Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Recruiting

So it appears that Bitcoin Cash advocates are organizing off-WP. The image [uploaded yesterday is sourced to this thread at a Bitcoin Cash fan forum, and it links to others. I've tagged the page for recruiting above. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Does User:Jytdog have a problem with uploading photos to WikiCommons? Please stop putting your spin on things. Advocates? You mean people who want to contribute to providing knowledge about Bitcoin Cash don't you? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the context of Meatpuppetry, soliciting freely licensed images to improve an article can hardly be construed as trying to unduly influence a debate. Q ^{T C} 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like bitcoin.com is recruiting via press release, see this [1] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Does this article have sufficient notability to exist separately from Bitcoin? There, there are plenty of WP:IRS but were those mostly related to the split/fork. Are there even a handful that relates directly to Bitcoin Cash? Most of the current content in this article seems to be the history of the split from bitcoin, a comparison to bitcoin, a list of supported wallets and exchanges (with awful sourcing), a list of supporters (deleted), and maybe the bcash naming controversy. Does this constitute an article?? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Does this article have sufficient notability to exist separately from Bitcoin?" - yes. I note that you deleted the source confirming that Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency. I revert your deletion and hope you stay constructive and do not delete the source again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted 'worldwide payment system' promotional text in the lede (discussed in the section immediately above this). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The adjective "worldwide" isn't promotional, it is, just like for other crypto currencies, a consequence of the use over the internet. For reference, the current first line of the Bitcoin page is "Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and worldwide payment system."Zaborowzki (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The payment system is simply a characteristic of the system, not a "promotion". There are sources confirming it and I will add the characteristic back to the article together with a citation so that the readers can be informed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Financial Times Source

Here is a new source I read today relating to this article [2] from Financial Times. Might be useful to editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Support" section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a very strong consensus to remove the entire section.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The article has contained the following section off and on for the last while. Should we keep it or delete it? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Content

Support

Notable supporters of Bitcoin Cash include investor Roger Ver, entrepreneur Calvin Ayre, developer Gavin Andresen, and entrepreneur Rick Falkvinge.

Vitalik Buterin has indicated his views on the legitimacy of Bitcoin Cash in a series of tweets, saying it is "a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name" and "I consider bitcoin's *failure* to raise block sizes to keep fees reasonable to be a large (non-consensual) change to the 'original plan'..." Gavin Andresen has indicated his support for Bitcoin Cash as he emphasised its property as a medium of exchange.

References

votes on "support" section

• delete celebrity endorsements from people in the cryptocurrency world. Having such a "support" section alone is blatant promotionalism; having some kind of opposing "detractors" section would be a childish effort to provide "balance". We don't do either thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Though I think those opinions matter a lot, I agree that "support" is a terrible term. I suggest "reception" which might also give room to... "detractors"? REDGOLPE (TALK) 19:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• delete These are opinions with mostly dubious sources. The section reads as POV pushing especially with no notable critics mentioned. Retimuko (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete yup, as Jytdog said. We don't have "support or "praise" or "this is the greatest" sections. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• keep These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People in the cryptoverse talking about a specific coin can therefore hardly be seen as "celebrity promotion". REDGOLPE (TALK) 18:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

keep Promotionalism is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --RGbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• keep Just rename it to "reception", add some less positive reactions, and it will be good. Criticism sections aren't recommended because they are biased to be overly negative, same should apply to a support section being biased to overly positive reactions. I agree with the above comment that these reactions provide an important context to the coin. Omcnoe (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete I appreciate the foregoing suggestions to rename it "reception", but that still seems to me insufficient justification for conveying a trivial and tendentious point. At best not really encyclopaedic, is it? JonRichfield (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete this looks like promotion to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• delete For NPOV reasons. Unless it is renamed to "receptions" and add in significant portions of neutral and negative reviews to balance the POV. See, e.g., 1, 2, and 3.--Zetifree (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Jytdog's argument, celebrity endorsements are just promotional and trivial at best. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Proposal I am sure that Jytdog knows that the deleted text of the section (BTW, why was the section deleted without waiting for the result of this RfC?) actually did not contain "celebrity endorsements", but investors such as Roger Ver (claimed to be a Bitcoin Cash investor by the very same editors who want to delete the claim about his support), Calvin Ayre or Rick Falkvinge. I think that it is misleading to call these people "supporters", because, as noted, they actually are investors in Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I opened this to resolve a content dispute, after I and others tried to remove it and it kept getting put back. The last person who wanted to keep it, self-reverted in the face of a block, and has now been indefinitely blocked for socking. The section as written is very much a "celebrity endorsements" section, as most people !voting here can see and have acknowledged with their comments. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional endorsements. It would only make it worse if we expanded it into a cagematch of battling celebrity endorsements-vs-bashing. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, as with only a "support" section, the article clearly fails NPOV. However, I would be in support of a section labelled "reception" with both supporting and dissenting views. Hickland (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Repurpose into a neutral "Reception" or "Implementations" section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The people have an incentive to speak sweet things about it, so are not to be trusted or used by en.Wiki to legitamize. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

discussion of "support" section

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.

Revised RfC on altname Bcash

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.

---

This proposal is to add altname (MOS:LEADALT) "Bcash" to the Bitcoin Cash article with ammended text to read:

Bitcoin Cash (also known as Bcash).

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey altname

• Support Both industry and mainstream WP:RS demonstrate significant usage. Therefore, MOS:LEADALT conditions are met. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That source you mentioned doesn't appear to mention the altname Bcash. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you often miss things. You repeatedly fail to understand the editing process, for example. Its not a source. Its a link to an article describing the disinformation campaign against BCH I have been trying to correct here. As you are probably aware the purpose is to disassociate a strong competitor to the original Bitcoin. Former President Obama gets referred to as a heap of things; we don't include them in our articles because they have no significance. Its the same with the Bcash slur or your use of the word trash. Please start using if you feel a source is lacking. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your reply again, and think what effect "Yes, you often miss things" has on people's assessment of your intent. You claim that "bcash" is a slur, and support that with a link to an article that doesn't mention the word "bcash" or give any hint that nicknames for Bitcoin Cash are being used in a derogatory way. Then User:Jtbobwaysf asks for clarification, and you respond condescendingly and aggressively. As someone who is not involved in the discussion, that gives me the impression that you're not very cooperative. --Slashme (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Bcash" is a derogatory name, and should not be included without being acknowledged as such per MOS:NICKNAME Omcnoe (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose
  • Per the Bitcoin Magazine the poster of this RfC cites as a source, "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding (to "Bcash") insulting or even a 'social attack'."
  • Per the same Bitcoin Magazine article, 'most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name "Bitcoin Cash"'.
  • Per CoinTelegraph, "A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally." After being criticized for the unprofessional behaviour, both the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges quickly switched to using the Bitcoin Cash name. If Wikipedia used the unprofessional and petty naming, it would consequently be criticized in the same way.
  • Per The Merkle and other sources, "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."
  • It is not true that the usage of the Bcash name is significant. The huge majority of articles published by reliable sources mentions Bitcoin Cash as the name of the cryptocurrency.
  • Summing up, per WP:NICKNAME, highlighting Bcash, which is an uncommon and disputed appellation in the lead section would give it undue weight, and would also be a more general neutrality problem. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It's not "also known as", it's a derogatory term. REDGOLPE (TALK) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to only be pejorative use to me. Can any one provide primary sources that are neutral or positive about Bitcoin Cash and use the term "BCash" throughout? Bicoind3 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, i don't support the use of "Bcash" in the lead as an altname at this time but the sourcing provided is plenty to discuss this in the body of the article, and there is currently no discussion of it. It is very clear from the sources that advocates for Bitcoin Cash see it as derogatory and bad but that is no reason to make a decision in WP. It is just too soon to see if this going to be a valid altname or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI, there was a section named "Market acceptance and naming" in the article body. Curiously, the poster of this RfC deleted it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • mmm i think you mean this diff. The content there was not about the naming issue really but said which names which exchanges used. That did not describe the controversy.Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I just looked at the diff and I did indeed delete it. I think this content got swept out relating to some WP:TE on the part of another editor (discussed above, adding lots of poorly sourced content). I did previously add a small naming section in the hopes that it could address the naming disupte, however it was blanked see [3]. Thanks! I think I will give another crack at it, unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The term is only used pejoratively. David G (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's an analogy. Some people dislike the former British prime minister Tony Blair, and refer to him as "Bliar". If you Google for "Bliar", you'll find plenty of hits, many of them to RSs such as The Economist, all referring to Blair. But it is not his name, it is an insult directed at him. The string "Bliar" does not appear in the Wikipedia article about him. ("Tony" is not his name either, his real first name is Anthony; but he is widely known as "Tony".) Maproom (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - it doesn't seem to be very widespread in reliable sources, and there is good reason to believe that it's not a neutral name. That means that it shouldn't be given in the lead sentence of the article as an alternative name, but it's an interesting development that should be discussed in the article, to the extent that it is supported by reliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Conditionally support This kitchen is a bit hot, but before departing I think that as a nonuser of ecurrency and one who had never heard of Bcash, I may observe in good faith that if the term Bcash is widely recognised (not necessarily widely or frequently used) then it is proper and reasonable to include the fact in the article, even if primarily as a redirect. Otherwise the innocent who encounters "Bcash" is left un-helped when he wishes to find out what the word might mean, and what the status of the term Bcash might be in the field. Our primary duty is to inform the reader, not observe the tender sensitivities of interested parties who would like to censor what they see as insults. In the event that we do in fact mention the usage, then it would be reasonable, if indeed true, to say something such as "Bitcoin has also been referred to, apparently in various derogatory senses, as Bcash."
  If nothing else, that information might prevent naive users from both puzzlement and the embarrassment attendant on the use of five-letter words in polite company. JonRichfield (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that the usage has criticism. It's a bit stilly to call it "derogatory", etc., since there's nothing intrinsically negative about it. It's just an informal shortening. So, we should not use labels like "derogatory" or "slur" in Wikipedia's own voice. But it also shouldn't be listed as simply an alternative name, but an abbreviation that's disfavored in some contexts. It should be included for completeness, and boldfaced as a redirected alt. term, so that people end up at this article when they look for that term and can find it quickly in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion altname

• Comment Per the Wikipedia:Requests for comment article, statements should be neutral. The above statement is not neutral. "If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement is fine. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We can see Jytdog's bias against Bitcoin Cash with this statement as they disregard neutrality. Why aren't you following our policies and guidelines. They are instructive. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Per MOS:NICKNAME: "Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical." Bcash is a derogatory nickname for Bitcoin Cash, and thus it's inclusion in the lead section would present a neutrality problem. Omcnoe (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Question A few editors have claimed during this RfC that the name Bcash is a nickname and derogatory. Do you have any sources to substantiate these claims? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to find reliable secondary sources for many things cryptocurrency related. Nevertheless, here are some that describe the term "Bcash" as a pejorative or derogatory alternative name for Bitcoin Cash. There are reliable primary sources from major community members, labeling Bcash as a derogatory term.Omcnoe (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your two sources provided. Coinsquare is not an RS, it is a bitcoin buying website, thus WP:COI applies. About CCN looks like a poor quality source, but in the end it confirms the RfC in that people are using the Bcash term. It might also be useful to create the section you described below to go over a controversy. I looked a lot online and couldn't find sufficient sources to create a controversy section, if you can find it, please list. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough to support a 'Naming Controversy' section.Ladislav Mecir has already provided several RS above. From 'Bitcoin Magazine': "Many maintain that the name “Bitcoin Cash” simply is what the new coin is called, and claim that the name “Bcash” is mostly pushed by those who disapprove of the project. Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or even a “social attack” on the new cryptocurrency". From Coin Telegraph "Throughout the past few months, some of the most influential investors and figures within the Bitcoin Cash community including early-stage Bitcoin Investor Roger Ver and Bitmain Co-founder Jihan Wu encouraged the cryptocurrency community to not refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, because the original name of the Blockchain project is Bitcoin Cash." "In response to the initial announcement of Bitstamp and the decision of the company to list Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Cøbra wrote: 'A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It's funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally.'". From Coindesk "...'bcash' is a grave insult to bitcoin cash supporters.". Omcnoe (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NICKNAME is for WP:BLP. Do we use the same BLP standard for open source software? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The same principle applies. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Bcash is a a derogatory name for now and assuming that it is, it would be non-neutral to include it as such without reference to the derogatory nature. As an example, many years ago on the internet it was common to refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft or M$. It would not be suitable to include this nickname as an altname in the Microsoft article, at least without acknowledging that it is a derogatory nickname. Omcnoe (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should be treated neutrally. I think there are likely different standards for WP:BLP than for open source software, and thus this WP:NICKNAME concept doesn't apply here. Of course our main standard to apply is WP:NPOV and specifically WP:SOAP, which doesn't support the exclusion of well cited content. As you have pointed out, there does seem to be sufficient content to support a naming section, which I did add before by the way and Ladislav blanked it. I put the diff link above in a response to jytdog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the most amenable solution here would be to include the altname in the article body, perhaps in a 'Naming Controversy' section, where this controversy can be neutrally covered. Present the argument against 'Bitcoin Cash' and for 'Bcash', and the argument for 'Bitcoin Cash' and against 'Bcash'. As it is unfortunately the choices for this RFC are limited (for/against a non-neutral mention in the lead). I propose rejecting this RFC & adding mention of 'Bcash' under a naming controversy section - this would be the most neutral way to cover the naming controversy. Omcnoe (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose As the case of two exchanges - Bitfinex and Bitstamp - documents, Bcash is a failed attempt to rebrand the cryptocurrency, while Bitcoin Cash is the actual name used by the industry and the huge majority of sources. Putting them on equal footing in the article body would be a violation of NPOV, giving the failed rebranding attempt undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir:, I think you already voted strongly oppose above, what are you voting for again here? Or are you opposed to Omcnoe (talk · contribs) comments above? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I will point out the recent repeated vandalism to this page using names such as "BTrash", "Bitcoin Trash", "ChinaCoin" and "VerCoin" alongside "Bcash", as further evidence that "Bcash" is a derogative name. Alongside the secondary sources already provided that claim "Bcash" is used as a derogative, I think that the evidence is strongly in favor. Is there even a single RS with a non-negative take that uses the term, or claims that it is not derogative? Omcnoe (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the mainstream RS provided in the RfC do not mention anything of this derogatory claim. Assuming arugendo the altname is deroretory, WP:SOAP still does not provide an excuse to exclude it. Nor does WP:BLP apply as some have suggested above. Next, this RfC is not about adding any of the other social media names you mention (chinacoin, vercoin, etc) and I have not seen any of those with RS. Have you? I don't see how other proposed altnames can used be evidence for or against this RfC unless you can show them related in some kind of RS. The discussion here is if the Bcash usage is significant to meet the altname test and if there is some other means for the Bitcoin Cash advocates to argue for its exlusion (covered under SOAP). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I am not opposed to the inclusion of the altname in the article, assuming that it is given neutral treatment. Many of the RS already provided in this rfc provide evidence of the name being derogatory as has I believe been discussed multiple times above, and this information should be included in the article. Included the name without mentioning the caveat that it is used derogatively would be extremely non-netrual. Wikipedia unsurprisingly lacks policy on derogatory nicknames for software, as I don't think that it's been a big problem before. So I think that it is reasonable to apply policies from topics where derogatory nicknames are an issue, such as MOS:NICKNAME. Omcnoe (talk) 09:23, 24 April 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.

Bitcoin Magazine

User:Smallbones removed the Bitcoin Magazine references with this edit, however I do believe it's been widely accepted on WP:RSN to be an acceptable source. Q ^{T C} 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you give a source on your assertion on "widely accepted"? The main thing I can find is [4] which does not support "widely accepted". Also see the General Sanctions discussion (about 7 comments from the bottom). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your edits here and here are dubious as well. Many of the removed citations for non-contentious claims are perfectly valid despite being a WP:SELFSOURCE Q ^{T C} 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the RfC above again - we need to tighten up sourcing for cryptocurrency related articles. Everybody above in the rfc agrees on that.

WP:SELFSOURCE requires the following conditions:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Much of the article is based on such sources - so I propose that first we delete those sources and then go back (give me some time) to see how many of those sources are needed to make the points, or to see whether those points need to be made at all (have you noticed a certain fog about the text here?) or perhaps if the text is important enough to go back and get the sources. In any case the article itself needs rewriting and simplifying the process will be the most effective way to do this. BTW, there are also potential problems with "self-serving", "third parties", and "authenticity". The article previously came across as something of an advert, and something of a battleground. We can do better than that, in most cases without the unreliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk)

Spun off

@Smallbones: I dont like the edit [5] introduces text that calls bitcoin cash a spinoff (even it probably is true), as it seems like we are creating a new term. I have heard of a TV spinoff, but never a cryptocurrency spin-off. I think we should stick with Hard Fork or Chain Split, at least somewhere in the article. I didn't revert the edit as I don't dislike it enough though, as I think your motivation to create something more sensible to the reader is logical. @Ladislav Mecir: do you have comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The first couple of lines of the Financial Times article cited say (bolding added):

'I like big blocks and I cannot lie.' That was the opening line from nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen -- whose company wants to make bitcoin spin-off bitcoin cash (BCH) the cryptocurrency of the future --

Though I'm not married to the "new term", it is standard English and for folks who are reading about bitcoin/cryptos for the 1st time (or 20th time) it has to be much less confusing than "Hard Fork or Chain Split". I think I left "hard fork" in below. "Fork" is somewhat common in other tech areas but probably has a technical meaning in most of them, "chain split" conjures up strange images. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well now that I see a citation for spin off it I tend to agree with you and support your edit. Its just the first time I have heard it here. A few months back there was a very long debate on one of these talk pages with Ladislav, myself, and maybe a couple of other cryptofolks debating hard fork or chain split. The whole debate gave me a headache as it took me a while to understand the difference. I think eventually I came to understand (still not sure if correct) that a hard fork sometimes causes a chain split. While I guess we could explore this hard fork causing a chain split, as it is excellent educational content. But this type of detailed content is probably not suitable for the lede as you point out. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Being asked by Jtbobwaysf, I add my comment to the discussion. I see that the wording of the first sentence now is

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency "spun-off" from bitcoin in 2017.

If the "spun-off" term is so standard as claimed above, why the scare quotes? Per the manual of style, they are not really desirable in the first sentence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, I have removed the quotes in the lede per your suggestion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC to tighten sourcing on this article

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

---

This proposal is to tighten sourcing [6] for this article to only allow high quality mainstream RS and remove industry rag sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support This article suffers from a lot of promotion (obvious looking at talk page above) with JzG (talk · contribs) mentioning poor sourcing above in section Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Review of sources and pruning out fancruft and later Smallbones (talk · contribs) making this [7] edit to remove these sources. I support this effort by uninvolved editors that tightens sourcing to clamp down on the promotion that this article suffers from. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support in general on this and all related topics. There's a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage of cryptocurrency and blockchain stuff that's all overly credulous and frequently clueless. Even when it's not, it reads like mid-1990s writing about the future of the Internet and "virtual reality", i.e. it's a bunch of a wild opinion based on fantasies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support @SMcCandlish: gets it right when he says "a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage", "frequently clueless", and "wild opinion based on fantasies". But he's being too gentle. All the industry sources are promotional and should be removed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• SUPPORT obviously. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Trade publications should rarely be used for anything. Would suggest applying this to all Bitcoin and Crypto related articles in Wikipedia, not just this one.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Trade pubs rarely provide sufficiently independent / in-depth coverage, so tightening the requirements to a couple of the more reputable ones is an improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - (invited randomly by a bot) WP:RS is central as always. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I never like to see promotional material used as a source. Makes me feel dirty :) StarHOG (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support and would gladly see this take place for ALL cryptocurrency-related topics. Nanophosis (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is a proliferation of citations of quasi-news sites with unknown or poor editorial practices. I would love to see more rigorous approach to sources in cryptocurrency-related articles. Retimuko (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and extend to all cryptocurrency topics. Why does this even need saying? I think I can answer that question. Most unreliable/promotional sources are aimed at the general public, and WP editors have no problem recognising them as unreliable. But unreliable/promotional sources on cryptocurrencies are aimed at people smart enough at least to understand what a cryptocurrency is, and may therefore appear somewhat more credible. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support and prune TP as well, 140Kbytes ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Someone snow close please. Darx9url (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hold Thanks for running the survey, I might be a minority voice here. It's easy to feel the sources are overwhelmingly distrustworthy, and I do agree with you too, but, can we have a whitelist of what's called reliable source? I disagree with calling al industry source as "unrelaible source". According to WP:BESTSOURCES, any source that meet "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." in generally shall be considered WP:RS. Please narrow down to either have a blacklist of bad sources or a whitelist of good industry source these group of participants can agree on. The reason I argue this is because, I've seen many non-industry sources with limited knowledge to the field publishing also wild exaggeration, speculations and fantasies. To begin with, Ledger claimes to be a peer-reviewed journal, which is also an industry resource. Xinbenlv (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

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.

Basic copy editing

Well, I've gone through it all and done a first pass rewrite. In bytes, the article is one-third smaller. I think it is easier to read, and it should also be easier to edit. I am somewhat disappointed in the history section rewrite however - maybe it's just worn me out, maybe I'll try again later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, I made a couple of adjustments. The article seems to get weak after "These clients implemented the following changes from Bitcoin" ... The article prior to that sentence has a good flow, and after that seems to ramble into to details. Just my thoughts. While looking for sources for Dash (cryptocurrency) (which needs some before AfD kills it btw) I found that Bitcoin Cash seems to be described as an Altcoin. I added that [8] there with a couple of sources, and then I noticed Altcoin is a redirect to Cryptocurrency. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Since when is "Altcoin" written in uppercase? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering as well. Seems it should not be per MOS:CAPS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What is it

@Ladislav Mecir: you made this edit [9] to introduce all kinds of concepts of how to describe Bitcoin Cash. I think if you want to examine all the descriptions of bitcoin cash, this should be done in the body of the article not in the lede. Right now it reads like a joke.

My take:

• Spin-off: aka Strand, Off-shoot (all similar)
• Product of hard fork. (Bitcoin cash is not the only product of a hard fork, we also have Ethereum Classic).
• altcoin: an actual industry term used again and again
• bcash: buried deep in the article

Maybe we should just say it is an altcoin that was spun out of bitcoin via a hardfork? Or should we say it is an altcoin that resulted from a hardfork of bitcoin? I'll ping smallbones (talk · contribs) as I think he introduced the Spin-Off description.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that your idea to move these alternative characterizations/classifications to the article body makes sense.

Regarding your "product of hard fork" note - you seem to forget that there is the "in relation to bitcoin" preface, which excludes your example of Ethereum Classic, in fact. Other than that, none of the characterizations is uniquely determining Bitcoin Cash, of course.

altcoin: an actual industry term used again and again - not in relation to Bitcoin Cash. It is much more frequently characterized by some other of the terms in the available sources. Also, there is no widely accepted definition of the "altcoin" term, the available definitions differ in details that either cover hard forks or not.

The decision to mention bcash in the article body is a result of a RfC, and completely unrelated to this particular subject.

Your wish to prefer one of the characterizations (and not the most notable in this case), is not neutral, in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What is not neutral? Smallbones (talk · contribs) used "spun off" as a verb, which seemed good for readability in this [10] diff. It appears to me your newly proposed terms "a strand" as well as your proposed term "an offshoot" to also be roughly in this category of simple description, however you adding a total of three of them seems illogical to me. What is the purpose of that? We can also look at industry terms used to describe the articles subject, for example saying it is an "altcoin" which resulted from a hard fork of Bitcoin. Comments on that? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat something you may already know. However, since you are asking, and since I am not sure what you know and what you do not know, here are my notes

• "Smallbones (talk · contribs) used 'spun off'" - indeed, he did. However, the cited source actually did not do that; it used the "spin-off" characterization and I listed it as one of the characterizations used by the sources, which is a neutral treatment of the source as opposed to your last proposal.
• "... your newly proposed terms..." - The terms are coming from the cited sources. The citations are provided. They are not "my terms".
• "it is an altcoin" - that is also mentioned in a neutral manner as one of the terms used by the cited sources. It is listed as one of the variant characterizations, which is exactly what it is. Note that only the WSJ source you cite to use the term looks reliable. Other sources are not acceptable per recent RfC requiring to tighten article sourcing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, you are right one of my listed sources was a forbes contributor source, I will delete that. Thanks! The MarketWatch staff writer & WSJ staff writer (as you mentioned) are RS. Zacks Investment Reasearch syndicated by Nasdaq is subscription based market research and not WP:UGC, but I honestly dont know the RS policy on that type of content. It appears you like the kitchen sink approach in the lede, I think I have said what I think about that, might as well wait for others to chime in... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been pinged a couple of times on this and don't have much to say. The disagreement seems to be about style, not content. Stylistically I don't think we should "characterize" bitcoin cash in the first couple of sentences. Rather we should just say what it is in plain language. "Spun-off" works great IMHO, "strand" is too British for my taste, Americans may be clueless on its meaning (is that the place with the theaters or the tailors?). 'Off shoot" also works well IMHO. "Hard fork" is probably too technical. But we only need one word in those sentences - it looks like a mess now. I'd also keep altcoin, digital asset, and the other overlapping sets of descriptors out of it whenever possible. They add confusion, but what else?

One request - let's keep the quality of the refs high.

@Jytdog: may be able to give better advice on wording than I can. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

neutrality

The page presently displays a wholesale non-neutral viewpoint.

- Roger ver had nothing to do with the creation of bitcoin cash, this is factually wrong.

- the article focuses several times on several of the lowest price points of bitcoin cash

- the article calls bitcoin cash a spinoff or an alt-coin, when in fact bitcoin cash was a bitcoin node that said "if the network rules change to be not-bitcoin, ignore those not-bitcoin blocks as invalid". The fork was activated by miners publishing a code base that was not the bitcoin code base, this changed code is called segwit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimpotter (talk • contribs) 16:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

bitcoin.com

Bitcoin.com is a reliable source. See WP:NEWSORG. It says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." It has to be demonstrated that the site is not reliable or that the linked article is wrong. Has a lack of editorial oversight been demonstrated? I will therefore be re-adding this content because its removal had no basis.

@Shiftchange: did you add this comment and forget to sign it? Bitcoin.com is a well known bitcoin cash promotion site owned by Roger Ver, who is listed on this very article as a supporter, and there is lots of sources where Ver claims he is one of the largest owners of BCH, thus creating a WP:COI. This source is clearly not an RS on this article. Second your re-adding of content that has been discussed and deleted on this talk page over and over again is WP:TE. Its starting to go too far. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a Bitcoin portal. We don't know how much BCH Ver owns or how much editorial control he sways. The COI page you linked doesn't mention referencing. news.bitcoin.com is clearly reliable as a news organisation for topics related to Bitcoin. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ver does frequently mention his BCH ownership in videos, such as in this [11] video. In this video, Ver mentions that he has sold most of his BTC and bought BCH. I am certain he does have a large amount of editorial sway, but I don't have any evidence of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Here [12] is an RS for Ver conflict of interest relating to bitcoin.com and his advocacy of bitcoin cash. This website is not an RS for this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

> Bitcoin.com is a reliable source.

This is so very far from the truth. 124.168.139.205 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have removed in this diff [13] a contributor source on fortune.com that is attributed to jake smith of bitcoin.com, an employee of the bitcoin cash promotion site. Amazing how these POV sources keep showing up on this article. Here you will see Jake Smith on the bitcoin.com website as staff, thus a clear COI [14]. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Description

The description section repeats that bitcoin cash is a cryptocurrency. I have just deleted the wikilink here [15], as for sure it doesn't need a second wikilink in the article. I will also delete the entire repeated section and copy it here to preserve the source in case someone wants it.

• Lead says: Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency.

• Description section said (i just now deleted): Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency.

Feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• Your deletion of the article body link to the Cryptocurrency article was unconstructive. See: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." mentioned in MOS:DL (emphasis mine). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Your deletion of the claim that bitcoin cash is a cryptocurrency was unconstructive. See "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." in MOS:LEAD (emphasis mine). This demonstrates that the claim actually should be in the article text and be summarized in the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References