Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why were the external links removed?

Why where these:

• (Bitcoin Cash) hard fork monitor

• fork.lol - various comparative charts between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin

removed? --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:LINKSTOAVOID These links don't really add anything significant to the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

John Mcafee support

is there a source for McAfee supporting BCH and if that support still exists?

He does not see it ambiguous:

Stop it now. Use your head.

He talks about BTC positively for the long term

When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bircoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong.

He writes that BCH may win the short-term but BTC can win. the word "They" clearly is BCH, and does not use "we" which would make him part of BCH.

If you want to stop Bitcoin Cash, you cannot do it by denying the reality around you. Accept that they will win round one. No contest. Start from there and make war.

He also says "I don't like BCH any more than any of you".

Look ... I dont like BTC any more than any of you. But if you can't see the enormous power behind it then you are asleep. If you deny this power it will win. To change reality you must first accept it.
I meant BCH. Old and tired mind.

I cannot find support that McAfee supports BCH.

Jkister (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Supporters section

Where are the sources for this section? I dont want to tag every name in this list, as I only see one name in the list with a source (Roger Ver). Others need sources or be deleted. Each name should have a source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Bcash name

@Ladislav Mecir:, you reverted/section blanked my edits to add a section on naming [[1] with the explanation of "do not list short-lived excesses". This content was properly cited. Please explain why you think that:

1. the history of the name bitcoin cash

2. as well as the new name the community seems to have adopted Bcash

is not encyclopedic content.

Thank you, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The reasons why I reverted your edits introducing the "new" name are:

• Your citations use just one source: cointelegraph.com
• Even cointelegraph.com notes that the name you advertise is "politically charged" (see [2]), not used by its creators, and that the use of the name you introduced to the article is "...done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters".
• Even cointelegraph.com names the cryptocurrency Bitcoin Cash in a significant majority of its articles: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], ...
• While your source mentions Bitstamp and Bitfinex as examples using the "new" name, only Bitfinex seems to continue using it, while Bitstamp reversed its decision after few hours as confirmed by your source. Meanwhile, significant majority (including Bitstamp, plus500, CEX.IO, eToro, ...) of exchanges refer to the cryptocurrency using the original name. I can list many more exchanges in case you need it for comparison.
• A significant majority of sources that are more reputable than the one you cited uses the original name of the cryptocurrency - Bitcoin Cash - like: Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Telegraph, CoinDesk, ...

Summing up, the name your edits promote is by your own source "politically charged" and "done to troll or tease". See WP:NPOV why opinions represented by insignificant minority of sources should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia. Note: since your edits were reverted to WP:STATUSQUO, you were not supposed to revert again in response. The normal procedure in such case is to take the issue to the talk page and try to achieve consensus with your edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing in statusquo that prevents another editor from changing your reverts and we are now having a discussion on this talkpage. If you feel this section misrepresents NPOV then you should add more text and sources, like you have done here in this talk page. This bitcoin cash page is a small page that lacks content, and certainly some controversy is good for the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"There is nothing in statusquo that prevents another editor from changing your reverts" - WP:STATUSQUO presents a completely different opinion on this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Note @Jtbobwaysf: WP:AGF is a normal policy in Wikipedia, but you are making any assumption impossible, when by the source you are citing, the edits you make are "politically charged" and done "to troll or tease BCH supporters". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

My edits only cover the events and I have no position relating to the politics discussed in the content cited. The policies you have cited above do not justify section blanking cited content with mutliple sources. You have tagged the section with neutrality dispute tag, how do you suggest to change the content to improve NPOV? Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"The policies you have cited above do not justify section blanking cited content with mutliple sources." - this is based on several incorrect claims:

• your edits were based on just one source - cointelegraph.com, not on several sources
• WP:NPOV specifically mentions the case when just an insignificant minority of the sources supports some opinion. (see WP:PROPORTION) In this case, any mention of it in the article already gives it undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

As I already warned you, your edits and subsequent reverts were nonconsensual and that you did not succeed to achieve any consensus for them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I added some more text and fixed a cite with bad data in it. In fact there are three sources on this section, cointelegraph, bitcoin magazine, and btcmanager. I have not been able to find a source that says that Bitcoin Cash is still the prevelent name used. I do recognize the large number of sources you put above. Do you think that we can say that Bitcoin Cash is still the predominant name, or is that our own WP:OR to say that? I am unsure on that issue. Other than that, I am not sure what the issue about this content is that you are raising. It is cited by multiple RS, and provides part of the history of the subject of the article. Also added an Antonopolous quote, so clearly this subject is notable to some degree in the bitcoin community if notable people are commenting on it. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I notice that

• instead of discussing the changes here, you are enforcing your edits without consensus
• your claim about "three" sources is rather inaccurate, when you cite sources authored by just two people Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, i was a bit confused if to call it 3 sources or 2 as well. Anyhow, there are plenty of RS to support the content.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

History re-org

I made a somewhat broad change today to seperate the history section into phases, and also to incorporate the naming part, also part of the history, into those sections. If you disagre with my re-org feel free to revert. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Since the edits were discussed from the WP:NPOV, there is no consensus to remove the template marking your edits as disputed. Stop enforcing your edits this way, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems have been gone from editing for a few days and in the interim I suppose some edits where made (such as me moving the content into the history section). Clearly the content has RS, see [12] Thanks! I deleted the NPOV tag since according to my recollection there was no content left in the section after I moved it all to other sections. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing constructive about your approach to remove all disputed contents and put it elsewhere instead of trying to achieve consensus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is Bitcoin Cash uppercased but Bitcoin isn't?

Why is Bitcoin Cash uppercased but Bitcoin isn't? Aviartm (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash is uppercased because that is how the overwhelming majority of sources write it.

You already know why bitcoin is not uppercased, why do you pretend otherwise? (consult WP:LISTEN, please) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not denying the truth. I just find it contradictory in a sense. Aviartm (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Addition of WP:Technical tag

I've added the WP:Technical tag because the lead paragraph and section 1.1 dive directly into a lot of jargon, without providing a brief lay person's summary of the topic. We prob don't need more that two or three sentences to set the background and context. Happy to discuss any suggestions here. Tnx! jxm (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you. I added some informations for the uninitiated to the lead section per WP:BRD. Hope the edit helps at least a bit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

the last sentence in the opening paragraph

it hyperlinks to an external site. i've never seen this on any wikipedia article before, isnt it a rule violation of some sort? i feel like its better to simply have a little number at the end that links to the site like how it works everywhere else. cheers --11:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.56.179 (talk)

Unreliable sources, WP:FRINGE

Despite the consensus reached after a long discussion on the bitcoin talk page to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, certain editors seem intent on keeping this convoluted WP:FRINGE narrative about bitcoin "splitting" in the lead of this article. I notice numerous IP editors who have attempted to fix this confusing and POV wording have been reverted. Reference #2 used to justify this text is not a reliable source. It is a Forbes article written by a Bitcoin.com employee (who has a COI) which represents a fringe viewpoint and refers to bitcoin as "legacy" or "classic". The Bitcoin Gold article does not imply that bitcoin "split" (it quite clearly uses the term "hard fork"). CC Jtbobwaysf. Laurencedeclan (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: for sure it is a hard fork, should be many sources to support that. I hadn't seen this split narrative you referred to. I will keep an eye out for it, thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the lede per your comments. We will see how long it sticks. @David Gerard: maybe you could keep an eye on this issue as well, and suggest a course of action if it continues. Maybe bitcoin.com should be banned as an WP:RS for these bitcoin articles, as it is owned by Roger Ver who is a well known booster of Bitcoin Cash. Maybe you could add this issue to your patrol. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tidied up the wording slightly. Regarding "narrative", I was referring to these repeated reversions (of multiple editors) which push the idea that the original bitcoin chain "split": [13][14][15]. Laurencedeclan (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: "Despite the consensus reached after a long discussion on the bitcoin talk page to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork" - there are several issues with this claim of yours:

• The claim that the change of rules was classified as a hard fork is present in the WP:STATUSQUO text of the lead section
• The discussion concerning the contents of the Bitcoin article does not apply here.
• The available sources discern between rule change classification (such as soft fork versus hard fork) and its consequences - the chain splits or not

I shall prepare a related RfC to assess whether there is a consensus to mess up these notions or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, please ping us when the RfC is released. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion on the bitcoin talk page is relevant because it was about whether to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, or to say that bitcoin split. The former was decided on because that is how the majority of reliable sources explain the event. Re "chain splits", the majority of sources are quite happy using "hard fork" as a verb to describe a change in rules and a subsequent split. This is quite unambiguous and there is nothing being "messed up" here. You write that the term "hard fork" is jargon, but that does not justify erroneously claiming that there was a, I quote, "cryptocurrency split". A split means something breaking in two, but the parent chain is not affected in a hard fork. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know this isnt an WP:IRS, but this [16] might be useful for reading. I had never read about the two different terms Chain split and hard fork until I read this. I guess we have to go with whatever the majority of the sources say, and my WP:OR (aka guess) as of this moment in time is that I have read hard fork more.

Here i compare the google search results for "Bitcoin Hard Fork" [17] with 850,000 and "Bitcoin Chain Split" [18] with 622,000. Of interesting note is that google understands these are related subjects and ranks this Forbes article #1 [19] for Hard fork and ranks it #5 for Chain Split (even though the title is "What Will Happen At The Time Of The Bitcoin Hard Fork? - Forbes".

Certainly and in interesting subject for us editors here and I am happy to learn something in the process. Is this the section that had the debate about split vs. fork? Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section That said, it does appear this issue has been previously debated, so I am just making comments and it looks to me that the Bitcoin Cash treatment over at Bitcoin#History is ok, and the same treatment discussing hard forks should be used on this article for consistency purposes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

original author

@Ladislav Mecir: I noticed you reverted an edit [20] recently that said that the original author was Roger Ver. I too haven't seen any sources to support that claim. However, I also haven't seen any sources that verify that Satoshi Nakamoto is the author of Bitcoin Cash. I have seen [21] which is already used in the article that says the author is Amaury “Deadal Nix” Séchet. Bitcoin Magazine says:

A first software implementation of the Bitcoin Cash protocol, called Bitcoin ABC, was recently revealed by its lead developer, Amaury “Deadal Nix” Séchet at the Future of Bitcoin conference in Arnhem, the Netherlands. 

Séchet refers to himself at the Bitcoin ABC Benevolent Dictator [22], and he is often referred to as the Bitcoin ABC lead developer for example [23] and [24]. So I dispute this content. Certainly this article saying satoshi is the original author, when the artile's subject came to exist likely after his disappearance, is likely problematic on a number of levels. How is this issue handled on other forks of software, does linux have such and issue? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, Amaury "Deadal Nix" Séchet did not create Bitcoin ABC from first, he extended existing software, whose original author was Satoshi Nakamoto. For example, a Huffington Post article mentions Nakamoto as the original author. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Séchet is cited, and satoshi is uncited. Please add this huffpo citation if you have it, otherwise the content is uncited and subject to deletion. Our WP:OR about who created it is not good enough. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: care to comment on this issue? I cant find a single source that says that satoshi is the author of Bitcoin Cash, and the debate below covers the hardfork that created Bitcoin cash (content in dispute now) as well as a subsequent hardfork to modify Bitcoin Cash's difficultly system. There is also not a single mention of Bitcoin Cash over at the article Satoshi Nakamoto. For sure there is a POV pushing in the industry to say that Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin, is that what is going on right now on this article? Is this issue too controversial for us to touch? I suspect the normal thing would be to cover this in a controversy section on the page, but I haven't come accross sources that advocated Satoshi is the author of Bitcoin Cash, so how would we even create a controversy section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The most neutral formulation here would be to include both names in the infobox, similarly to how there are two ledger start fields (one for the genesis block and one for the fork block). Bitcoin Cash functions similarly enough to SN's original implementation that he can be considered an author, while Amaury Séchet has modified enough code to be considered the author of the fork (but not the author of the original code). Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted it for now in this edit [25] as well as deleting the other implementations from the infobox that lack sources and are not mentioned in the infobox. I am sure a debate will come of this, so we might as well discuss and add whatever fits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit [26] you added the huffpo source failed verification. This source is WP:UGC and the source states the disclaimer "This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email." I will remove this source and the content. Please find a RS for this claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: in this edit [27] you again added the huffpo source [28] that I challenged as clearly WP:UGC. You then added a second source that has an infobox [29] talking about Bitcoin, not Bitcoin Cash. I will ping a couple of uninvolved admins that are often in this crypto space @Jytdog: and @David Gerard: to see if they have opinions. It appears to me that you are pushing a WP:FRINGE WP:POV that Satoshi Nakamoto is the author of Bitcoin Cash, even though Bitcoin cash was created after Satoshi's dissappearance. I suggest you need need mulitple good RS to push this POV, certainly not UGC and a second source that doesn't say Satoshi is the author. Note another editor is claiming you are pushing another Fringe theory in the next talk page section down form this one! Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Genesis Block & Block #1

Currently the article uses the bitcoin dates in 2009 and doesn't cite any support of these dates. I challenge this content. I don't see much in a quick google search for bitcoin cash genesis block, other than [30] this. I deleted the content [31] and [32] Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference to a blockchain explorer which can be used to find the respective blocks. Other sources are available, but I think that this one suffices. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this block explorer to be considered a WP:RS for the purposes of determining this? Does any coin split by definition have the same genesis block as the legacy chain? 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As known, the Bitcoin Cash blockchain is publicly accessible. There are other explorers, the one mentioned is just one of them, but all show the same contents. There are other sources generally claiming that Bitcoin Cash uses identical blocks up until the split time, which is yet another confirmation that the old blocks of BCH and BTC are identical. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

idea forms text (BIP91)

@Ladislav Mecir: and @Laurencedeclan: i see you are editing some text and adding a source to text that says: "It was designed to force miners to vote for Segregated Witness." I removed the two sources on that sentence as they dont in any way support miners voting nor being forced to do something. I am not sure what the text means, so I left it. Thought we could discuss it here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Both sources claim that the blocks of miners not voting for SW shall be rejected. That enforces voting for SW. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

first "not voting" does not equal to "voting" and more important when i read the sources, neither referred to voting at all...find some other sources or correct the text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

By requiring the exact formulation of the source, you are being ridiculous and trying to force me to violate the copyright. Nevermind, I will restore the sourced info. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is the editor's responsibility to do the formulation (aka yours). It seems you are talking about voting, which is not something I have often read about. Is there voting in bitcoin? I changed it to "supporting," i guess you could also use the technical term signaling, but certainly, if you want to imply there is voting in bitcoin you need sources for that, otherwise it is WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources using "voting on Segregated Witness" instead of "signaling for Segregated Winess", let me mention [33] as an example. You are really being ridiculous and deleting a status quo information. Such an approach is not really constructive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

That source also doesn't refer to voting relating to bitcoin. It talks about slushpool doing something. "Voting" is not a statusquo term, first time I have seen it in the article(s), and if the concept is introduced it needs to be vetted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the source thoroughly enough. It is exactly what it is: the source uses the term: "vote on Segregated Witness" and "signal for Segregated Witness" interchangeably. Another source that does it is [34]. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This source you are referring to says :"Slush Pool will signal support for Segregated Witness by default, but users can opt out if they want. This solution isn’t quite ready yet at the moment, however. As a temporary solution, only users that “vote” in support of Bitcoin Core automatically vote for Segregated Witness." That refers to something that slushpool is doing internally in their pool. Who knows, the key point is it refers to slushpool, not bitcoin or bitcoin cash.

The second reference in the source says voting says "“No random attempts at changing BTC ... and also no SegWit indicators,” kano said when asked which software the pool supports. “So I guess that means ‘core’ without SegWit voting.”" Seems like they dont support segwit indicators. Refers to a lack of voting. A lack of voting doesn't evidence in any way that voting exists.

Neither of these in any way support the text you seek to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can also point at [35] saying "Of issue, Toomim said, is that miners use coinbase messages in blocks to include vital information for their business. This includes votes on various BIP proposals and bookkeeping details such as the fact they mined the block in which the coins were included." If you want to remain constructive, you really should refrain from deleting status quo information without any challenge at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This source also seems to not refer to voting. If you are having such trouble to substantiate the term "voting" then use another term. "Miners using coinbase messages..." is fine with me, and this is not voting. But you cant say miners using coinbase messages is voting, that is your WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Neither approach is kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"...source also seems to not refer to voting" - aha, now I see. The formulation "This includes votes on various BIP proposals..." seems to not refer to voting. Have a nice day. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this source is discussing slushpool and some mechanism that slushpool has internally on determining how slushpools customers wants them to signal (sounds like they let their customers vote). Am I incorrect? All I have ever read is that miners signal for a BIP and after the BIP activates they choose to follow it, or not. I suppose a mining pool must have its own mechanism for determining how it will signal to best reflect the interests of each of the pool's customers. Clearly a pool doesn't signal for each customer, as that would not be feasible, as I understand they only could signal for the blocks they actually mine (I might also be wrong here, please advise). Overall, the fact that we are discussing one source should reflect that this concept of voting is a WP:FRINGE concept within this space (or it might not even exist and is simply WP:SYNTH, as if the term voting was mainstream there would be dozens of sources on this. Maybe someone else will chime in on this subject. It seems that we should be discussing this subject on Bitcoin scalability problem and do something there for BIP91, and then use that treatment across the various articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I added this text [36] over at the scability problem article. Maybe we could get into a constructive discussion based upon what BIP91 actually is, rather than discussing whether not it is voting, which it seems the sources don't support anyhow. Feel free to edit the text I added over there, I just added something really to bring the sources over and start a discussion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Am I incorrect?" - Of course! You are misrepresenting the source. How can a coinbase be just "internal" when it is in the public blockchain is beyond my understanding. Nevermind, I do not think it is productive to continue this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on split notion use in the 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.

---

Should the article mention the "split" notion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation The sources discussing blockchain rule changes mention that there are rule changes that are backwards compatible in the sense that the old software recognizes the blocks created by the new software as valid. Such rule changes are called soft forks by the respective sources. Then there are rule changes that are not backwards compatible in the sense that the old software does not recognize the blocks created by the new software as valid. Such rule changes are called hard forks by the respective sources. Specifically for Bitcoin Cash, the related rule change (the increase of block size limit to 8 MB) is classified as a hard fork, since any block bigger than 1 MB is not considered valid by the old software.

The available sources mention that a rule change can cause a chain split if some users continue using the old software, while other users start using the new software and a block is created that is considered valid by one of the software versions but invalid by the other. If, on the other hand, all users start using the new software, the chain does not split. Examples of both result types—when the chain did split (Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Classic), as well as when the chain did not split (bitcoin rule changes preceding Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Metropolis hark fork, replacement of EDA by DAA) are mentioned by the available sources. (See the citations below.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support
  • This status quo version of the article citing this Fortune article mentions the split notion.
  • The sources discussing network rule changes such as this CoinDesk article discern between types of rule changes such as a hard fork or a soft fork and their consequences, claiming that the rule changes (whether a hard fork or a soft fork) either can cause a chain split or not.
  • Sources such as The New York Times, Fortune, CNN, The Telegraph, CoinTelegraph, CoinDesk, The Merkle, TechCrunch, Express, CNBC, arsTechnica, The Verge, Slate, Business Insider and Bloomberg mention the chain split in relation to Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is this an RfC on whether to revert back to this confusing revision, which multiple anonymous editors tried to change before getting reverted with the justification "WP:STATUSQUO"? If so, I oppose what is being suggested here. If the proposal is on replacing "hard fork" with "split", then this RfC is basically a rehash of the discussion that happened on the bitcoin talk page where it was agreed to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork. I had already demonstrated over there that the majority of sources call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, and I don't have the time to write it up all over again. I will put this here though, taken from the official website's FAQ (bitcoincash.org): "... Yes. Bitcoin Cash is the continuation of the Bitcoin project as peer-to-peer digital cash. It is a fork of the Bitcoin blockchain ledger, with upgraded consensus rules that allow it to grow and scale." Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is not about replacing the notion of a hard fork by the notion of a split. That is why any comparision of the number of sources using the notion of a hard fork to the number of sources using the notion of a split is not relevant. See also the threaded discussion below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Then why did you state above in your support that you wanted to revert to an earlier revision of the lead? A revision which replaces the simple "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" with "The bitcoin cryptocurrency experienced a split and one chain coming out of this...". In any case I would oppose talking about chain splits in this article because the vast majority of sources describe what happened on August 1 as a hard fork and so does the official website's FAQ. Laurencedeclan (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you find out that both the notion of a hard fork as well as the notion of a split should be used per the available sources. Per the sources, the notions describe separate and distinct aspects of the cryptocurrency. To your argument that "official website FAQ" does not use the notion - Wikipedia is not bound to use only the notions found in the FAQ. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose your argument that "multiple anonymous editors tried to change" the text as irrelevant. The fact is that multiple anonymous editors also tried to rename this article and the cryptocurrency it describes. That is not a reason why it must or should be done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Support that both the terms chain split and hard fork should be used. It sounds to me that a hard fork results in a chain split. Maybe these terms are new and definitions are vague (we are talking less than a few years for these terms). How about this "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a hard fork, aka chain split, of the cryptocurrency bitcoin." Or could also be "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a chain split that resulted from a hard fork of the cryptocurrency bitcoin". Either seems to get the point accross to me, or another suggested formultation might do a good job as well. I am opposed to these formulations discussed above that have promotional text that for sample say 'bitcoin cash is an upgraded version of bitcoin,' 'bitcoin gold is a continuation of satoshi's vision that it does xyz,' ect. There are already 4 forks that I have read about, cash, gold, united, and segwit2x. On a side note please take a look at SegWit2x#Launch_as_a_new_currency and comment over there if this segwit2x text needs help, or blanking entirely. But in general I think we need to do our best above to explain that a hard fork did occur and a chain split resulted and that created bitcoin cash AND we need to attempt to limit the promotional text that says 'this new fork is a new and improved version of satoshi's vision' (which sounds a lot like a 'new and improved Rembrandt/Picasso'). I think I do not support this [37] that says "the goal was to increase the number of transactions" unless we can find good sources that say that, as the goal might have been to lower transaction fees, or to give miners more control. Thus there might have been multiple goals and I dont think we editors should propose to know which goal prevails. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I prefer the "Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a chain split that resulted from a hard fork of the cryptocurrency bitcoin." variant. It looks more explanatory to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. 'I do not support this ... that says "the goal was to increase the number of transactions" unless we can find good sources...' - there are many sources that can be used to confirm that claim, some of them already present in the article. Note that the claim describes what the goal of the rule change was, not whether the change succeeded in achieving it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue is i believe it is likely that there were multiple goals and I think we should skip the goal in the lede and then in the article we address all the goals. There should also be sources that state that the miners were opposed to second layer (segwit fix), others were looking for lower fees, and others looking for more transactions (as you mentioned). But it seems to be clear they were not interested in more off chain transactions (per lightning) and what they wanted was more on chain transactions and maybe less off chain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have added a little on the reasons for the creation of coindesk, and move it into the history section. There is no reason to put 'the reason' in the lede when there seem to be multiple reasons, see [38]. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot - not enough info in the original request. Please be respectful of other editor’s time. What specifically do you want help with? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: might be a good idea to put this explanation in the top part, so others see it that are coming from the bot. It also took me reading over a week or so to understand of your comments above this RfC as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still unsure of the difference between split and fork in this context, and absent any compelling argument otherwise, support just leaving the word fork, which is explained with a Wiki-link to the hard fork section. Using the term bitcoin split could crate confusion with when a coin splits 91-1 [[39]]. Of greater utility would be having something in the lede that explains what the original bitcoin was called to distinguish it from Bitcoin Cash. I gave up after a quick search left me unable to determine if it was Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Classic or something else. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment "absent any compelling argument otherwise" - so, you did not even try to read and see that both fork and split terms are used by the sources meaning different things, and want to censor the use of the word split based on such a poor justification as "absent any compelling argument" resulting from no attempt to read any source at all? That does not look encyclopedic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Note also that the source you cite mentions a stock split, which is something else than a blockchain/cryptocurrency split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to badger editors who don't immediately agree with you - I'm saying I'm not following the argument and this discussion doesn't help. I understand that there are two different meanings of split here - I included the link to illustrate another problem with using the word split. You're the one asking for feedback - surely you can make your case better? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support -- More information is better than less, and details about how forks are performed is informative. All that is really needed is suitable references and citations for the technology for what constitutes hard and soft. It should be included, yes. Damotclese (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the article should talk about chain splits, but I believe that Ladislav wants to use this RfC to change the lead from "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" to something along the lines of "Bitcoin Cash is a chain split". To clarify, do you support changing the lead? Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"I do not disagree that the article should talk about chain splits" - Glad you changed your mind, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I only opposed changing the first sentence of the lead, which should state "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork of...", reflecting the majority of both official (see website) and independent reliable sources. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"I only opposed changing the first sentence of the lead, which should state "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork" - that sentence was opposed by an editor correctly marking it as using unexplained jargon. See older discussions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support; as Damotclese said, the more information the better. Bitcoin is a topic of intense public interest – and a great deal of confusion and incorrect assumptions, due to the highly technical nature of cryptocurrency. Be specific and precise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as written, but don't reinterpret or mis-use the result The RFC in essence says "should mention" , but such a brief vague statement leaves it open to a lot of apparently controversial mis-uses. So it's simply "should mention", nothing more. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I support North8000's take on this here. Well said. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have a couple of points I raised above on the talk page, so I will add them here.

• Here i compare the google search results for "Bitcoin Hard Fork" [40] with 850,000 and "Bitcoin Chain Split" [41] with 622,000. Of interesting note is that google understands these are related subjects and ranks this Forbes article #1 [42] for Hard fork and ranks it #5 for Chain Split (even though the title is "What Will Happen At The Time Of The Bitcoin Hard Fork? - Forbes".
• Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section had this same split/fork discussion and I understand the consenus was to use fork. Why is this being rehashed here? Has something changed?

What are your thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This concern of yours has been addressed in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text. In there, it was claimed that the rule change increasing the block size limit to 8MB is classified as a hard fork, and that in this case, the change led to cryptocurrency split as confirmed by the sources. It does not make any sense to compare the numbers of occurrences of the hard fork classification (which should be present in the article anyway and is present in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text), exactly like it does not make sense to delete the claim that the controversy related to rule change led to cryptocurrency split as is also present in the WP:STATUSQUO version of the text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You said statusquo 3x in one paragraph. Is this WP:SQS? If hardfork term is being used on Bitcoin, why is split supposed to be used on Bitcoin Cash, I think MOS:ARTCON should apply. This all sounds pretty nuanced to me, maybe you could just explain why split is better so that we can understand it please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Is this WP:SQS?" - funny that you mention it. The fact is that the WP:STATUSQUO version is not in the article now, since you changed it. I never reverted your edit. Hope you do remember? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"maybe you could just explain why split is better so that we can understand it please" - you should read what I wrote above in response to your question. You should also remember that both the hard fork and split notions were used before you rewrote the text, and that is what this RfC is about. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So is your assertion that a hard fork results in a chain split? This is at least what I read on that medium post I posted above, and it sounded similar to what you were saying. For me this is all a bit of nuance, and I am not really understanding the point of it, and I dont understand why the issue is being rehashed from the discussion over Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_Cash_in_“History”_section so that is why I was asking. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"So is your assertion that a hard fork results in a chain split?" - not necessarily. Per the cited sources, a hard fork may result in a chain split if some users continue using the old rules while other users start using the new ones. If, on the other hand, all users stop using the old rules and start using the new ones, the chain will not split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So this means that a hard fork could occur, but a split might not occur. So it sounds to me that a hard fork is like a software update. I can think of some examples of hard forks, such as recent ethereum Metropolis hark fork (not the DAO fork) that didn't create a chain split. "Chain Split" sounds like a reasonable term to me. How would we treat Bitcoin Gold? Is this also a chain split? Wondering, as I think we should get a standard language and use it across all the articles, rather than debating one by one. Let's see what some others have to say. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"How would we treat Bitcoin Gold? Is this also a chain split?" - Yes! One of the sources cited here mentions Bitcoin Gold as a split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: do you wish to comment on this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laurencedeclan: this is in response to your oppose vote above, as I thought I would try to keep the threaded discussion down here in this section. It initially appears that Ladislav explains that a fork may or may not cause a chain split. In the case of Ethereum in some cases it did not cause a chain split, and in one case it did (ethereum classic). It also seems that the segwit soft fork did not cause a chain split (i supppose that is by defifition of a sf) and in the case of bitcoin cash this intential hard fork did cause a chain split. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note "... soft fork did not cause a chain split (i supppose that is by defifition of a sf)" - this is slightly off topic, but independent reliable sources claim otherwise, meaning that a soft fork can also cause a chain split when the old software creates a new block that is not acceptable by new software. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• This RfC is now being used to justify reverting any edits to the lead, despite it having zero relevance (the text of the RfC is about including the "split notion"). Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

• (Summoned by bot). Comment: I urge caution as much of the article will escape the target Wikipedia users' comprehension and be subject to a technical warning. For example, the first paragraph in the "Idea forms" section is incomprehensible to most readers, even those with a technical background. Wikipedia is not intended to be a technical manual. I recommend liberal use of links to more focused discussion of particular technical issues.--Rpclod (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

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.

Page title should be changed

Title should be changed from "Bitcoin cash" to "Bcash" as bcash is not bitcoin and has nothing at all to do with bitcoin. Keeping the title as is only leads to unneccessary confusion; we don't call North Korea a Democratic People's Republic.

Additionally, the article needs further context from the creators of Bcash, such as this illuminating quote from bcash co-founder Jihan Wu: https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/731902686379933697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.98.80 (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your suggestion. Note, however, that the majority of sources (cited in the article) claim otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This is actually a horrible suggestion, as there is nothing derogatory or inflammatory about using "North Korea". "Bcash" on the other hand started as a smear term used in a social media campaign to redirect users towards sources controlled by its opponents and to defame Bitcoin Cash. This was done in spite of the Bitcoin Cash community having decided to add "cash" at the end of the name in order minimize any such confusions, even though many Bitcoin Cash users consider it the rightful heir of the name "Bitcoin" alone for more strictly adhering to the design paper. Several other coins already existed that used "Bitcoin" as part of their names, without adhering to that deisgn, even building on the original code or having the genesis block. Bitcoin Cash does this and has as its explicit aim to be the Bitcoin described by Satoshi Nakamoto. The neutral and factual choice is to title it "Bitcoin Cash" and nothing else. 81.226.12.42 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on altname Bcash

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

The lede should contain the often used altname Bcash and read:

Bitcoin Cash (also known as Bcash) is a cryptocurrency.

MOS:LEADALT applies the following test: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." WP:SOAP applies the following test: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." The following mainstream WP:RS have used the term bcash:

“the new Bitcoin spinoff, Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,” Fortune (magazine)

"Bitcoin Cash, now also known as "Bcash" Forbes

“Aurélien Menant, founder and CEO of Gatecoin, a regulated bitcoin and ethereum token exchange based in Hong Kong, says parts of the community are referring to the new token as Bcash.”  CNBC 

The following industry WP:RS have used the term bcash

"Throughout the past month, several major Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex have either listed or referred to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash in several instances." CoinTelegraph

"For the past couple of days, Bitcoin Cash (Bcash or BCH) was more profitable to mine than Bitcoin (BTC)." Bitcoin Magazine

The above sources demonstrate a pattern of usage of the term Bcash in both mainstream and industry publications.

Survey

• Support I support use of the alt name Bcash as there is significant use of the altname in both mainstream and industry reliable sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

References

The RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief. It also contains no timestamp, so that the first part of the survey is copied to the RfC listings, which could skew the responses. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Jtbobwaysf would you please pull the RfC, or allow me to frame this in a neutral manner? Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree - both the neutrality and briefness are missing in this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Redrose & Ladislav I agree I botched this. @Jytdog: thanks for your offer to re-frame. I will PULL RfC it and watch and learn a bit here. Clearly I failed to make it brief or neutral. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

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.