Talk:Counterparty (platform)

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Undoing vandalism

An unregistered user from Sacramento, CA went in on April 20 at 19:44 UTC and vandalized the page with minor edits (here and on the page for Burning Man). I have reverted the article back to its previous state. Blck Blk (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counterparty Screenshot

I added the logo to the top of the screenshot, as specified by the software infobox template, but I don't feel the screenshot is really necessary? Should we maybe remove the screenshot, maybe move it into the article, and have only the logo in the infobox? --Johanvanl (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and screenshot can go into software section for now. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counterparty (technology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518183043/https://xcpassets.org/all-assets/ to https://xcpassets.org/all-assets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It was kept at AfD in 2014 mainly because of a single Minyanville article. The other sources they mentioned are mentions and cryptocurrency news. This would not be enough to pass today. Is there anything better? Џ 11:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The only thing I found from good sources is this Techcrunch article^[1] but it barely mentions it. Dr-Bracket (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/08/how-ethereum-became-the-platform-of-choice-for-icod-digital-assets/

Reliable Sources

David Gerard, would you please elaborate on why you do not consider Bitcoin Insider and Crypto Briefing, in particular, to be reliable sources? -- Moontreasure (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're random low-quality crypto blogs. Why on earth would you treat either as a reliable source? There's no way either would last a second at WP:RSN.

In general, the crypto articles have been shifted towards being entirely sourced from mainstream third-party RSes and peer-reviewed academic articles, because the sources exist now, it keeps the spammers at bay - and the spammers are super-keen on trying to source their stuff to bottom-of-the-barrel pay-for-play crypto blogs - and there's no reason to use trash sources any more. Not that there ever was, but there really isn't now - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look in Google Scholar - there appears to be some peer-reviewed coverage of Counterparty (this specific one, and not just the concept of counterparties in relation to blockchains). Should be high-quality material we can use instead of "coming soon" articles from crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I'll take a look there. Pretty surprised you deleted the material from CoinDesk, however. That's a very reputable publication that serves as the newspaper of record for the entire blockchain industry. Could you take another look at that? I think it qualifies as a reliable source.

Also, it's worth saying that unlike many other cryptocurrency projects, Counterparty is not actively traded as a currency and most notable development occurred in 2014. This content is primarily for historical purposes and really couldn't be used to pump the price or anything. -- Moontreasure (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://techcrunch.com/2017/06/08/how-ethereum-became-the-platform-of-choice-for-icod-digital-assets/

[1]