Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:28, 2 April 2018

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

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

the last sentence in the opening paragraph

it hyperlinks to an external site. i've never seen this on any wikipedia article before, isnt it a rule violation of some sort? i feel like its better to simply have a little number at the end that links to the site like how it works everywhere else. cheers --11:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.56.179 (talk)

original author

@Ladislav Mecir: I noticed you reverted an edit recently that said that the original author was Roger Ver. I too haven't seen any sources to support that claim. However, I also haven't seen any sources that verify that Satoshi Nakamoto is the author of Bitcoin Cash. I have seen which is already used in the article that says the author is Amaury “Deadal Nix” Sechét. Bitcoin Magazine says:

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. 

Sechat refers to himself at the Bitcoin ABC Benevolent Dictator , and he is often referred to as the Bitcoin ABC lead developer for example and . So I dispute this content. Certainly this article saying satoshi is the original author, when the artile's subject came to exist likely after his disappearance, is likely problematic on a number of levels. How is this issue handled on other forks of software, does linux have such and issue? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, Amaury "Deadal Nix" Séchet did not create Bitcoin ABC from first, he extended existing software, whose original author was Satoshi Nakamoto. For example, a Huffington Post article mentions Nakamoto as the original author. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Sechet is cited, and satoshi is uncited. Please add this huffpo citation if you have it, otherwise the content is uncited and subject to deletion. Our WP:OR about who created it is not good enough. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: care to comment on this issue? I cant find a single source that says that satoshi is the author of Bitcoin Cash, and the debate below covers the hardfork that created Bitcoin cash (content in dispute now) as well as a subsequent hardfork to modify Bitcoin Cash's difficultly system. There is also not a single mention of Bitcoin Cash over at the article Satoshi Nakamoto. For sure there is a POV pushing in the industry to say that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, is that what is going on right now on this article? Is this issue too controversial for us to touch? I suspect the normal thing would be to cover this in a controversy section on the page, but I haven't come accross sources that advocated Satoshi is the author of Bitcoin Cash, so how would we even create a controversy section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The most neutral formulation here would be to include both names in the infobox, similarly to how there are two ledger start fields (one for the genesis block and one for the fork block). Bitcoin Cash functions similarly enough to SN's original implementation that he can be considered an author, while Amaury Séchet has modified enough code to be considered the author of the fork (but not the author of the original code). Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted it for now in this edit as well as deleting the other implementations from the infobox that lack sources and are not mentioned in the infobox. I am sure a debate will come of this, so we might as well discuss and add whatever fits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit you added the huffpo source failed verification. This source is WP:UGC and the source states the disclaimer "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email." I will remove this source and the content. Please find a RS for this claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: in this edit you again added the huffpo source that I challenged as clearly WP:UGC. You then added a second source that has an infobox talking about Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Cash. I will ping a couple of uninvolved admins that are often in this crypto space @Jytdog: and @David Gerard: to see if they have opinions. It appears to me that you are pushing a WP:FRINGE WP:POV that Satoshi Nakamoto is the author of Bitcoin Cash, even though Bitcoin cash was created after Satoshi's dissappearance. I suggest you need need mulitple good RS to push this POV, certainly not UGC and a second source that doesn't say Satoshi is the author. Note another editor is claiming you are pushing another Fringe theory in the next talk page section down form this one! Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, WP:FRINGE

Despite the consensus reached after a long discussion on the bitcoin talk page to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, certain editors seem intent on keeping this convoluted WP:FRINGE narrative about bitcoin "splitting" in the lead of this article. I notice numerous IP editors who have attempted to fix this confusing and POV wording have been reverted. Reference #2 used to justify this text is not a reliable source. It is a Forbes article written by a Bitcoin.com employee (who has a COI) which represents a fringe viewpoint and refers to bitcoin as "legacy" or "classic". The Bitcoin Gold article does not imply that bitcoin "split" (it quite clearly uses the term "hard fork"). CC Jtbobwaysf. Laurencedeclan (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: for sure it is a hard fork, should be many sources to support that. I hadn't seen this split narrative you referred to. I will keep an eye out for it, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the lede per your comments. We will see how long it sticks. @David Gerard: maybe you could keep an eye on this issue as well, and suggest a course of action if it continues. Maybe bitcoin.com should be banned as an WP:RS for these bitcoin articles, as it is owned by Roger Ver who is a well known booster of Bitcoin Cash. Maybe you could add this issue to your patrol. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tidied up the wording slightly. Regarding "narrative", I was referring to these repeated reversions (of multiple editors) which push the idea that the original bitcoin chain "split": . Laurencedeclan (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: "Despite the consensus reached after a long discussion on the bitcoin talk page to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork" - there are several issues with this claim of yours:

• The claim that the change of rules was classified as a hard fork is present in the WP:STATUSQUO text of the lead section
• The discussion concerning the contents of the Bitcoin article does not apply here.
• The available sources discern between rule change classification (such as soft fork versus hard fork) and its consequences - the chain splits or not

I shall prepare a related RfC to assess whether there is a consensus to mess up these notions or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, please ping us when the RfC is released. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on the bitcoin talk page is relevant because it was about whether to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, or to say that bitcoin split. The former was decided on because that is how the majority of reliable sources explain the event. Re "chain splits", the majority of sources are quite happy using "hard fork" as a verb to describe a change in rules and a subsequent split. This is quite unambiguous and there is nothing being "messed up" here. You write that the term "hard fork" is jargon, but that does not justify erroneously claiming that there was a, I quote, "cryptocurrency split". A split means something breaking in two, but the parent chain is not affected in a hard fork. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this isnt an WP:IRS, but this might be useful for reading. I had never read about the two different terms Chain split and hard fork until I read this. I guess we have to go with whatever the majority of the sources say, and my WP:OR (aka guess) as of this moment in time is that I have read hard fork more.

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".

Certainly and in interesting subject for us editors here and I am happy to learn something in the process. Is this the section that had the debate about split vs. fork? Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section That said, it does appear this issue has been previously debated, so I am just making comments and it looks to me that the Bitcoin Cash treatment over at Bitcoin#History is ok, and the same treatment discussing hard forks should be used on this article for consistency purposes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

RfC on the original author

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 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment