Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

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 clear consensus expressed here is to oppose naming an "author" for this article. There is no basis in policy to discount the large majority which opposes inclusion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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 ^{(talk) (cont)} 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^(talk) 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 [6] 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 [7] 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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Ayzix: you have again added this content [8] which was covered in this RfC. I reverted your edit already once and you re-added it. Note this closed RfC above which discussed and deleted the same WP:POV content you are attempting to add. Please delete it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Common set of rules

Ladislav, you added this back today [9]. This text states:

Until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency.

Please explain why you are adding this text back and what it means in current context. Right now it doesn't discuss the article's subject. Earlier it was part of a section I remember, but that section is gone and this setence is meaningless in its current form and is incoherent. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Re "it doesn't discuss the article's subject" - actually, the cited NYT article published in July 2017 does discuss the article's subject and claims that "Until now, though, Bitcoin has ... kept its followers united by a single set of rules despite all the warring behind the scenes." This information is notable enough for the reputable source, and therefore it is notable enough for the "History" section of the article describing what preceded the split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't asking about notability or RS. Was rather saying that the sentence reads out of context. It says there was one set of rules, and yet it is missing some second sentence to tie it to bitcoin cash. Are there 3 sets of rules in bitcoin now (bitcoin, bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold? Jtbobwaysf (talk)

References

major revert

Sorry I did a major revert diff this morning on my way out the door, after seeing how messed up this page had become. I have seen zero consensus here to put "Bcash" in the first sentence of the description, much less to link that early alternative name to Bcash which is a different ... thing. Unclear how this went so far astray. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Naming controversy section

Now that the above RfC Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash (result was not to include the term Bcash in the lede at this time), I propose that we create a naming controversy section as a couple of editors commented on in the RfC. I added the below text here in this diff [10]

Naming Controversy The Bitcoin Cash name was originally proposed by Chinese mining pool ViaBTC. Bitcoin Cash is also referred to Bcash. However Bitcoin Magazine, claimed some Bitcoin Cash users find the Bcash name insulting. Bitstamp and Bitfinex temporarily used the name Bcash, but after being criticized, they switched the name back to Bitcoin Cash.

I am feel free to comment. I also put it in my sandbox User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox, feel free to edit there.

References

--Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been meaning to add something exactly like this to the page, and have just not gotten around to it, so thanks for doing it.

I believe that sources 1, 2, 7, and 8, are all the same source.

I don't think we need to attribute the statement that some users were insulted.

Also, the last bit of that "but after being criticized, they switched the name back to Bitcoin Cash" is unsourced and needs to go. So I would propose as follows, which has some additional changes:

The protocol for an expanded hash was first described by hardware manufacturer Bitmain in June 2017 as a "contingency plan" should the Bitcoin community decide to fork; the first implementation of the software was proposed under the name "Bitcoin ABC" at a conference that month. In July, the "Bitcoin Cash" name was proposed by Chinese mining pool ViaBTC for a currency based on the implementation.

Some people immediately objected to the name as poor branding and too similar to the "Bitcoin" name, and suggested it be called "Bcash" instead. Some people used this name, and two exchanges, Bitstamp and Bitfinex, temporarily used it was well, out of a concern that their customers would be too easily confused by the similarity between "Bitcoin Cash" and "Bitcoin" which would lead to mistaken trades, especially because the address format for the two coins was the same. However many proponents for the project viewed the "Bcash" name as confusing, given that the currency already had a name; some also viewed the use of "Bcash" as an effort to actively undermine the coin and to confuse the public.

References

How is that? Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am ok with it. From what I have read is that the opposition to the bcash name stems from bitcoin cash proponents seeking to label Bitcoin Cash as the 'true bitcoin.' I look later at the sources and see if anything substantiates my claim. But in general, I think your re-write is excellent. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. We can let it sit a few days and see if there are other thoughts... Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Fixed some other things while I was at it. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The nickname "Bcash" or "bcash" should probably be mentioned, since it is indeed used and there is no excuse to hide that fact from readers who do not know about it.
  However, readers should be warned that it is derogatory. It is almost always used by people and media sources that are hostile to the project, and do not want it to get any of the "prestige" that Bitcoin is supposed to have. Those who use the name "bcash" insist that only one of the two branches of the coin, the one maintained by the "Core" development group, is the "real" Bitcoin. The name "bcash" is generally avoided and resented by developers and "fans" of the Bitcoin Cash project.
  Thus, simply adding "also called bcash" to the article -- in the lede or elsewhere -- without this political background, would be sort of like casually adding "also called niggers" to the African-American article.
  By the way: editors, and maybe also readers, must be aware that most "bitcoin news" sites (such as many of those listed as support for the nickname) are financed by a private investment company (the Digital Currency Group) that is committed to the "other" (Core) branch of Bitcoin. That company is closely connected to the GBTC bitcoin investment fund; which, for legal reasons, cannot handle or use Bitcoin Cash. Therefore, it has a vested interest in disparaging the "Cash" branch of the coin and promoting the "Core" branch.
  DISCLAIMER: I am a longstanding critic of cryptocurrencies in general; which, in my view, are all technical and finacial frauds -- or worse.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: the issue is we need to find RS that pass the stricter standard for this page set by Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC to tighten sourcing on this article which occurred after this controversy talk page section started. Exactly for the reasons you mentioned these industry news sites have been banned as sources. I wonder in time if they will be banned across all the crypto articles. Next, I haven't seen any coverage in the mainstream press that a naming controversy exists. So all we have is a list of RS that are using the bcash name, and I don't think we have any evidence that these RS are biased (financial times, reuters, cnbc, forbes, fortune, etc). It appears to me from the sidelines (my WP:OR) is that the bcash nickname exists, that the name is also used by the mainstream press from time to time, and that the bitcoin cash advocates on wikipedia (and social media) are very opposed to this name...yet I can't find any evidence that mainstream sources refer to it as controversial. Certainly it is controversial on wikipedia, but we are also dealing with a lot of promotion mixed in. Please take a look at the sources and add any sources you have seen. Comments welcome! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

References

User:Jtbobwaysf, this back on 12 June and this today have no consensus and very clearly UNDUE. The RfC shot down the idea of including this in the lead. We agreed above to include this down in the history, as a routine thing. I reverted the June 12 placement yesterday. Be aware of the general sanctions and please self-revert. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

User:jytdog, thanks for the feedback. I have moved it back to the history section. Revert wasn't possible due to intermediate edits, but I think it is back to where it was before as you suggested. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Invalid edit

User:Redgolpe please self-revert this edit. The Financial Times ref says, unambiguously "So little is bitcoin cash transacted, that one major exchange called OKEX decided to close trading in it last month, citing “inadequate liquidity”." Please see your talk page as well. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that FT said that, but it was clearly a wrong statement as OKEX is trading BCH right now as you can clearly see in its page. Also, the link provided by FT itself links to the OKEX pages that clearly states "While BCH will still be available for trading in BTC, ETH and USDT markets (BCH/BTC, BCH/ETH, BCH/USDT)." How can one deal with that? I'm fine with FT being a RS, but should then one simply say "FT wrongly affirmed that..."? REDGOLPE (TALK) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC) - Edit: re-added OKEX, per source, with clarification.

That's better, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2018

Re-include the part about the three implementations, Bitcoin ABC, BUCash, and BitcoinXT.

The page previously included the following: The first implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol called Bitcoin ABC was revealed by Amaury "Deadal Nix" Séchet at the Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, Netherlands. Subsequently, Bitcoin Unlimited made its first release of Bitcoin Cash compatible software, named BUCash and Bitcoin XT also released before the Bitcoin Cash fork. This meant that 3 full node clients were available before the Bitcoin Cash hard fork on 1 August 2017. Manufoy (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I liked this content as well. I think it got deleted to the new sourcing policy on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done yet - would like to see some more discussion/agreement before making this amendment. Fish+Karate 09:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to have this aspect of history in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggest to simply apply to include the first part of the content "The first implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol called Bitcoin ABC was revealed by Amaury "Deadal Nix" Séchet at the Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, Netherlands." and exclude the second part of the content about node counting as it could be promotional. Clearly the historical part is interesting, who first proposed the article's subject. But if the article had 1 full node or 20 full node is probably not that encyclopedic to justify us to WP:OR count nodes on github (who knows if the nodes were functioning) to go against the RfC on sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Given that you're all extended-confirmed users and you seem to be in agreement that the first sentence at least warrants going back in there, I am going to close the edit request as I'm not sure where exactly where it would go, and you can just make that edit yourselves. Fish+Karate 09:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ya, I think anyone can make the edit. I think also good to include this dednal nix person in the history, as it is interesting. Just my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Exchanges

@Jytdog: I propose to add the following text to the exchanges section. Do you have an opinion? I pinged you since you have previously been involved in this bcash nickname content discussion. I thought I would ask you and others here before I add it, since the bcash subject previously has been controversial.

Hardware wallet Trezor, exchanges Bitfinex, and Gatecoin use both the terms Bitcoin Cash and Bcash.

References

Each of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and I think justified in this case as I think the text assists the section with NPOV which currently implies that all of the exchanges are using the term bitcoin cash (which is untrue). Note that Trezor is not an exchange, but rather a prominent hardware wallet, thus we can delete the Trezor mention if we feel it is not cohesive.

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes i object. Please do not source content to the websites of service providers or companies. If there isn't an independent secondary source then let's not say it. Otherwise the page turns into a spam farm. We have seen this happen several times already. Thanks for asking. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Genesis Block

Do we have any RS to support the claim that the genesis block of bitcoin cash is in 2009? Current Infobox entry says:

| ledger_start_title      = Genesis block
| ledger_start            = 3 January 2009 (2009-01-03)

References

Or did bitcoin cash simply copy the history of bitcoin? The source that is being used right now is for sure not an RS. Seems easy to find sources about the first block of bitcoin cash, such as [11] and the genesis block of Bitcoin eg [12] but I cannot find anything that mentions a bitcoin cash genesis block. Maybe it doesnt have one? Maybe the infobox should be ammended as follows to use the hardfork date supported by the sources:

Proposed Infobox entry:

| ledger_start_title      = First Block
| ledger_start            = 2 August 2017 (2017-08-02)

References

Looking forward to discussion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to care, so i went ahead deleted it here [13] Seems there is also a block #1 there, which I have previously seen plenty of sources and should be sufficient (however the source there currently is also low quality). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Putting the date of block #1 there is irrelevant, you probably mean block #0 (which is the genesis block). I would put it the same way as on the Bitcoin wikipedia article: "Ledger start: 3 January 2009 (9 years ago)". Drgross317 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The weight the current text gives the "Bcash" name is undue

Bcash is just an implementation of a wallet for Bitcoin Cash, by purse.io. Calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1525:C1C4:0:9B6:E6C5:BA11 (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim currently present in the article body is:

Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash.

This is WP:UNDUE because

• The oldest source cited to confirm the claim was published before the fork happened, and it is just a forecast. In this sense, it is unreliable and not suitable to confirm the current use of the name. CNBC articles published after the fork such as this do not mention the Bcash name.
• The article by Lucinda Shen published on 8 August 2017 mentioning the Bcash name as an alternative to the Bitcoin Cash name was followed by articles such as this authored by the same writer that do not mention the Bcash name at all.
• The Forbes staff article published on 9 August 2018 using the Bcash name as an alternative to the Bitcoin Cash name was followed by many Forbes staff articles such as this mentioning only the Bicoin Cash name.

Summing up, there is plenty of evidence that the Bcash name was just a temporary and minority attempt to rebrand the cryptocurrency, and that reliable sources do not mention it as an equally notable alternative to the Bitcoin Cash name. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:RS showing bcash name usage is temporary, discontinued, or obsolete as you propose? Your WP:OR in which you calculate the dates of articles and then propose to study that the word is not used again by the same author is simply OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is you who claims that the Bcash name is used now by reliable sources without citing any source having a newer date than the start of August 2017. Since you cannot prove that using the sources you cite, your claim is WP:UNDUE.
• The number of reliable sources discussing Bitcoin Cash is a big majority when compared to such a tiny number as three (one of them predating the fork and forecasting it) and the reliable sources are published even now. That is, your claim that the three sources are, for some reason, as notable as the rest, is WP:UNDUE.

Rest assured that it is possible to edit the article in such a way that the text will reflect the cited sources without giving them any undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You have noted again and again on this talk page your objection to this bcash content. Now you are proposing to count or date the WP:RS and then do your WP:OR to assert that the sources are given too much weight. Is this approach supported by wikipedia policy? Do you have any justification for the tag on the content that is supported by sources, or is this just supported by your OR? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, I do have a justification for the claim that there are many policies that are violated by your recent edits. For example, this edit of yours has been justified as "i havent seen sources that state it is no longer referred to as bcash. seems we thus should use present tense rather than past tense" - this is a violation of WP:OR; you are trying to use sources published before mid-August 2017 and yourself to confirm that it is being used now. It is also a violation of WP:UNDUE, since it tries to claim that the use of the term by the reliable sources is greater than the sources confirm. The same is true about this edit of yours justified as "multiple sources indicate the bcash name continues to be used" not citing any reliable sources to confirm the dating you want to put into the article. Both of this as well as this edits of yours obviously are WP:UNDUE, duplicating the information already present in the article text, moving it to a place you seem to find more prominent, putting it before the much more relevant information that Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency related to bitcoin and removing the information that the number of sources using the Bcash name is tiny compared to the number of sources not using the Bcash name at all. As I said, there is no need to worry. It is possible to edit the text and give the claim appropriate (due) weight. The template just mentions that it has not been done yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think my edits violate policy, there is an appropriate venue for that AND this talk page is not that venue. The issue we are discussing here use of the well cited term bcash in the article, and this issue was already discussed ad nauseam above in Talk:Bitcoin Cash#aka Bcash and eventually in Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash. There is clear support on this talk page to include the content despite your objection to it. You have provided no evidence that the tag is valid other than your OR about counting dates or mentions in the press. Do you have anything else to substantiate the tag? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Consult WP:ICANTHEARYOU, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, Maybe you can hear me, but you don't respond to requests for you to provide evidence of your tag. I have added more sources to the content in question in this edit [14] and also bundled them. Are you advocating that the use of bcash nickname is not prevalent? Do you have any sources to substantiate this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is unclear to me what version of the page this thread is about. If is about this version the objection is dead on. If it is about the mention in the history section, last edited by the OP here, then I do not understand the objection. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, in this talk section I believe we were talking about about this diff [15] where Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) added the undue tag. Later, I updated a few more sources here [16] to add sources and nest the sources to not WP:OVERCITE. Both diffs the same text, just the second has more recent sources added (which I welcome feedback on they are considered RS on this article). Comments appreciated. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how much emphasis the article puts on the name "bcash". More than a third of the reference space is filled with "proof", mainly articles published on unknown blogs/websites. It's deliberately done by supporters of the opposing project to misinform people. There is no serious and neutral website that calls it with this name. Drgross317 (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bcash altname is currently located at the end of the history section, about as low a weight as it could possibly have. Bitcoin cash doesn't get that much press in mainstream media, so the sources are slow to materialize but over time they do (Forbes, Fortune, CNBC, Computer Magazine, etc). Brian Kelly referred to it as Bcash on CNBC (TV) yesterday btw. I added a source, you can see it in the article. Happy editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

Hey, please change:

By November 2017 the value of BitCoin Cash, which had been as high as $900, had fallen to around $300, much of that due to people who had originally held BitCoin selling off the BitCoin Cash they received at the hard fork.[12]

to

By November 2017 the value of BitCoin Cash, which had been as high as $4000, had fallen to around $900.

The last part was a short term effect that is not true anymore. Prices needed to be massively updated. 568jackjackson (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed this. "BitCoin" text format. I didn't touch the price data, as price data is always out of date on these crypto articles. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Replace instances of a capital 'C' with a lowercase 'c' in 'bitcoin'

Under trading the article states "By November 2017 the value of BitCoin Cash, which had been as high as $900, had fallen to around $300, much of that due to people who had originally held BitCoin selling off the BitCoin Cash they received at the hard fork."

The 'C' being capitalised creates inconsistency. Replace instances of a capital 'C' with a lowercase 'c' in 'bitcoin'. Manufoy (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have changed this "BitCoin" to "Bitcoin" to conform to naming norms. I have not touched the price data as that changes too much to bother chasing up and down. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Bcash deletions

@Ladislav Mecir: I reverted your edit [17] which deleted the mention of bcash from the article (again). This content was previously subject of an RfC in which it appears to me the consensus was to include the content on the page. See Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash. If I misunderstand the consensus, which I understood to be to include the content but not include it for now in the lede. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What you did was an insertion of a duplicate of the claim already present in the "History" section. That is both unneeded, and WP:UNDUE. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: in these edits [18] you removed most of the bcash sources. Please do not remove sources without discussing them. I have re-added the sources here [19]. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Alleged source for Bcash

In this edit, I deleted the citation, and justified the deletion as follows: "does not mention Bcash". The fact is that the alleged source does not mention Bcash as mentioned in the justification, and therefore, it cannot confirm any claim concerning Bcash. The deletion was reverted in this edit without any real justification. The fact is that there cannot be any justification since the citation does not confirm the claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: in these edits [20] you removed most of the bcash altname sources. Please do not remove sources without discussing them. I have re-added the sources here [21]. I think you removed about half a dozen citations if i read it correctly. Relating to the CNBC video source you are referring to Brian Kelly (the CNBC presenter) refers to Bcash being listed on coinbase. In this case he soley uses the name bcash (and doesn't mention bitcoin cash), meaning the altname has now in some cases replaced use of the bitcoin cash name. If you want to challenge each of the sources, lets start that here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: you seem to candidate to the position of the worst Wikipedia editor. The text transcription of the video is available here and it confirms that Brian Kelly mentions these five cryptocurrencies in his talk: cardano, basic attention token, stellar lumens, Zcash and 0x. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: While I might be a candidate for the worst editor, the source you provided (which appears to be a summary of the source I used) doesn't state it is a transcript. At the start of the video of the source I used Brian Kelly states "there were some issues when they listed bcash" (referring to coinbase's troubled listing of bitcoin cash). You can find this at about 0:13 into the CNBC video. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if Brian Kelly used a 'Bcash' word in the spoken form of the article, these things are known:

• The main goal of the contribution was to discuss the five cryptocurrencies listed above. Any other thing he might have said was just in passing.
• As you actually confirm above, Brian Kelly did not confirm the claim that "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash." in his contribution. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Kelly did use the term and the source supports the text.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Mentions of China given undue weight

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. With only three editors participating in this discussion, there is no consensus on whether the mentions of China are undue weight. I recommend creating a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to attract participation from uninvolved editors.

Cunard (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

China is mentioned frequently in this article, even though there is no indication of relevancy to the topic at hand. It is important to provide a neutral point of view, and listing the nationality of firms associated with the Bitcoin Cash project can invite bias from the reader.

I removed a mention of China from the article in this revision for the reasons stated above. Another revision re-added the mention without any discussion. Such changes should be reverted, and any mention of the nationality of actors should make it clear why such details are relevant, so as too avoid potential bias. CameronNemo (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the formulations "mostly China-based" and "Chinese" look nonneutral, irrelevant and should not be used in Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is particularly troublesome that the term "Chinese mining pool ViaBTC" is so unclear. Is the pool simply operated by a Chinese firm? Is it a privately owned or run by the state? Are the miners all-Chinese? Mostly Chinese? Minority Chinese? At what point in time? (new data can be published, and this article won't necessarily be updated). The problem is the reader can not hope to interpret the statement without assuming details and thereby invoking their own bias. CameronNemo (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this content be deleted and re-added a few times. What is the logic that the location is non-neutral. I recall the sources suppport the content. There is also a bit of discussion on this article and the Bitcoin article about miner centralization in China, see Bitcoin#Energy_consumption. jytdog (talk · contribs) and Smallbones (talk · contribs) do you have opinion? In general I don't see how mentioning a country is non-neutral. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"What is the logic that the location is non-neutral." - the logic is that "mostly China-based" is not a description of location at all. It is just a biased opinion, not describing where are the miners from, in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that, e.g. any Japanese member of such a group could find such a "localization" of the group neutral? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems China based means they are located in China. What does Japan have to do with this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim is not that the miners are "China based" the claim is that they are "mostly China-based", which is confusing as your problems with understanding nicely illustrate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Well then i guess the text could be modified to be mostly china based to match the source. Is that ok? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, because "mostly China-based" is nonneutral, ignoring all not China-based members of the discussed group. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we were just following the source. Are you saying the source was non-neutral and therefore we shouldn't include the content? In these edits [22] you have removed all mention of both miners and China. Please explain. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove any mention of miners. Quite the opposite is true: To achieve neutrality, I added mentions of advocates, investors, entrepreneurs, and developers to the text as confirmed by citations of reliable sources.

As to the nationality of all the mentioned people: the only previously cited source did not list all types of members of the discussed group. To respect the WP:NPOV it was necessary to add the types of members of the group as found in reliable sources, not just in the one source. Also, the nonneutrally specified nationality (The specification of nationality was nonneutral not because it mentioned the Chinese nationality, but because it ignored any nationality other than Chinese.) of miners (which was not the only type of members of the group) became irrelevant in the whole picture. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your answer seems to be that you added other parties and removed the "China based" location description from the miners. I see no logic to be 'adding text for NPOV' and at the same time 'deleting the location of the miners also for NPOV.' Thus, I re-added the "China based" text to your most recent formulation. It seems nobody else cares to comment on this issue. Maybe you do an RfC if you feel strongly about it, otherwise it is just you and I bantering here, and thus WP:STATUSQUO applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, you ignore that:

• There is no consensus with your addition
• Your addition has been identified as nonneutral, withholding all nationalities of miners except for the Chinese while hiding behind vague terms such as "mostly" or "largely".
• Your addition ignores that of the many sources cited, only one is trying to underline the presence of Chinese miners in the group.
• Due to the above reasons, there is no way how this can be found neutral and kept in the article, as CameronNemo found out. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav,

The text in the article said:

A small group of mostly China-based bitcoin miners were unhappy with bitcoin's proposed SegWit improvement plans meant to increase capacity and pushed forward alternative plans for a split which created Bitcoin Cash.

The Independent source says:

The initiative was headed by a small group of mostly China-based bitcoin miners - programmers who essentially operate the bitcoin network - who were not happy with scheduled improvements to the currency's technology meant to increase its capacity to process transactions.

Let's go over the key points:

• Is the source an RS?: Yes
• Is the text non-neutral?: No, it refers to a location. You are incorrectly implying it applies to a nationality. China in this case refers to a location, not a nationality.
• Is it contrary to the other sources?: No, you have provided no other sources that contradict this.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Classification section provides no information

The classification section does not provide any useful information. As such, it should be removed. It lists many adjectives and classifiers (spin-off, strand, offshoot, clone, second version, and altcoin) that are repetitive, given previously mentioned information. The introduction paragraph already makes it clear that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a hard fork of the Bitcoin network. CameronNemo (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the information that Bitcoin Cash is also a payment network is mentioned only in the "Classification" section. Even if that information is obvious to you, per WP:OBVIOUS it should be present in the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It is also often described as an altcoin, and should be wikilinked to that per policy. Some of the rest of the descriptions are maybe unnecessary as Cameron points out. I believe Ladislav was the one who added these. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Bug disclosure

The page is under protection but May's bug disclosure was quickly added with the incorrect statement that it allowed a double-spend. Neither bug disclosure nor Cory Field's post-mortem mention that possibility. Although the bug may be of historic importance it's a recent even and its inclusion seems biased because 1) it cites news from sources preferring the admittedly contest "BCash" that 2) introduce mention the "conceivably" but unbaked double-spend possibility. A more neutral statement would end with "... allowed an attacked to create a chain-split". M4ktub (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will correct the statement to say that an attacker could create a block that could cause a chain split, instead of the speculation violating WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

References

What is the current block size for BTC?

What is the current block size for BTC? 8MB? 32MB? This seems like really relevant information to have in this article. Michael Ten (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)