Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Update Development Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

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

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

Motive of fork

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

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

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

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

Undo of Removal of code repositories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article sourcing standards

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

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

Removing the Bitcoin SV section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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