides all the details of the technical advantages that Bitcoin Cash has over its rival. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Revised RfC on altname Bcash

This proposal is to add altname (MOS:LEADALT) "Bcash" to the Bitcoin Cash article with ammended text to read:

Bitcoin Cash (also known as Bcash).

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey altname

• Support Both industry and mainstream WP:RS demonstrate significant usage. Therefore, MOS:LEADALT conditions are met. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That source you mentioned doesn't appear to mention the altname Bcash. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you often miss things. You repeatedly fail to understand the editing process, for example. Its not a source. Its a link to an article describing the disinformation campaign against BCH I have been trying to correct here. As you are probably aware the purpose is to disassociate a strong competitor to the original Bitcoin. Former President Obama gets referred to as a heap of things; we don't include them in our articles because they have no significance. Its the same with the Bcash slur or your use of the word trash. Please start using if you feel a source is lacking. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your reply again, and think what effect "Yes, you often miss things" has on people's assessment of your intent. You claim that "bcash" is a slur, and support that with a link to an article that doesn't mention the word "bcash" or give any hint that nicknames for Bitcoin Cash are being used in a derogatory way. Then User:Jtbobwaysf asks for clarification, and you respond condescendingly and aggressively. As someone who is not involved in the discussion, that gives me the impression that you're not very cooperative. --Slashme (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Bcash" is a derogatory name, and should not be included without being acknowledged as such per MOS:NICKNAME Omcnoe (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose
  • Per the Bitcoin Magazine the poster of this RfC cites as a source, "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding (to "Bcash") insulting or even a 'social attack'."
  • Per the same Bitcoin Magazine article, 'most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name "Bitcoin Cash"'.
  • Per CoinTelegraph, "A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally." After being criticized for the unprofessional behaviour, both the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges quickly switched to using the Bitcoin Cash name. If Misplaced Pages used the unprofessional and petty naming, it would consequently be criticized in the same way.
  • Per The Merkle and other sources, "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."
  • It is not true that the usage of the Bcash name is significant. The huge majority of articles published by reliable sources mentions Bitcoin Cash as the name of the cryptocurrency.
  • Summing up, per WP:NICKNAME, highlighting Bcash, which is an uncommon and disputed appellation in the lead section would give it undue weight, and would also be a more general neutrality problem. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Misplaced Pages for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Misplaced Pages to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It's not "also known as", it's a derogatory term. REDGOLPE (TALK) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to only be pejorative use to me. Can any one provide primary sources that are neutral or positive about Bitcoin Cash and use the term "BCash" throughout? Bicoind3 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, i don't support the use of "Bcash" in the lead as an altname at this time but the sourcing provided is plenty to discuss this in the body of the article, and there is currently no discussion of it. It is very clear from the sources that advocates for Bitcoin Cash see it as derogatory and bad but that is no reason to make a decision in WP. It is just too soon to see if this going to be a valid altname or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI, there was a section named "Market acceptance and naming" in the article body. Curiously, the poster of this RfC deleted it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • mmm i think you mean this diff. The content there was not about the naming issue really but said which names which exchanges used. That did not describe the controversy.Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I just looked at the diff and I did indeed delete it. I think this content got swept out relating to some WP:TE on the part of another editor (discussed above, adding lots of poorly sourced content). I did previously add a small naming section in the hopes that it could address the naming disupte, however it was blanked see . Thanks! I think I will give another crack at it, unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The term is only used pejoratively. David G (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's an analogy. Some people dislike the former British prime minister Tony Blair, and refer to him as "Bliar". If you Google for "Bliar", you'll find plenty of hits, many of them to RSs such as The Economist, all referring to Blair. But it is not his name, it is an insult directed at him. The string "Bliar" does not appear in the Misplaced Pages article about him. ("Tony" is not his name either, his real first name is Anthony; but he is widely known as "Tony".) Maproom (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - it doesn't seem to be very widespread in reliable sources, and there is good reason to believe that it's not a neutral name. That means that it shouldn't be given in the lead sentence of the article as an alternative name, but it's an interesting development that should be discussed in the article, to the extent that it is supported by reliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Conditionally support This kitchen is a bit hot, but before departing I think that as a nonuser of ecurrency and one who had never heard of Bcash, I may observe in good faith that if the term Bcash is widely recognised (not necessarily widely or frequently used) then it is proper and reasonable to include the fact in the article, even if primarily as a redirect. Otherwise the innocent who encounters "Bcash" is left un-helped when he wishes to find out what the word might mean, and what the status of the term Bcash might be in the field. Our primary duty is to inform the reader, not observe the tender sensitivities of interested parties who would like to censor what they see as insults. In the event that we do in fact mention the usage, then it would be reasonable, if indeed true, to say something such as "Bitcoin has also been referred to, apparently in various derogatory senses, as Bcash."
  If nothing else, that information might prevent naive users from both puzzlement and the embarrassment attendant on the use of five-letter words in polite company. JonRichfield (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that the usage has criticism. It's a bit stilly to call it "derogatory", etc., since there's nothing intrinsically negative about it. It's just an informal shortening. So, we should not use labels like "derogatory" or "slur" in Misplaced Pages's own voice. But it also shouldn't be listed as simply an alternative name, but an abbreviation that's disfavored in some contexts. It should be included for completeness, and boldfaced as a redirected alt. term, so that people end up at this article when they look for that term and can find it quickly in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion altname

• Comment Per the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment article, statements should be neutral. The above statement is not neutral. "If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement is fine. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We can see Jytdog's bias against Bitcoin Cash with this statement as they disregard neutrality. Why aren't you following our policies and guidelines. They are instructive. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Per MOS:NICKNAME: "Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical." Bcash is a derogatory nickname for Bitcoin Cash, and thus it's inclusion in the lead section would present a neutrality problem. Omcnoe (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Question A few editors have claimed during this RfC that the name Bcash is a nickname and derogatory. Do you have any sources to substantiate these claims? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to find reliable secondary sources for many things cryptocurrency related. Nevertheless, here are some that describe the term "Bcash" as a pejorative or derogatory alternative name for Bitcoin Cash. There are reliable primary sources from major community members, labeling Bcash as a derogatory term.Omcnoe (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your two sources provided. Coinsquare is not an RS, it is a bitcoin buying website, thus WP:COI applies. About CCN looks like a poor quality source, but in the end it confirms the RfC in that people are using the Bcash term. It might also be useful to create the section you described below to go over a controversy. I looked a lot online and couldn't find sufficient sources to create a controversy section, if you can find it, please list. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough to support a 'Naming Controversy' section.Ladislav Mecir has already provided several RS above. From 'Bitcoin Magazine': "Many maintain that the name “Bitcoin Cash” simply is what the new coin is called, and claim that the name “Bcash” is mostly pushed by those who disapprove of the project. Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or even a “social attack” on the new cryptocurrency". From Coin Telegraph "Throughout the past few months, some of the most influential investors and figures within the Bitcoin Cash community including early-stage Bitcoin Investor Roger Ver and Bitmain Co-founder Jihan Wu encouraged the cryptocurrency community to not refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, because the original name of the Blockchain project is Bitcoin Cash." "In response to the initial announcement of Bitstamp and the decision of the company to list Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Cøbra wrote: 'A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It's funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally.'". From Coindesk "...'bcash' is a grave insult to bitcoin cash supporters.". Omcnoe (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME is for WP:BLP. Do we use the same BLP standard for open source software? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The same principle applies. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Bcash is a a derogatory name for now and assuming that it is, it would be non-neutral to include it as such without reference to the derogatory nature. As an example, many years ago on the internet it was common to refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft or M$. It would not be suitable to include this nickname as an altname in the Microsoft article, at least without acknowledging that it is a derogatory nickname. Omcnoe (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should be treated neutrally. I think there are likely different standards for WP:BLP than for open source software, and thus this WP:NICKNAME concept doesn't apply here. Of course our main standard to apply is WP:NPOV and specifically WP:SOAP, which doesn't support the exclusion of well cited content. As you have pointed out, there does seem to be sufficient content to support a naming section, which I did add before by the way and Ladislav blanked it. I put the diff link above in a response to jytdog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the most amenable solution here would be to include the altname in the article body, perhaps in a 'Naming Controversy' section, where this controversy can be neutrally covered. Present the argument against 'Bitcoin Cash' and for 'Bcash', and the argument for 'Bitcoin Cash' and against 'Bcash'. As it is unfortunately the choices for this RFC are limited (for/against a non-neutral mention in the lead). I propose rejecting this RFC & adding mention of 'Bcash' under a naming controversy section - this would be the most neutral way to cover the naming controversy. Omcnoe (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose As the case of two exchanges - Bitfinex and Bitstamp - documents, Bcash is a failed attempt to rebrand the cryptocurrency, while Bitcoin Cash is the actual name used by the industry and the huge majority of sources. Putting them on equal footing in the article body would be a violation of NPOV, giving the failed rebranding attempt undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir:, I think you already voted strongly oppose above, what are you voting for again here? Or are you opposed to Omcnoe (talk · contribs) comments above? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I will point out the recent repeated vandalism to this page using names such as "BTrash", "Bitcoin Trash", "ChinaCoin" and "VerCoin" alongside "Bcash", as further evidence that "Bcash" is a derogative name. Alongside the secondary sources already provided that claim "Bcash" is used as a derogative, I think that the evidence is strongly in favor. Is there even a single RS with a non-negative take that uses the term, or claims that it is not derogative? Omcnoe (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the mainstream RS provided in the RfC do not mention anything of this derogatory claim. Assuming arugendo the altname is deroretory, WP:SOAP still does not provide an excuse to exclude it. Nor does WP:BLP apply as some have suggested above. Next, this RfC is not about adding any of the other social media names you mention (chinacoin, vercoin, etc) and I have not seen any of those with RS. Have you? I don't see how other proposed altnames can used be evidence for or against this RfC unless you can show them related in some kind of RS. The discussion here is if the Bcash usage is significant to meet the altname test and if there is some other means for the Bitcoin Cash advocates to argue for its exlusion (covered under SOAP). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I am not opposed to the inclusion of the altname in the article, assuming that it is given neutral treatment. Many of the RS already provided in this rfc provide evidence of the name being derogatory as has I believe been discussed multiple times above, and this information should be included in the article. Included the name without mentioning the caveat that it is used derogatively would be extremely non-netrual. Misplaced Pages unsurprisingly lacks policy on derogatory nicknames for software, as I don't think that it's been a big problem before. So I think that it is reasonable to apply policies from topics where derogatory nicknames are an issue, such as MOS:NICKNAME. Omcnoe (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Shen, Lucinda (8 August 2017). "Bitcoin Just Surged to Yet Another All-Time High". Fortune Magazine.
2. Ambler, Pamela (9 August 2017). "The Rapid Rise And Fall Of Bitcoin Cash". Forbes.
3. 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.
4. ^ Young, Joseph (6 December 2017). "Bitstamp Criticized For Listing Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Despite Community Outrage". CoinTelegraph.
5. van Wirdum, Aaron (22 August 2017). "Why Bcash Mining Shouldn't Affect Bitcoin Much (But Bitcoin Mining Could Ruin Bcash)". BitcoinMagazine.
6. ^ van Wirdum, Aaron (7 August 2017). "Bitcoin Cash or Bcash: What's in a Name?". Bitcoin Magazine.
7. Buntinx, JP (13 January 2018). "Here's Why Calling Bitcoin Cash "BCash" Is a Terrible Idea". TheMerkle.
8. Cunningham, Aaron. "Bitcoin Entrepreneur Slams Bitcoin Cash During Parliamentary Meeting". Coinsquare.
9. Wilmoth, Josiah. "LocalBitcoins to Compensate Users for 'Bcash' Holdings, Will Not Support Future Forks". CCN.
10. "HUGE NEWS: Bitcoin cash is now Bitcoin wallets default currency - Why this is so important?".
11. https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/909420910708375552. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
12. Harper, Jim. "Victory Lap? 2017 Was Bitcoin's Backwards Year". Coindesk.

Related conference

This "In March 2018, Bitcoin Cash enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo for the Satoshi’s Vision Conference where the main themes were scaling, tokenisation and adoption." was added because it was a major Bitcoin Cash-related event. In the history of BCH the event features prominently and was highly regarded. Anyone wanting knowledge about Bitcoin Cash can learn about related events on Misplaced Pages pages. For example, when an artist makes an performance or someone notable goes on television it is often included in an article. Why do I have to explain basic content rules to other editors?

Why was it removed? Bias against Bitcoin Cash as discussed in this article. We see it here on Misplaced Pages. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes definitely seriously

An external media box is an excellent ways to inform our readers. They also help break up the text as I expand the article. Its the same with the images I will add. Notice the media box was removed with no reason provided? Why? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as there are no valid reasons to object I am going to re-add the external media box. We want our readers to know how Bitcoin Cash scales. The article is looking very silly without a Features section. That section needs to outline all the useful features of this crypto. - 08:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

bitcoin.com

Bitcoin.com is a reliable source. See WP:NEWSORG. It says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." It has to be demonstrated that the site is not reliable or that the linked article is wrong. Has a lack of editorial oversight been demonstrated? I will therefore be re-adding this content because its removal had no basis.

@Shiftchange: did you add this comment and forget to sign it? Bitcoin.com is a well known bitcoin cash promotion site owned by Roger Ver, who is listed on this very article as a supporter, and there is lots of sources where Ver claims he is one of the largest owners of BCH, thus creating a WP:COI. This source is clearly not an RS on this article. Second your re-adding of content that has been discussed and deleted on this talk page over and over again is WP:TE. Its starting to go too far. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a Bitcoin portal. We don't know how much BCH Ver owns or how much editorial control he sways. The COI page you linked doesn't mention referencing. news.bitcoin.com is clearly reliable as a news organisation for topics related to Bitcoin. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ver does frequently mention his BCH ownership in videos, such as in this video. In this video, Ver mentions that he has sold most of his BTC and bought BCH. I am certain he does have a large amount of editorial sway, but I don't have any evidence of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is an RS for Ver conflict of interest relating to bitcoin.com and his advocacy of bitcoin cash. This website is not an RS for this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality template removed

I have been discussing the lack of neutrality on this article for 12 days now. None of the items I have mentioned have been addressed. When I re-add content it only gets removed for invalid reasons, rarely because it is inaccurate. If a source is lacking it is appropriate to request more referencing rather than remove the content. We are trying to be comprehensive. Can we all see the complete bias against BCH represented in the editing process? Anything suggesting positive comparison with Bitcoin is removed. Notice the tax implications section stays as "stay away" message too. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to mention a specific problem to justify the re-addition of the template. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The specific problem is that not all views are being represented on the article. You keep removing content that you don't approve of for invalid reasons. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I remove content that lacks reliable sources, is promotional, it or violates other wikipedia policies. Whether I personally agree with the content or not is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to back up Shiftchange on this one. Much of his edits were excessively self promotional and deserved to be reverted, but not all. For example, why did you remove mention of the other 2 Bitcoin Cash implementations that were developed prior to the launch of the fork? The section extolling the benefits of these multiple implementations was not neutral and should have been removed, but the mere mention of them did not I think warrant removal from the Development section. I think the point about the "Tax Implications" section is also very strong, I notice that you have reverted edits removing this section, but is the current content of the section significant enough to warrant an individual section in the article.? Especially when the contents of the section amounts to "the IRS have made no statement on the tax implications". This should be mentioned elsewhere, not allocated an entire section that is then given prominent mention in the table of contents. This sends a very non-neutral message to readers of this article that there are tax risks associated with the currency. This article is obviously a very controversial subject, so it's important that there is neutrality in edits that are made. Shiftchange is adding excessively promotional content, but rather than reverting these edits completely perhaps editing them to be more neutral would be more constructive & less edit-war'y. Until this article presents a NPOV I think the template should remain. Omcnoe (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However. Not a single explanation has been given for how I am promoting, only assertions. On the other hand every single thing which suggests adoption, utility and acceptance is removed. Its plainly obvious. We have a cadre of editors purposefully distorting the article into fiction. They treat BTC as an elitist status symbol so it retains value when in fact, compared to BCH it has little utility. BCH threatens that due to its strong competition which is why my features section and the rest gets removed. This article is awfully un-informative. I pushed it to a bare C:Class and would be close to B:Class if not for the interference. Nevermind. I see what has to be done. I will write a draft here. This is a dreadful thing for Misplaced Pages; how I can't write a proper article. Just as BCH is adopted over BTC my superior article will be adopted at Misplaced Pages as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, if i did delete the implementations it was inadvertent. Shiftchange was adding a huge quanity of awful content, and a couple of us were reverting and deleting it as he was adding it (I suppose you see the section above related to shiftchange's non-neutral edits). Its possible good content got caught in the vaccum cleaner. Please feel free to re-add it. I too will go through and try to re-add some more stuff in the next weeks as well. The naming history, the mining pool that named it bitcoin cash orinally, the bitcoinabc implementation, i thought all of that stuff was good (some of it was I think deleted by jytdog if i recall, and then i might have killed off some empty sections). A few more eyeballs on this page is excellent. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have already re-added the details of other node implementations. I can definitely see how edits simply got caught up in the removal by accident. I think that it is probably best to wait for a conclusion to the rfc before adding details of the naming. Omcnoe (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Its not possible to censor

Its not possible to censor the same way online forums are because we have the goal of comprehensiveness. So editors should not be removing content, especially those who have made no declarations about the ownership of digital assets we are writing about. See WP:COI. Take your ideological war elsewhere. This is for knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideological war and adoption

Why was the Ideological war section removed? This has been widely reported on for months and months. We should have a large section which explains all the details concisely. The store of value versus medium of exchange needs to be covered in detail. This is about the only section where all statements should be referenced because it contains the controversy. Adoption of BTC seems to be slowing while the opposite is true for BCH. This needs to be expanded upon as well. This will probably need it owns section, apart from Applications in a few months. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

coin.dance

Where is the proof that coin.dance is an unreliable source? We can't just take another editors word for it. Unreliability must be demonstrated. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Few sources are "reliable" as in on an abstract level. Per RS for a source generally what we look for is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So if a source doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we generally consider it unreliable. There are also kinds of sources that are not reliable - for example forums are not allowed per WP:USERGENERATED and of course WP itself is not reliable under that. We also use "primary sources" sparingly and carefully. If a source is more or less OK, we we think about "reliable" specifically - is source X reliable for statement Y. There is another level, which is WP:WEIGHT; source X may be reliable for statement Y, but including it is WP:UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Coindance is a data visualization website and does not contain write-ups that I have seen. I find the website very useful for my personal learning. However, it does not contain journalism or academic write-ups that would be useful for us to use as editors. If we just take data from the website and then we interpret what it means, that will be WP:OR by definition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So relaying statistical data from coin.dance is fine as long as we don't interpret it. Simple node counts should be fine then. I am sure such a fundamental question of "how many Bitcoin Cash nodes are operating?" can be sourced without too much drama. And yet when I do that it get removed, why is that? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

To be promotional

To be promotional the content must be subjective. It must treat the subject with encouragement, use puffery or inflated language or advertise a product. I always make sure I write objectively with a neutral point of view and no exaggeration. This first response to my additions is to remove because of promotion. False. The other reason is unreliable sources but that is also false.

All of my additions give the currency context. They explain why the fork occurred and what it means to users. My additions make the article more well-rounded and comprehensive. This is exactly the purpose of Misplaced Pages, especially if that subject is part of an ideological war. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. Excessive detail is promotional; adding content emphasizing benefits (eg here) is promotional. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The entire "support" section here is absurdly promotional. this edit note is... ironic at best. Your edits are generally promotional - even addeing "celebrity endorsement" content, including a big set-off quote - with little to nothing negative. Where is the parallel "detractors" section? (I don't think we should have either, but this is the sort of thing I mean). Please do edit neutrally; we are not here to "sell" this currency. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The article needs to explain why the fork occurred; what were the reasons this was done. If other editors want to create an Opposition section that is fine too. Bitcoin Cash is the result of a long debate. We should mention the various opinions by prominent people in the field. My edits are not promotional at all. I don't care what people do with their money or what property they own. I have never "sold" a thing; my employment has been in government departments. I hate marketing and I never watch advertisements. I just want Misplaced Pages to fairly explain to readers about Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should mention why the fork occurred if we can find RS to support that. But right now so much trash is being added to the article that it is becoming hard to read through it all and figure out what has proper sourcing and what doesn't. I have seen some stuff get deleted that was just caught up in the vacuum cleaner with the rest of the trash. I think your wholesale adding of content is actually counterproductive to your goals to explain things. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you remove valid content

It is going to be re-added because the article is just a start class. We want to expand the article to explain how useful it is or not, where it successful or not, what the various views on it are, etc. What are the features that distinguish it from Bitcoin. This is for knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. bitcoin.com doesn't become unreliable as a source because an editor claims it is. Besides that, if content needs better sources the best way to deal with it is to add a template requesting better sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Tax Implications"

As it currently stands, I do not think that the "Tax Implications" section warrants its inclusion as an independent section within the article. It contains only a single line, which amounts to "IRS has no position on the tax obligations of the fork". Perhaps this information should be merged into the rest of the article, and the "Tax Implications" section removed. As it is, the article seems to place undue importance on the potential tax implications of Bitcoin Cash, and its inclusion as a section seems non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omcnoe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gone. Notice the article gatekeepers didn't care about the WP:NOTGUIDE rule. Can we see the reg flag here? Can we all see the bias that I have been trying to counter? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of sources and pruning out fancruft

• CoinDesk. Crypto-fanzine, marginally reliable IMO
• blockchair.com. No evidence this meets WP:RS.
• coinmarketcap.com. No evidence this meets WP:RS.
• Daily Express, a tabloid.
• Forbes. Usually RS.
• CNN. Usually RS.
• Slate. Usually RS.
• Cointelegraph. Crypto fanzine. Reliable? Certainly credulous.
• CNBC. Usually RS.
• New York Times. Usually RS.
• Bitcoin Magazine. Another crypto fanzine.
• Quartz. Not great.
• Bloomberg Businessweek. RS.
• Huffington Post. Probably not RS for financial topics like this.
• Github: WP:OR.
• Bitcoing mailing list: Primary.
• Coin Dance. No evidence this is RS
• Bitcoin ABC. No evidence this is RS
• Coinbase. No evidence this is RS
• cex.io. Blog. Not RS.
• kraken.com. Unlikely to be RS.
• Bitstamp. No evidence this is RS.
• Bitfinex. Fansite, no evidence of RS.
• Bittrex.com. No evidence of RS.
• binance.com. No evidence of RS.
• huobi.com. No evidence of RS.
• ledgerwallet.com. No evidence of RS.
• keepkey.com. No evidence of RS.
• electroncash.org. No evidence of RS.
• satoshilabs.com. Is this RS? Seems unlikely.
• Bitcoin.com. No evidence of RS.
• ArsTechnica. RS for tech.
• Falvinge on Liberty. Not RS.
• News BTC. No evidence of RS.
• Gavin Andresen on Twitter. No evidence of RS.
• The Wall Street Journal. RS for finance,

I suggest the non-RS are pruned aggressively, and we rely on the unambiguously reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. CoinDesk is clearly an RS, it is an industry-rag but is not a fanzine. Probably the best source in the industry (albeit a somewhat dubious industry). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Please realize that RS for cryptocurrencies are generally much rarer than for more mainstream topics, there is not a great deal of high quality secondary sources to pull from. I do wish the source quality of this article to improve, but it will be much more proudctive to actually find and add a source, or even simple , than the mass blanking that has happened in the past when editors have deemed certain sources unreliable. Further, the claim a source supports is relevant to how much the reliability of a source matters. electroncash.org is a perfectly suitable source for the fact that electroncash, a BCH wallet, exists. An opinion piece at Falvinge on Liberty, written by Rick Falvinge, should be a suitable source to support claims in the article about the opinion of Rick Falvinge. Omcnoe (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"Bitcoin ABC. No evidence this is RS" - quite the opposite is true. Bitcoin ABC is not a source at all. You may have missed it, but Bitcoin ABC is a client software. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The list above are the sources cited in the article. We cite their website as a source. That is the issue. This article is full of spamlinks like that. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

A source doesn't become unreliable because an editor makes a list and an assertion. Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content. Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Please note sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Recruiting

So it appears that Bitcoin Cash advocates are organizing off-WP. The image

Does User:Jytdog have a problem with uploading photos to WikiCommons? Please stop putting your spin on things. Advocates? You mean people who want to contribute to providing knowledge about Bitcoin Cash don't you? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the context of Meatpuppetry, soliciting freely licensed images to improve an article can hardly be construed as trying to unduly influence a debate. Q 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like bitcoin.com is recruiting via press release, see this Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

In comparison to our article on porn

In comparison to our article on pornography which goes into far more detail than I have attempted here we can see the various ways that porn is made, used and abused are all outlined in detail. As it stand no editors are removing knowledge about pornography on the basis that is being promoted or overly detailed. The same should be done with Bitcoin Cash. All the technical details should be outlined for everyone to read. We need a Features section that details on-chain scaling, 0-conf, etc. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic are to be included. We need much more diverse views on Bitcoin Cash to provide neutrality. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

trash

I blanked the comparison and wallets sections again. Wallets lacked a single RS. The 'features' section (really a comparison) to bitcoin lacked a single rs. If bitcoin cash has any notable features that RS care about, then list them. If not, we dont care about it. Same issue went on the IOTA article for a long time. Read WP:NOTADVERTISING if you are confused Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you stop removing content and labelling it trash. I have asked for you to demonstrate why bitcoin.com is unreliable. Why is reference 5 deemed unreliable but used elsewhere in the article? Unreliability has to be demonstrated as we can't just take User:Jtbobwaysf's word for it. Exodus is widely used desktop wallet for a range of crypto. The idea that Exodus are misleading readers or unreliable is not proven. The fact that there is no reference implementation doesn't require a refererence because its not disputable as the article explains with multiple clients. Besides that the Sydney Morning Herald is considered reliable. I have asked you to add citation needed templates instead of removing content. The lead is for a summary, so not everything must be sourced, as I keep mentioning to you. Only material that has a valid reason to be challenged needs references. You seem intent on disrupting the editing process. The article looks ridiculous without a Features section to explain what Bitcoin Cash is. Comparisons are perfectly apt because this is a software fork, a spin-off, that is similar to the original. It is actually the main point of the article subject. There is no advertising, just explanations, discussion and the provision of knowledge that keeps getting removed by a few editors. The Ideological War section needs to be returned and the Applications section is warranted as people build upon BCH with its low fees and speed. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

"Support" section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The article has contained the following section off and on for the last while. Should we keep it or delete it? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Content

Support

Notable supporters of Bitcoin Cash include investor Roger Ver, entrepreneur Calvin Ayre, developer Gavin Andresen, and entrepreneur Rick Falkvinge.

Vitalik Buterin has indicated his views on the legitimacy of Bitcoin Cash in a series of tweets, saying it is "a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name" and "I consider bitcoin's *failure* to raise block sizes to keep fees reasonable to be a large (non-consensual) change to the 'original plan'..." Gavin Andresen has indicated his support for Bitcoin Cash as he emphasised its property as a medium of exchange.

References

1. Popper, Nathaniel (July 25, 2017). "Some Bitcoin Backers Are Defecting to Create a Rival Currency". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 28, 2017.
2. Suberg, William (18 October 2017). "Bitcoin Jesus, Calvin Ayre Media Say Bitcoin Cash Is The Only Blockchain". The Coin Telegraph.
3. Lee, Timothy B. (20 December 2017). "Bitcoin rival Bitcoin Cash soars as Coinbase adds support". ArsTechnica. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
4. "What if new Google management decided that a search should cost $20, take eight hours, and be deliberately unreliable? (Bitcoin.)". Falvinge on Liberty. 17 November 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
5. JP Buntinx (14 November 2017). "Vitalik Buterin Deems Bitcoin Cash Worthy of Taking the Bitcoin Name". News BTC. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
6. (11 November 2017). Gavin Andresen on Twitter. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
7. Samuel Haig (12 November 2017). "Satoshi Nakamoto's Confidant Gavin Andresen Throws Support Behind Bitcoin Cash". news.bitcoin.com. Retrieved 31 March 2018.

votes on "support" section

• delete celebrity endorsements from people in the cryptocurrency world. Having such a "support" section alone is blatant promotionalism; having some kind of opposing "detractors" section would be a childish effort to provide "balance". We don't do either thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Though I think those opinions matter a lot, I agree that "support" is a terrible term. I suggest "reception" which might also give room to... "detractors"? REDGOLPE (TALK) 19:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• delete These are opinions with mostly dubious sources. The section reads as POV pushing especially with no notable critics mentioned. Retimuko (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete yup, as Jytdog said. We don't have "support or "praise" or "this is the greatest" sections. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• keep These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People in the cryptoverse talking about a specific coin can therefore hardly be seen as "celebrity promotion". REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

keep Promotionalism is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --RGbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• keep Just rename it to "reception", add some less positive reactions, and it will be good. Criticism sections aren't recommended because they are biased to be overly negative, same should apply to a support section being biased to overly positive reactions. I agree with the above comment that these reactions provide an important context to the coin. Omcnoe (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete I appreciate the foregoing suggestions to rename it "reception", but that still seems to me insufficient justification for conveying a trivial and tendentious point. At best not really encyclopaedic, is it? JonRichfield (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete this looks like promotion to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete For NPOV reasons. Unless it is renamed to "receptions" and add in significant portions of neutral and negative reviews to balance the POV. See, e.g., 1, 2, and 3.--Zetifree (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Jytdog's argument, celebrity endorsements are just promotional and trivial at best. Meatsgains 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Proposal I am sure that Jytdog knows that the deleted text of the section (BTW, why was the section deleted without waiting for the result of this RfC?) actually did not contain "celebrity endorsements", but investors such as Roger Ver (claimed to be a Bitcoin Cash investor by the very same editors who want to delete the claim about his support), Calvin Ayre or Rick Falkvinge. I think that it is misleading to call these people "supporters", because, as noted, they actually are investors in Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I opened this to resolve a content dispute, after I and others tried to remove it and it kept getting put back. The last person who wanted to keep it, self-reverted in the face of a block, and has now been indefinitely blocked for socking. The section as written is very much a "celebrity endorsements" section, as most people !voting here can see and have acknowledged with their comments. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional endorsements. It would only make it worse if we expanded it into a cagematch of battling celebrity endorsements-vs-bashing. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, as with only a "support" section, the article clearly fails NPOV. However, I would be in support of a section labelled "reception" with both supporting and dissenting views. Hickland (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Repurpose into a neutral "Reception" or "Implementations" section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

discussion of "support" section

Controversy over introductory sentence

The introductory sentence "Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency and worldwide decentralized payment system, meaning that it works without a central bank or government." does not seem non-neutral to me. And the wording is consistent with language used in the opening paragraph on articles such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Omcnoe (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin Cash is highly controversial (unlike Bitcoin and Litecoin). So it seems to me that it is not acceptable to simply assert that as a fact in the lead with no discussion in the article and no sources to support the assertion. Could you point to any reliable sources supporting this assertion? Retimuko (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

None of this text is supported in this Express source... and even if it was Express is not an RS for some kind of broad claim (global, worldwide payment system promotion). Find a RS for this. I have deleted this multiple times, stop re-adding it eg . In addition, your edits here to re-add the deleted satoshi whitepaper claim is a pattern of WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Does this article have sufficient notability to exist separately from Bitcoin? There, there are plenty of WP:IRS but were those mostly related to the split/fork. Are there even a handful that relates directly to Bitcoin Cash? Most of the current content in this article seems to be the history of the split from bitcoin, a comparison to bitcoin, a list of supported wallets and exchanges (with awful sourcing), a list of supporters (deleted), and maybe the bcash naming controversy. Does this constitute an article?? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Does this article have sufficient notability to exist separately from Bitcoin?" - yes. I note that you deleted the source confirming that Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency. I revert your deletion and hope you stay constructive and do not delete the source again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted 'worldwide payment system' promotional text in the lede (discussed in the section immediately above this). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The adjective "worldwide" isn't promotional, it is, just like for other crypto currencies, a consequence of the use over the internet. For reference, the current first line of the Bitcoin page is "Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and worldwide payment system."Zaborowzki (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The payment system is simply a characteristic of the system, not a "promotion". There are sources confirming it and I will add the characteristic back to the article together with a citation so that the readers can be informed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC to tighten sourcing on this article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Economy, trade, and companies Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This proposal is to tighten sourcing for this article to only allow high quality mainstream RS and remove industry rag sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support This article suffers from a lot of promotion (obvious looking at talk page above) with JzG (talk · contribs) mentioning poor sourcing above in section Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Review of sources and pruning out fancruft and later Smallbones (talk · contribs) making this edit to remove these sources. I support this effort by uninvolved editors that tightens sourcing to clamp down on the promotion that this article suffers from. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support in general on this and all related topics. There's a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage of cryptocurrency and blockchain stuff that's all overly credulous and frequently clueless. Even when it's not, it reads like mid-1990s writing about the future of the Internet and "virtual reality", i.e. it's a bunch of a wild opinion based on fantasies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support @SMcCandlish: gets it right when he says "a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage", "frequently clueless", and "wild opinion based on fantasies". But he's being too gentle. All the industry sources are promotional and should be removed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

SUPPORT obviously. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Cryptography articles
• Mid-importance Cryptography articles
• Start-Class Computer science articles
• Mid-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 software articles
• Low-importance software articles
• Start-Class software articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software 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
• Unassessed WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
• WikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment