Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Request that communications be kept on this talk page

@Cunard: I have no objection to removing the contentious label per your edit [1]. It seems the controversy is limited to these talk pages and we have not found an RS to substantiate that the altname is controversial. I also appreciate your explanation of your close.

@DannyS712: @Ladislav Mecir: & @Markbassett: and I request that communications relating to this bcash naming issue be kept on this talk page so that the record can be preserved (as any editor can delete his/her personal talk page). Note that this bcash altname is now the subject of I recall 3 RfC's and I guess will be the subject of more in the future. Thus if we can keep the subject of the discussion here, it would be more efficient for editors in the future. I guess there might not be any policy to enforce this request, nor am I suggesting as such, just a request out of courtesy.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs). I copied the discussion between DannyS712 and Ladislav Mecir about DannyS712's previous RfC close to this talk page for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. I think the only discussion about this outside of this talk page has been related to the previous RfC close. I think Markbassett has only commented about the subject on this talk page. Cunard (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cunard! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Likely I only commented in response to RFC ... Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Post RfC source removal

@Ladislav Mecir: in this edit [2] you removed a source for the bcash altname your edit summary stating "delete miscited source, see also the RfC)". However, the Verge source says "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,”. I have reverted this edit. Please explain why you are removing the source. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: you are now here [3] playing around with the sources subsequent to my revert here [4]. Your current edit removes the WP:CITEBUNDLE with some nonsensical explanation. It appears to me that your WP:TE now might have violated the spirit of the blockchain 1RR (by editing the same citations within 24 hours after revert) and certainly I am not going to revert this and get into an edit war of a subject that just finished another RfC (the third on this content) that you were apparently unhappy with the result of. I'll ping a couple uninvolved editors that frequent these blockchain pages, @Jytdog: @MER-C: and @David Gerard: and see if they care to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, jytdog. Your claim that my edit [5] "removes" anything is verifiably false. I just unified the citation format to the format all citations in the article use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, I have again reverted your removal of the WP:CITEBUNDLE. Please explain your understanding of why citebundle is not the correct approach on this altname that is subject to edit warring. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Caps usage

@Ladislav Mecir: in this range of edits [6] you change Bitcoin to read bitcoin throughout the article. What is the logic for this? I read through the talk page here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_10#Capitalization_:_Bitcoin_vs_bitcoin and it seems there is a standard that we are using at wikipedia and Associated Press has even released a standard. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You missed that there was a newer discussion coming to a consensus here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Difficulty reset rules

Could anyone lay out the rules regarding when the Difficulty Index is reset down in the event of insufficient hashing power? Thanks Lawrence18uk (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we do not follow that here on this article as there are not sufficient WP:RS to track it. I too am not aware if Bitcoin Cash has a different difficulty reset rule than Bitcoin, but I do recall there was a change to the reset made a few years back. @Ladislav Mecir: might now. Maybe we can find an RS for it too. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: These statements dont make sense to me as the reader at first read:

• "The algorithm used is the same in both cases."
• "Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks."
• "Bitcoin Cash also used an addition to the DAA, called an Emergency Difficulty Adjustment (EDA) algorithm. EDA was active from 1 August 2017 to 13 November 2017."
• "To address the problem with stability, a change of the Bitcoin Cash DAA was implemented and the EDA cancelled. The change took effect on 13 November 2017.After the change, the Bitcoin Cash DAA adjusts the mining difficulty after each block."

It seems to me that there have been changes over time. It also seems that maybe bitcoin cash uses a different system than bitcoin at present and this should be made clear to the reader in simple terms. I don't understand it enough at this point in time to make the changes myself, thus I thought first I would point out the readability issues to you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"The algorithm used is the same in both cases." - OK, changed to "The proof of work algorithm is the same in both cases." to make things clear. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks." - changing to "Originally, both bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash used the same difficulty adjustment algorithm, adjusting the mining difficulty parameter every 2016 blocks." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup lede, etc

@JonRichfield: I did some cleanup of the article per your comment above. Do you think it is an improvement? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Yes. I added a link to fork —Fork (software development) because many readers whose interest is money rather than IT development might not know what it means, but the rest is clear as far as it goes, and does not strike me as being puffery etc. Whether I understood it correctly, you will have to decide and correct if wrong. How well the new lede fits the rest of the article I cannot tell, because I am not into ecash and do not have time to ramp up and assail the walls of text, but I have no immediate objections as it stands. Superficially it seems reasonable. JonRichfield (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I see you reverted a cleanup today with this edit [7] noting some RfC. Are you objecting to the edits in general or just moving the altname to the lede? If it is just the altname issue, where do you suggest the altname be moved to? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

JonRichfield - your link to a software fork was not really an improvement. It was rather misleading, since it messed up a software fork and a blockchain fork, that do not refer to the same thing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I am happy to agree that the two different kinds of fork are not functionally equivalent, so kindly do not mix up mixing up the mixing up terminology, with a possible misinterpretation of the intent of the wording. If you feel deeply about it I, for one, will not revert your changing it to Fork (blockchain) so have fun, though it does not seem to me that the term is at all applicable in context. It is not clear from the wording whether it was strictly a software fork, and it certainly does not look like a blockchain fork, then or now, or even a true fork at all in terms of most common usages, so if you insist on changing that link, do at least get your ideas straight first. From your very reaction it is clear that some form of link is necessary (if not a buzzword totally different from "fork"), or this discussion would not have arisen in the first place. I am not directly concerned with this article, but responded only to requests for comment.
As for your intemperate discourtesy to @Jtbobwaysf:, you fail to comprehend either the nature of the mess or the function of a lede, let alone what a blockchain fork might be. The lede at the time I responded to the RFC was a total mess, incomprehensible and most of it out of place. No one likely to need to look up the article could have made any sense of it or wanted to read the rest of the article. In between there had been great improvements, and the version that Jtbobwaysf asked me to criticise is a vast improvement, being compact and informative. The rest of the material that had been in the lede, such as is of any substance, belongs in the body of the article, preferably written by someone who could do so clearly, accurately, and readably. I don't see my way to swelling the wikiwarrior walls of text in this spitfight. Have a nice day. JonRichfield (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jon, indeed this article is subject of a lot of WP:TE and I recall it was this article that caused the Blockchain sanctions. I welcome more editors to edit this page, it needs some additional eyeballs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - your edits were not a cleanup of the lead section at all. They were just a buch of nonconsensual edits violating this specific RfC and the consensus in other matters discussed here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I see that you dont consent. But there was nothing that violated any RfC or other supposed consensus. The RfC only said not in the opening line. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"I see that you dont consent." it is not at all about me. I can cite many other discussions in the archives. Also, I did not even take part in all the discussions that came to a consensus on the contents of this article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

please be specific Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I have reverted your revert here [8]. There are two editors here stating they prefer the new edition. I asked you a a few days ago for specific reason, and you have failed to provide it. I only recall an RfC that stated that the Bcaash altname not be put in the first sentence, and it is not in the first sentence. What are the other specific issues you object to and this these other discussions you want to cite? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - what you do is clear edit warring. It is against the consensus established here in many discussions and it does not matter that you and one editor invited by you want to revise it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not your employee to be ready to do what you want in a hours matter, but I will provide a list of consensual discussions your edit violated in a short time. Regarding your "first sentence" argument - it is true that the title of the RfC mentions the first sentence, but the discussion content is there and provides information that the consensus was not to include the claim in the lead section either. Moreover, the source(s) provided are a matter of another (unfinished) RfC and you would have done better to wait for the result. Nevermind, there is no hurry and I will provide enough citations of previous discussions you are aware of that apply to this case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, implying that I invited JonRichfield is improper and baseless. JonRichfield voted in the RfC you created above and pointed out the mess that the article was in and then I took a crack at fixing it. That's it. Your response suggests WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, your claim that "that I invited JonRichfield is improper" contradicts the facts. The above sentence "...Jtbobwaysf asked me to criticise..." confirms that it is not improper at all. Another questionable claim that "JonRichfield voted in the RfC you created above" is not confirmed either. In such a situation, there is nothing I can assume, the facts are already known. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: What the bleep are you on about? Jtbobwaysf edited the lede text that I had publicly remarked on as unsatisfactory. Having edited it, he perfectly properly asked me for my reaction, since I had been the most forthright in my criticism. As his edit was a drastic improvement in readability and context, I replied with no more than a single word (optional) suggestion. He asked for criticism on that one entry, and (helpfully intended) criticism he got, on that and and nothing else. I took no sides and did not urge that any alternative or subsequent editing should take my suggestion(s) into account. Everything was public and above board then and now, including my subsequently correcting your blunders about forking. What on Earth are you dripping about? JonRichfield (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I have removed the Riot Blockchain cite that you point out is subject of the above RfC. I agree we might as well leave it out of this lede discussion so as not to conflate the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

JonRichfield wrote "...my subsequently correcting your blunders about forking..." - those are not my "blunders", that is a publicly available information from sources, some of them already cited in the article. I do not need to make any WP:OR and try to determine what is a software fork and what is a blockchain fork. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: They were blunders all right; what you wrote about what I wrote showed that you didn't understand what I was talking about, and when you tried to talk your way out of it, you showed that you didn't understand what you were talking about either. In my neck of the woods we call that sort of thing a blunder. JonRichfield (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Preserve

Per WP:PRESERVE i'll put this here. Dont know where else it fits, and it is a fringe definition. "Bitcoin Cash is payment network." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"it is a fringe definition" - hmm, this is interesting. Can you cite any source that contradicts it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

yes, the majority of sources refer to it as a cryptocurrency. if there are a number of sources that show it is a payment network, i guess we could also add that. Just no sense in adding a lot of fringe definitions. Does Bitcoin have a lot of sources that show it is a payment network as well? I haven't seen that in the Bitcoin article. But I have seen this article Bitcoin network. Have we seen such discussion in RS with respect to Bitcoin cash? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"the majority of sources refer to it as a cryptocurrency" - so, what? For example, the source also characterizes Bitcoin Cash as a cryptocurrency alongside characterizing it as a payment network. A cryptocurrency network can well process payments and serve as a payment system, as is, in fact, mentioned in many sources. Where is any contradiction? It is a fact that this additional function is mentioned in the sources and not contradicted by any available source. To contradict it, it does not suffice to mention that Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency. You would need to have a source that claims that payments cannot be processed by the network and the network cannot serve as a payment system, which would be the only way how a payment system characteristic could be contradicted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Re "I haven't seen that in the Bitcoin article." - what stops you from adding it there? The processing of payments as a function of the network is already mentioned at least 18 times in the Bitcoin article. The cited sources mention that it works as a payment system. I do not see any reason why it should not be mentioned, although it is off topic here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Well if you feel strongly about it, then just add it back to the article. But if there is a just a single source for this, then it should be given due weight. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC related to a citation

There is a rough consensus not to use the citation to confirm the claim that "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash" because editors consider it to be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. As WarKosign noted, "The citation simply does not say that Bcash stands for bitcoin cash. It doesn't even mention the term or the word 'cash'.

Cunard (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the citation be used to confirm the claim that "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash."? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No The source merely mentions the achievements of Riot Blockchain Inc. It does not contain information sufficient to confirm the claim. In that sense, the source is miscited and its citation violates WP:SYNTH. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes The source says "RIOT BLOCKCHAIN INC - PRODUCED APPROXIMATELY 100 BITCOINS (BTC) AND 61 BCASH (BCH) FOR APRIL 2018". Clearly, it mentions Bcash (BCH), and BCH is the established ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash, just as the ticker symbol (BTC) is the established ticker for Bitcoin. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• No The citation simply does not say that Bcash stands for bitcoin cash. It doesn't even mention the term or the word "cash". The two cryptocurrencies are mentioned in the same sentence so it's probable that they are related, but it is WP:OR. Surely Bitcoin Cash article has much better sources for the name and the ticker, what's the reason for this RfC at all ? “WarKosign” 06:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Who cares? Given the current tone, context, and incoherence of the lede, I cannot see the article being of much value till it is radically rewritten. JonRichfield (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question Is RS noticeboard the correct venue for questioning a source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Jtbobwaysf wrote that "Clearly it mentions BCASH as BCH, and BCH is the established ticket for Bitcoin Cash..." - not really. Neither is the linking information present in the source, that is why it is a WP:SYNTH issue, nor is 'BCH' the only ticker used in various sources and by various exchanges, as you mistakenly claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Google search [9] recognizes the ticker symbol BCH just as it is used in the article as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not use Google search as a source either, that would be yet another sourcing problem – a synthesis of an article and a Google search result... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are asserting that BCH is the not ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash, then you have not properly framed this RfC. Anywhoo as we go off into the weeds, Yahoo Finance [10], CNBC [11], WSJ [12] all recognize BCH as the ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash and the article of course states BCH is the ticker symbol as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"If you are asserting that BCH is the not ticker symbol for Bitcoin Cash" – I know what I said above, and I also know what you said above. Your WP:SYNTH is pretty obvious, no matter whether you combine the Reuters source with the Google search result or any other source you see fit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The article shows the ticker symbol as BCH (and I recall it always has). The source you are questioning as part of this RFC refers to Bitcoin (BTC), the altname Bcash (BCH), and a cryptocurrency mining company which is mining those two cryptocurrencies. Where is the synth coming from specifically? This source is no different from the dozen or so other sources that also confirm it including google [13]  Looks like a duck to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"...and I recall it always has..." - a false claim, and also a claim that is completely irrelevant. It does not matter, since a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reliable source anyway. "Where is the synth coming from specifically?" - from the above description that the editor using the citation combined it in his mind with a result of a Google search. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears you are now questioning if BCH is the ticker (which is not the subject of this RfC). Relating to the RfC, it is obvious the citation connects BCH to Bcash under the general subject of cryptocurrencies. The google search is not a source listed on the article and is probably ok for the sake of a talk page discussion. However, if you disagree you can just ignore it as it seems the BCH ticker symbol used in the article is undisputed other than your WP:WL here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment There is yet another problematic thing about this particular citation. It is the fact that the author of the cited text is claimed to be a "Staff Writer", while this information has been retracted by Reuters, signaling that it is not true. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You raised this issue in the above RfC last month (also about this bcash subject). The archive shows "Reuters Staff" here [14]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the archive shows that. Nevertheless, the current version shows that the information was retracted by Reuters, i.e. most likely, incorrect, which is what I mentioned in the comment. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Reuters retracted anything (eg a retraction statement). There is only evidence that at one point in time it showed "Reuters Staff" and today it doesn't. Are you asserting that because of this change it is no longer an RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (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.

SW clients

The infobox lists Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, and Bitcoin XT. I have today added the software version of Bitcoin ABC to the infobox, as it is currently in greatest usage, per this [15]. It seems that bitcoin unlimited also has good usage, but I could not figure out how to add a second client version to the infobox. Maybe it is also not necessary, should we only put the dominant sw version? I dont see any evidence of Bitcoin XT usage, so I will delete that as it also lacks a source. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Source removal

Hello Ladislav, In your edit here [16] you removed two sources with edit summary "remove, for the reasons see Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC related to a citation". To my understanding the above Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_related_to_a_citation was subject of a single and already removed source. Why are you removing additional sources that were not the subject of that RfC and using that RfC as a justification for the removal? Please explain. I have posted Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BizJournals_in_the_Bitcoin_Cash_article relating to these two comments, you can feel free to comment there as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As is easy to verify, all three sources – the one you deleted and the two sources you mention – use the same press release, the one examined in the above RfC. All the observations made above by WarKosign and by Cunard remain valid. As far as this issue is concerned, consult WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Consolidate and update history

I believe 2018 split to create Bitcoin SV should be a part of history section as it is now a part of Bitcoin Cash history. Two projects have diverged a lot and communities are now separate. Also, there are no information about may 2019 hard fork upgrade of the BCH network. There are a lot of historical information all around the article that are not up-to-date. Most of the statistics like trading volume and usage are ephemeric and change violently almost daily. Is there a point in having them here? Maybe instead let's put a link to some live charts and statiscics in the section External links. It will be much more informative and it will require less effort with maintaining the article. --MayaDancer (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems logical Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Jtbobwaysf. I don't have permissions necessary to edit this article, but my proposition of the part about May19 upgrade is the following:

On 15 May 2019 Bitcoin Cash network went through successful hard fork protocol upgrade. Upgrade enabled signing transactions with Schnorr signatures and allowed recovery of funds mistakenly sent to segwit addresses.

If it meets standards of Wikipedia, I ask anyone with editing permissions to add it along with other changes I proposed. --MayaDancer (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @MayaDancer: these sources are not considered to be WP:RS on these cryptocurrency articles (not only this article). We will need a mainstream source, such as WSJ, NYT, bloomberg, etc. Note we also need to find I would think at least 5 mainstream sources to justify splitting this Bitcoin Cash article to carve off Bitcoin SV from it. Do we have 5 mainstream sources for SV? Note that contributor sources are not usable. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, About the upgrade - I don't think I will find such sources. This approach is of course correct although this specific topic is interesting for specialist. Pity it won't be covered by wikipedia. About creation of a separate article about BSV, I'll ask someone of BSV community. Who would think I'll have trouble proving it merely exists with articles that are not behind paywall? Restructuring article will have to wait for BSV article, I presume. Are you still positive to replace ephemeric data with a single link to external charts? Thanks for help and for keeping everything reliable. --MayaDancer (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

MayaDancer If you have a new software version I think there will be little opposition to updating the software version with a link to github. But adding anything about features, etc I think that will not be allowed. As for using paywall articles from good WP:RS that might be allowed to define notability. Someone with a paid account can take a look. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, MayaDancer. While Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are separate cryptocurrencies as you correctly note, a discussion decided to redirect the contents of the previously existing separate Bitcoin SV article to the Bitcoin Cash#2018 split to create Bitcoin SV section. A move of the section content would interfere with this decision. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

That really doesn't bind this article in perpetuity. Anchors are movable, and redirects are repointable - David Gerard (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

References

RfC: Shall Bitcoin Cash be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section?

The consensus is that Bitcoin Cash should be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Shall Bitcoin Cash be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No Per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". In relation to this, note that
  • The information that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork of bitcoin" is not covered in the remainder of the article.
  • The remainder of the article cites several independent reliable sources that state that "Bitcoin Cash is a product of a hard fork of bitcoin", or simply that "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork of bitcoin", which is a different notion than the notion of a software fork, a notion that contradicts the characterization as a software fork.
  • Other sources cited in the article use various other characterizations of Bitcoin Cash incompatible with the "software fork" characterization.
  • Per Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain, "Hard fork, also known as Hard-Forking Change, is a permanent divergence in the blockchain, commonly occurs when non-upgraded nodes can't validate blocks created by upgraded nodes that follow newer consensus rules. Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork.", i.e. this source confirms that the text stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork..." or the text stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a fork..." is confusing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Therefore, the characterization of Bitcoin Cash as a software fork contained in the first sentence of the article is all of WP:OR, violating WP:LEAD and violating WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, because it is, and it's a stupendously important fact about it. Sources support this. If it's absent from the body of the article, then it needs to be added - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And now it turns out that someone did try to add it, with extensive citation, and Ladislav removed it claiming this RFC as his excuse. RFCs are not weapons to be used in an edit war - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per David above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (bot-summon), because it is one, and the only opposition to that wording comes from a (not very plausible IMO) confusion with a domain-specific jargon term. We should not be importing WP:JARGON, but instead use the most common term, especially if it can be wikilinked (as is the case here). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (invited by a bot) It's important information that belongs in the lead. If it's not also elsewhere in the article now then it should be added. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (the bot sent me) per David Gerard who is an internationally recognized subject matter expert and also right about the impropriety of trying to use this RFC as an excuse not to include the fact. Shame! EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes obviously critical information about Bitcoin Cash.Adoring nanny (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Yes it is basically what the subject of the article is. However, even if that info is placed somewhere else in the lede it is not a big mistake. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I added a little content with quotations to the article main-space (not the subject of this RfC) that explores some of the software fork concepts as it relates to this article's subject. There is plenty more to this, and in fact the notoriety of this subject of this article is relates to software forks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - your misrepresentations of the sources already cited in the article are not what you should do. Discuss here, if you have got anything to discuss. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You just tried to directly block edits that showed your querulous RFC was in error. The RFC process is not meant to call a pause on well-cited information you don't want in an article: "Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling." - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I just tried to do all of these:

• revert the changes since their author claimed that he did not intend to make changes related to the RfC, and since the RfC has not been resolved yet
• revert the changes since the majority of them were mirepresentations of the statements made by the sources already cited in the article
• revert the changes since it does not appear that the source they added, the South China Morning Post is a provably reliable source
• revert the changes since even the citation of the South China Morning Post was used to confirm something it does not confirm. I do not think that if Bitcoin Cash is compared to a word processing program, the lead section of the article should state that "Bitcoin Cash is word processing program...", and according the the source, such a claim would be as confusing as a formulation stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork...".
• Last but not least. you suggest (for the second time already) that a RfC is "querulous". Would you be so kind to point me to a Wikipedia rule defining the notion of a querulous RfC for me to be able to not make the same mistake again? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ladslav, the South China Morning Post is a top shelf RS. You reverted [17] a sources in addition to SCMP and your edit summary was STATUSQUO. David already responded that your reasoning relating to statusquo was incorrect. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "the South China Morning Post is a top shelf RS." - well, no. Since 2016, significant questions about the independence of the newspaper were raised. They are listed in the linked article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Does SCMP have anything at WP:RSN relating to finance or crypto? Hong Kong is the subject of current events relating to its relationship with China, but I dont think that is the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was bot-summonned to that discussion. Even though I am moderately familiar with software development, I have no idea what is meant by [hard fork] is a different notion than [that] of a software fork (Ladislav Mecir), even after reading the refs in the RfC's first "no". My best guess is that it means crypto blocks computed under code A cannot be used to generate currency or validate transactions according to code B and vice versa, but I do not see how that is a meaningful distinction over a software fork (forks are rarely cross-compatible). Barring a (sourced) explanation of that distinction, I strongly lean towards "yes, BC is a (software or whatever) fork of Bitcoin". Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tigraan. Thank you for your question. A definition of a hard fork can be found, e.g. in Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain, where it is stated: "Hard fork, also known as Hard-Forking Change, is a permanent divergence in the blockchain, commonly occurs when non-upgraded nodes can't validate blocks created by upgraded nodes that follow newer consensus rules. Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork." Perhaps it can help. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. That definition seems to be domain-specific jargon for "backwards-incompatible fork". Would that phrasing ease your opposition to "soft fork"? (I would oppose "hard fork" because we should not use domain-specific jargon whenever avoidable.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. I will try to add information. You stated that you are moderately familiar with software development. The main problem is, that the hard fork or soft fork are terms used in relation to blockchains, i.e. they are not software development terms. Note that the source defines also the notion of a soft fork, stating "Soft fork or Soft-Forking Change is a temporary fork in the blockchain which commonly occurs when miners using non-upgraded nodes don't follow a new consensus rule their nodes don't know about. Not to be confused with fork, hard fork, software fork or Git fork." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It does seem to be domain specific jargon. As far as I can tell a hard fork occurs on the blockchain is when the miners or nodes or users run a fork (software). There is also this fork (blockchain) which seems it might be a subset of software fork, and includes both a soft fork and hard fork. There is another concept called a chain split (discussed in the past on this talk page), thus we are dealing with three different terms and they seem to be very sensitive terms to the Bitcoin Cash community.

Some earlier discussions:

• Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_split_notion_use_in_the_article
• Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Spun_off

Its all very esoteric. I read news on this crypto space and I cannot say for sure what is the difference or if there is a difference between a chain split or hard fork, and for sure the two terms seem to be interchanged in the press. JonRichfield (talk · contribs) added the fork (software) wikilink in the lede (which seemed fine to me), then Ladislav didn't agree and started a discussion above this on this talk page, then Ladislav started this RfC. From my understanding it seems to be 'a software fork resulted in a hard fork which caused a chain split,' but I am not sure even on that and I dont see how this much jargon will help the reader... at least until a few of us editors understand it and have sources for it and the sources have consensus on what this all means. David Gerard (talk · contribs) writes on this space, he might have some light to share on this as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Re "at least until a few of us editors understand it and have sources for it" - You say that you do not understand it, and do not know the sources. Why, then, you are trying to fabricate the WP:OR claiming that "Bitcoin Cash is a software upgrade" as you did in this edit? Do you struggle at understanding the Wikipedia policies and goals that require you to not represent your own research or opinions in the article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I have provided RS relating the software fork/upgrade (CNBC, Bloomberg, SCMP). I don't understand your point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"I have provided RS relating the software fork" - well, no. You cited a SMCP source which does not claim that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, a CNBC source which does not claim that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, and stated as a fact an opinion by Olga Kharif writing for Bloomberg - it does not state that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork either. In addition to that, you distorted the statements by several other sources saying that Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork as if they said that Bitcoin Cash is a (software) fork. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a wikiwarrior game and I wish you would stop it. It might feed your personal sense of self-importance, but some folks, saving your grace, would like to get constructive work done, and feeding your personal ego won't cut it. JonRichfield (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The bloomberg source [18] is not an opinion piece. CNBC and and SCMP content are displayed largely in quotes, thus the reader can make their own decision. Your statements dont make any sense and fly in the face of both the sources and the evidence that bitcoin cash is an open source software fork with its primary client (Bitcoin ABC) having its own github [19], etc. I just added this sw version of the bitcoin ABC client (with this diff [20]), sw version was missing from the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The reliable sources call it a fork, and it is one. You appear to be trying to find ambiguity in particular senses of definitions which exists neither in reality nor - and this is the key point - in the sources about it. Please stop doing this, it just comes across as querulous - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Tigraan wrote: "Yes because it is one" - without a supporting source, this is just a WP:OR. Another argument: "We should not be importing WP:JARGON, but instead use the most common term". This is another problem: both the notion of a software fork as well as the notion of a hard fork are technical terms that can be linked. However, Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency, not a word processing program. As The Independent or other sources cited in the article explain it, "On 1 August 2017, the blockchain of bitcoin – an online ledger that documents every transaction – was split in two, spawning a brand new rival to the original cryptocurrency called bitcoin cash." Note also that the editor opinion directly contradicts the cited reliable sources stating "Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Independent source you cite also seems to support the notion of software fork (ie split). The project split, or maybe the married couple split up. In this case we are talking about a software project. It seems the nuance you are proposing is if we shall consider bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (such Bitcoin Cash) to be software or if instead we shall consider them as to be something else such as blockchains. However, according to my understanding blockchain is a subset of software. Regardless this nuance is not the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your point that "software fork" opposes in-domain terminology has been well-made already. I disagree that we should follow in-domain jargon in WP, and so does everyone else who participated so far. If you want to keep writing in support of your position, consider using new arguments.

As for the sources, I did not think I had to re-cite them, but see Jtbobwaysf's post above with mainstream media sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Tigraan, nobody could rightly ask you to recite any source at all. Nevertheless, Jtbobwaysf did not cite any source stating that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, as opposed to many sources stating the opposite. Also David Gerard just repeats himself in stating that this RfC is "querulous", as if that was an argument supporting anything at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is starting to appear you are pushing a POV that Bitcoin Cash is this accidental fork of bitcoin. The article and the sources shows that Bitcoin Cash is an entirely new software project, with its own github, and its own blockchain. Maybe the blockchain that the Bitcoin Cash software produces is a "blockchain fork" in that it shares some of the same common data as bitcoin (the data prior to the split is shared). However, the software project that is producing that blockchain today are software project(s), with a version(s), github contributors, etc. The sources above support that. As David points out above you are attempting to lawyer in some ambiguity to this. Is bitcoin cash a software project or a blockchain project? That's the question I think you are addressing and it is not the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2019 (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.

Use of the term "Bcash" in Bitcoin Cash article is misleading

Bitcoin has a splintered and politically charged community. The term "Bcash" is used by individuals who opposed Bitcoin Cash, because they do not want the term "Bitcoin" associated with Bitcoin Cash. These opponents fooled a few news organizations to use the term publicly, but this is not what Bitcoin Cash is called by the group of developers and supporters who forked it from Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is its name, and the use of a different term by opponents does not justify its inclusion in the wikipedia article. Please remove this reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddenw (talk • contribs) 06:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We have no evidence that the high quality WP:RS that anchor the WP:ALTNAME you refer to were "fooled." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

We do have plenty of evidence, Jtbobwaysf, that the sources you are edit-warring into the article and call "high quality" are highly questionable. See, e.g. the result of this RfC, but also the previous removals of several other sources you tried to maintain in the article by edit-warring. That is not all. We actually do have plenty of evidence that other sources you edit-warred into the article are also questionable. I shall create another RfC in that sense. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There exists a large number of high quality citations and Maddenw was offering his WP:OR on why those should be overlooked. To answer your question (which I am not sure is related), I recall the citation you refer to in this RfC was removed. Was it not removed? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. You are trying to "answer" my "question", which is what I tend to call a "misrepresentation" of the text. Specifically, there is no question asked in my contribution. There is a claim Maddenw as well as other Wikipedians can verify below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, the source you are referring to was deleted months ago and therefore doesnt relate to the content that MaddenW is referring to today. I see you have created yet another Querulous RfC on the bcash altname. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jtbobwaysf refers to the RfC below as "Querulous RfC". I perceive this a crossing the line of cooperation and collegiality of Wikipedia editors to the realm where we do not intend to go. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to that, the "Querulous RfC" would-be sticker is just a logical failure trying to attack an editor instead of discussing the meritorial issues. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want uncollegiate behaviour such as raising repeated you-against-everyone RFCs referred to as "querulous", you should possibly stop to think why you're repeatedly at odds with everyone else - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)