Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Proposed correction of incorrect and heavily biased "Bcash" statement

I am proposing that the incorrect and highly biased statement in the "History" section, "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash.", should be amended to something like the following:

"Although detractors of Bitcoin Cash continuously attempt to disparage the cryptocurrency by foisting the name-calling term "Bcash" upon it, its proponents universally dispute that the term "Bcash" refers to BCH. In point of fact, the name "Bcash" only officially refers to: 1) a fullnode Bitcoin Cash implementation built with JavaScript/NodeJS (the Bitcoin Cash version of bcoin), 2) a Brazilian payment solutions company (that may now be in the process of re-branding), 3) a gaming token ICO, 4) A Greek Bitcoin ATM company, and 5) a currently stalled Zcash-based cryptocurrency project. No users of the term "Bcash" to refer to Bitcoin Cash can point to any official sources from the BCH project/community as an origination of the appellation."

As references, I'd submit the following:

https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-wiki-article-suffers-from-edit-warring-and-vandalism/

https://bitsonline.com/hamel-bitcoin-cash-scam/

https://www.coinbureau.com/news/bitcoin-cash-vs-bcash-war-names-continues-crypto-community/

https://ambcrypto.com/antpool-burning-bitcoin-cash-bch-community-calls-it-propaganda/

https://blog.purse.io/from-one-to-two-bitcoin-cash-bad5ec8539f4

http://bcoin.io/

https://news.bitcoin.com/purse-io-adds-native-bch-support-and-launches-bcash/

https://bcash.com.br/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180110183028/http://bcash.games:80/

https://bcash.gr/en/

https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb

Krellkraver (talk)

Hi, none of the sources you have provided are WP:RS on this article. Please see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I submit that none of the current sources for the use of "Bcash" term are WP:RS either, as none provides a reference to the source of the term's usage. I'll admit the topic is clearly disputed, and as such I'd also support just removing the, "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash.", sentence entirely. Krellkraver (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources listed are all mainstream high-quality RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And as I said, none provides a point of origination for using the term "Bcash" to refer to Bitcoin Cash, so none is a reliable source for the statement in question. Or can you point out a single relevant part of any of those references that actually applies?

On the contrary, several of the sources I listed are primary sources that "Bcash" is an actual name for the listed entities. No such factual statement can be found in any of the sources purportedly backing the "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash." statement. It's purely name calling propaganda. Wikipedia, as a purveyor of fact, should avoid such biased claims. Krellkraver (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The bcash altname content is supported by the sources and has been discussed many times on this talk page. We don't use primary sources on this article to push a POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's becoming exceedingly clear that you are the one pushing a POV. None of the primary sources I listed was presenting a position or opinion, but simply demonstrating the project or entity's actual _NAME_. None of the references you have provided can provide a like source for the "Bcash" term being officially used to refer to Bitcoin Cash, and thus the inclusion of the "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash" statement is the POV being pushed here BY YOU. Krellkraver (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The article does not state what source first used the term Bcash. We also have been unable to find any WP:RS that speak to any sort of bias in the altname as you suggest. Happy editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Every one of the sources I provided is more on-point than any that you listed. Moreover, what is this "altname" that you keep bringing up, and why does it have any place in a factual Wikipedia article? The fact of the matter is, the "Bcash" term is a disparaging and organized name calling brigade by Bitcoin Cash's detractors. That some "journalists" in the mainstream media have produced very poorly researched (or just highly biased), and thus not "reliable", articles does nothing to dispute the actual facts of the issue. Using the term "Bcash" to refer to Bitcoin Cash is not just POV and biased, but confusing, incorrect, and makes the article flat out wrong. Krellkraver (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• The OP proposes to change a simple statement with no adjectives and plain nouns, with many sources (WP:OVERCITEd, actually), to a statement overloaded with adjectives and colorful nouns and verbs, sourced to absolute garbage sources, and says that the proposed content is "less biased". No. It is absurd on its face. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

From the above discussion with @Jtbobwaysf, it's already clear that the current sentence, "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash," is not only disputable, but factually incorrect. @Jtbobwaysf already refers to it as an "altname", a concept that should have no place in a factual Wikipedia article. If the text of my proposed revision does not suit you, the offending sentence should simply be removed, since the actual projects and entities that have chosen the name "Bcash" do not include the Bitcoin Cash cryptocurrency itself.

If you prefer simpler, but at least correct revised text, I propose: "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes incorrectly referred to as "Bcash"." Krellkraver (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Uh, no. You have neither provided evidence use is disputable nor any sort of policy that would suggest we editors will make a judgement of fact (I don't think we make such judgements...) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've provided sources, both reputable and primary, that actual projects and entities officially use and claim the "Bcash" name. No such sources can be provided that the Bitcoin Cash cryptocurrency or any of its proponents claims or uses the "Bcash" name to refer to BCH, because that's simply false. So the purportedly "reliable" sources listed in support of the "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash" statement are all examples of poor and erroneous journalism. The inclusion of such a false statement in this Wikipedia article discredits the entire enterprise. Krellkraver (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

the sources you have proposed are not RS here.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? At least they are verifiably, factually correct. Unlike the sources provided purportedly in support of the false "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash" statement. Those only show that lay-authors for mainstream media often get more things wrong about cryptocurrency than they get right. Krellkraver (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I posted above a link to the RfC that is in force on this article relating to sourcing. Here it is Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Industry rag sourcing"? What a horribly written proposal. No matter. Then the sources in support of the false "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash" are equally "rag" and false as my primary sources have consistently and repeatedly indicated, and therefore are not "reliable" in any sense. The false statement should be corrected as I have specified, or even better, simply removed. Krellkraver (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN, the above sources you have provided are garbage and have no place on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that this discussion is continuing, I still believe that there is a need for a neutral treatment of the term Bcash within this article. This has been discussed before in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash where the final decision reached was not to mention the term in the lead of the article. However mentioning the name in a single sentence with no coverage of the derogatory nature is not a neutral solution. I am aware of the issue of reliable sources for this claim, this is a problem that cryptocurrency related articles face as the only sources with anything more than very general coverage of cryptocurrencies are industry sources, and now apparently forbidden as sources on this article. I don't think that an article that contains less information is useful, and I'm unconvinced that mainstream news sources are better sources here. They lack sufficient knowledge of the topic to provide reliable insight. This article now contains less background information, and is less informative than it was previously, due to wholesale gutting by overzealous editing. We need a whitelist of acceptable industry sources. The inclusion of the opinion that the name is derogatory can also be backed up without a reliable source that meets the now strict guidelines: "some have accused the name Bcash of being a derogatory attack", this can be backed up with an unreliable source as the existence of the source is proof that this view is held by some people. The fact that the opinions exist and can be referenced is proof that the opinion exists. This was pointed out last time this debacle was discussed, but was selectively ignored.Omcnoe (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Article really needs a more nuanced perspective on "bcash"

The term "BCash" has often been used as pejorative and much of the Bitcoin Cash community sees it this way. This deserves at least a fleeting mention. It's not just one person, as the Roger Ver memes insinuate, that just out of nowhere explodes when they hear this name. Not sure what a viable source for this would be, but the it's pretty clear if you talk to the actual Bitcoin Cash community that this is considered a smear.

78.69.42.11 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page about this issue. As you mentioned, we are looking for a viable source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source is not required if the statement is reformulated in such a way that presents it as an opinion, in that case the existence of a source, even unreliable, with that opinion is proof that the opinion is held by some people.Omcnoe (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting better documentation on fees

It is stated as a fact that the fees of Bitcoin Cash are smaller than those of Bitcoin, but that may well be misleading. The transaction fees of both coins are incredibly hard to calculate, as it changes from moment to moment depending on many factors. It is thust not something you can easily compare. Fees remain an expression of both the fiat price of the coin and the volume of transactions that are being made with them. However, Bitcoin (BTC) both have a much higher dollar price (in fact it's currently over 10 times the price of BCH), and it has a higher volume of transactions. Thus, considering that they have very similar ways of calculating the transaction fees, it stands to reason that Bitcoin (BTC) should have a higher transaction fee out of completely natural causes both in terms of fiat and on technical terms. Thus, if BCH saw a similar usage and price increase, it stands to reason that it would indeed reach similar price levels for their transaction fees, but instead proponents use this difference as a way to claim that BCH is "better" than BTC. There should thus be something documenting the purportedly higher fees of Bitcoin in a better way, for instance in a way that does not use fiat currency as the measuring stick. In fact a far better way to calculate the difference in fees would be as a percentage of the amount being transacted. That would shed more light on which coin is actually cheaper to make a transaction with, instead of using a dollar price completely subject to supply and demand, instead of the technical limitations of the coins. Until that documentation is found, this Wikipedia article remains woefully subjective. --Kebman (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contribution. You wrote: "It is stated as a fact that the fees of Bitcoin Cash are smaller than those of Bitcoin" - where exactly? I did not find that statement in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely. As long as blocks are not full any 1 sat/byte tx will be in the next block. Therefore every BCH user has a guarantee that a 1 sat/byte fee will get him in the the next block. When blocks are full you don't have such guarantee. BTC has been running at 80% and higher capacity, BCH at under 0.5%. On a regular basis BTC sees peaks which means there is no space for all the tx to get in the next block, thus users start trying to outbid each others because miners will mine the higher paying tx first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.149.149 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

coverage of bchsv/bchabc

It seems to me that the subject of this article has split into two tokens, now referred to as BCHABC and BCHSV. I have looked online and i dont see much about ABC. I guess we should cover both in this same article. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that what you refer to as "BCHABC" is more commonly called "Bitcoin Cash" and it uses a "BCH" ticker (we need sources, of course), and what you refer to as "BCHSV" is more commonly called "Bitcoin SV" and it uses a "BSV" ticker nowadays. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I was suggesting we could cover both BSV and BCHABC on this article, until there is sufficient RS for BSV to warrant its own separate article. I think we had a similar approach for Ethereum Classic for a little while before the Wikipedia articles forked as well. I suppose our articles will fork a little bit more slowly than the tokens, as we have to wait for RS (and I havent seen much in way of RS for BSV). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

bloomberg motivations

@Ladislav Mecir: I readded the content here [1] that you deleted. According to my reading of the source, Bloomberg stated this almost word for word. This text is interesting as it sheds light on the motivations behind the fork, an interesting subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In the article you wrote: "Bloomberg stated the two sides were fighting over which faction would be able to make changes to the software for its own benefit, gain better developers, the ability to gain influence of the coin's price, and attract more miners to their two respective group's mining pools." This misrepresents what Bloomberg said. One thing is that the winning faction might get those benefits (that is a prediction, and it did not happen yet). The other is that there are other sources mentioning other reasons, not just predictions, such as block size limit change mentioned in another source, etc. Also, and that is the core of your misrepresentation, Bloomberg never said that those are the reasons why the factions are fighting. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I tried to summarize it on first pass but since you claim I mispepresented the the text, I instead added it in blockquote here [2]. This is one of the most notable contested blockchain splits and the reaction/opinion from major press is certainly encyclopedic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Now, when you put in a full quote, it is obvious that it is a prediction. As such it should not be present in the article per WP:CRYSTALBALL. (Note that the prediction did not take place yet, and it is questionable whether it will take place in the future.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg's statement is an observation of the token split process at the time it occured. Maybe some other editors will chime in, it is pretty obvious you are opposed to the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg's statement is a prediction, and they corrected their prediction as soon as on 23 November, stating: "Bitcoin Cash wars end..." In addition to that, in the article they admit that there is no "winner" in the sense they predicted, and that it actually may be declared a loss for both factions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Genesis block v3

@Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the disputed genesis block content here [3]. This same content has been discussed [4] and [5]. The POV you are pushing is not supported by the source. First, find a source that supports your claim, then if debate it on this talk page (not the other way around). The source you are using here says 'the two bitcoins share the same history', it doesn't say that they share the same genesis block, that should be obvious. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

suggested word addition

"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash.[13]"

suggested change:

"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes pejoratively referred to as Bcash.[13]"

This provides additional context and accuracy to unbiased individuals reading this article. Those who see Bitcoin Cash adhering more to the original bitcoin white paper more than Bitcoin Core, might refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin (Cash). Should that be noted in the article too to give even more context? Just some suggestions. Cheers and Limitless Peace. Michael Ten (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Since I can see this being a controversial change, it is not supported by WP:CK and a source is required. Perhaps this one will be fit. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Dr-Bracket's source will do. 84percent (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Will we be taking a position that the term is pejorative from this single source? Shall we also assume the other sources are all pejorative? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In fairness, it is common knowledge. I just opted for one strong source rather than a WP:OVERKILL. Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is WP:OR. This bcash content (and to a larger extent this article in general) is the subject of regular POV edits and has WP:CITEBUNDLE, thus there will be no harm to add additional sources if you have them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are some examples of lower-grade sources, one from crowdfundinsider and one from coindesk. Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

we dont use those sources on this article, please see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#RfC_to_tighten_sourcing_on_this_article. The verge source is an excellent one. i added that source to the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@Dr-Bracket: in this edit [6] you add the POV that only detractors use the term bcash (which you have not supported by sources, other than the verge source). @Ladislav Mecir: in this series of edits [7] you again push the POV relating to the use of the bcash name. The source you have cited don't substantiate the claims you have made. Where does it say how Antonopolus or Ver refer the article's subject (as bcash or bitcoin cash, or whatever else)? Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Regarding my edit, The Verge is a very strong source, as noted above. For what it's worth, it's also worth noting this isn't a statement refuted by other sources. Beyond that, the interview on crowdfundinsider (not used in the article, but still warranted for this discussion) quite vividly shows that "Bcash" is used and frequently taken as an insult to the project's proponents. I think at least that much is common knowledge; the source was just added for the article's wellbeing. Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the verge source is good. But we are not going to use one source to imply that all the other sources (maybe 10+) all forgot to mention the term is pejorative. Next, we don't consider non-rs (coin mags). I did add a section [8] relating to the controversy. We need more RS for this, as a whole section on one source is iffy. But it is good that we discuss this controversy finally, as it seems to be core to this article's subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you wrote: "Where does it say how Antonopolus or Ver refer the article's subject (as bcash or bitcoin cash, or whatever else)?"

• in relation to Antonopoulos, the source contains this text: "Antonopoulos finds this sort of infighting aggravating. “The bottom line is that the world is dominated by closed monopolistic, state-owned, manipulated, controlling, surveillance-based currencies that pose a fundamental existential threat to democracy and liberty in the world,” he said. “We are at a crossroads and the crossroads is not between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.”", confirming that Antonopoulos does use the "Bitcoin Cash" name.
• in relation to Ver, the source contains this text: "In early April, a moderator at the Deconomy conference in Seoul asked, “Why does there have to be such animosity between Bitcoin and Bitcoin [Cash]?” The panel discussion at the Deconomy conference is available on the Internet. Roger Ver, introducing himself said "...I fully support Bitcoin Cash..." confirming in his own words the claim that he is a Bitcoin Cash advocate and that he uses the name "Bitcoin Cash" for the cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Editors do not make the inferences you are suggesting. The source didnt say it, so don't try to pretend otherwise. It is a good source for this drama discussion. But dont pretend there is some discussion of the bcash altname hiding here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with the edit, no problem at all. But you are the only one, and the sources claim otherwise. They specifically confirm the text I introduced and other editors taking part in this discussion support as accurate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We must be reading something different... I don't see where it says anything about those two people preferring one term or the other. One of these other 'editors' you are referring to appears to be a WP:SPA. If you are simply seeking to insert the pejorative text, the sources don't yet support it (there is only one RS). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To preserve the text deleted by Jtbobwaysf, the proposed version of the text is:

The "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates such as Roger Ver, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, users, miners or people trying to remain neutral such as Andreas Antonopoulos. Its detractors refer to it as "Bcash", "Btrash" or simply "a scam".

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I support Ladislav Mecir's version above. However, perhaps "detractors" is too strong a word; I am also happy with "critics", or simply "Others sometimes refer to it as..." 84percent (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, "detractors" is s strong word, but confirmed by the independent secondary source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see. In that case, I have no issue with your proposal. Thank you. 84percent (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This single verge source doesn't change the fact that he bulk of the sources dont support this POV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The other sources simply do not give this information. In no way they contradict it. Moreover, the sources you put in the article and maintain are as reliable as, e.g. The Next Web, i.e. unreliable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We have been back and forth on this issue for months. It seems to me that 10+ sources use it as an alt-name and now you have one that says the altname is derogatory. Let's see if we can find a few more that also agree with this position. If you don't want to wait for that, then do an RfC or ask an uninvolved editor to give their opinion (as you and I have made our opinions well known on these pages). FYI, 84 percent is a supposed new account (an experienced editor after one week of editing) yet a talk page full of edit warring issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect Jtbobwaysf, please avoid personal remarks and check WP:DBN. Yes, I am a new editor, and I regrettably became involved in politically-contentious articles like WikiLeaks, etc. Also, with respect, it is common knowledge to people within Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash communities that "bcash" is a derogatory term. 84percent (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: can you weigh in on this issue which is that Ladislav is pushing for a position change on Bcash alt-name. He has an RS now to support the POV and a new editor User_talk:84percent banging the Bitcoin Cash drum in support. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

So "banging the Bitcoin Cash drum" is now the politically correct expression for "using independent sources"? Also note that your sources as reliable as The Next Web that you maintain in the article knowing their "quality" somehow "confirm that the Bitcoin Cash name is contentious", while, according to your own formulation, the "Bcash" name is "sometimes (perhaps not contentiously) used"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Is your point that thenextweb source is not an RS? Feel free to delete it... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Is your point that thenextweb source is not an RS?" - of course! "Feel free to delete it..." - No, thank you! I already did with a justification and with you restoring it again immediately! I do not want to take part in this edit warring. As far as the usability of your other sources is examined, especially when the goal is to confirm your claim that the "Bitcoin Cash name is contentious", none of them looks usable to me, in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are advocating now. Do you want to remove the source, or you prefer to remove the word contentious? I would think all the debates that go on this talk page a pretty much the definition of contentious, can we use talk page discussions as an RS? ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"I dont understand..." - it would be best if you read the above discussed text. In contrast to your "...can we use talk page discussions as an RS?" that is contradictory to WP:IRS, I proposed a text that actually is supported by reliable sources, not just made up. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I deleted the nextweb source per your objection to it. I am starting to recall we discussed this nextweb source, right? Relating to the proposed word addition, I think that one source against all the rest is off-base. Maybe someone uninvolved will chime in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not "one source against all" case, this is one source agains nothing, as you still refuse to hear. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I hear you and i disagree. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@Jtbobwaysf: Please don't revert the change any longer. 84percent, Michael_Ten, Dr-Bracket and Ladislav_Mecir all agree that your wording is non-neutral. Whereas you are the only person banging the bcash drum. Perhaps try an Rfc to get more eyes; in the meantime, there is rough consensus (four versus one) in opposition to your version, for the reasons stated above. Thanks! 84percent (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I reverted to the historical version created an RfC below. Agree more eyes on this article are necessary. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@84percent: in this edit [9] you have edited content that is the subject of an open RfC, which is not allowed. Please self-revert. You should also not touch the disputed content until the RfC is closed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Hi, there is an RfC above Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_about_Bcash_altname where it seems the RfC was removed by the legobot here [10]. Maybe the RfC should be extended (or closed by an uninvolved editor) first? Please also feel free to let me know if the admin help tag was wrong as well, dont know the procedure here. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The RfC tag was removed because the usual time for that elapsed. If you want it closed you can post a note at WP:ANRFC. You'll instructions on how to do that on the page. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Genisis Block v4

@Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the genesis block content here [11]. This content you have added many times before and we have discussed on talk here [12] and [13] and [14]. The newest source that you have provided says: "The process, known as a hard fork, meant both versions of bitcoin shared the same blockchain history up until that date but from that point on would be two entirely separate entities." There is no source that I have seen that says that bitcoin cash has a ledger start date prior to the creation of the article's subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, the cited independent reliable source specifically discusses the Genesis (note that it is not "Genisis") block. The article brings more information on the discussed blockchains than that. Since these informations are notable and reliably sourced, we should not delete them from the article together with the citation as you seem to propose to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to show anything relating to the genesis block, and I have reverted it. You have been pushing this POV for a long time without a source and this is a continuation of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That is obviously wrong, and your deletion of the citation is not encyclopedic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: care to comment on this? Or do you suggest to just do an RfC on it? Thanks? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Should Bitcoin SV have its own article?

Draft:Bitcoin SV was submitted recently, but I believe it should be discussed here first whether to split this off of this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, nah, it's too soon to reopen discussion on this. Nothing's really changed except that it's being delisted this week. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It was delisted from where? 71.3.195.32 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It would be good if it had its own article, but we need WP:RS for it, as it seems that it is not notable except in relation to its split from bitcoin cash. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about Bcash altname

The consensus is for B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not (diff).

Cunard (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) asked me here to review my close. DannyS712 (talk · contribs) previously closed the RfC and then self-reverted his close after discussion with Ladislav Mecir here. Here is a revised RfC close:
  1. The consensus is that "[Bitcoin Cash] is sometimes referred to as Bcash" should be used instead of "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates ... [and] detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'."

     Editors found that option A's formulation is not neutral in saying the "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by its advocates and neutral people while the "Bcash" name is used by detractors. That is because editors found that aside from The Verge article, the sources say that Bcash is another name used to refer to Bitcoin Cash and do not say that it is largely detractors who refer to the cryptocurrency as Bcash.

     Editors found Option B to be preferable because it takes a neutral position.

     Markbassett (talk · contribs)'s nuanced position is worth considering:

     Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

     There is no prejudice against a new RfC that incorporates Markbassett's suggestion in noting that (1) the "Bcash" name is used without any negative meaning to refer to Bitcoin Cash and (2) detractors refer to the cryptocurrency as "Bcash".
  2. Ladislav Mecir noted both here and on DannyS712's talk page that Option B's wording "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" is not sufficiently sourced. I did not find sourcing presented in this RfC verifying this assertion. There was little discussion of whether the naming is contentious. Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) wrote, "This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it)." There is no consensus to retain or remove the "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" wording owing to the lack of discussion.

     Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations notes: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The "contentious" wording is unsupported by a reliable source, so I am therefore removing "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" as a normal editorial action not based on this RfC close. Any editor can restore the sentence if the statement is sourced with "an inline citation to a reliable source".

  Cunard (talk) 23:42, 23 June 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.

---

Bitcoin Cash has an WP:ALTNAME "Bcash." A new source exists from The Verge [15] that asserts the term Bcash is pejorative. This vote is if we:

• A: Should follow the verge source take the position that the ALTNAME is pejorative, diff [16]
• B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not, diff [17].

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Description, an attempt at a neutral formulation

Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the description of the issue should be neutral. Here is my attempt to describe the issue neutrally:

There are two versions of the text discussing the cryptocurrency naming.

• Option A uses the formulation "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates such as Roger Ver,^[2] investors, entrepreneurs, developers, users, miners^[3][4] or people trying to remain neutral such as Andreas Antonopoulos.^[1] Its detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'."

• Option B uses the formulation "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash."

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Option B This single source is not sufficient to change a neutral position on this article that has stood for some time now. The 'bcash name is bad' is part of the bitcoin cash advocate POV and does not belong on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Option A As this is the truthful version, which happens to be supported by WP:RS (and not contradicted in any WP:RS). Ladislav Mecir's version does a great job at achieving neutrality and objective truth. 84percent (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Option A. The sources cited by option B do not confirm the text option B uses. For example, the BizJournals article does not confirm the claims in the option B text, it just advertises the Riot Blockchain's business. Similarly, the Reuters article does not confirm the option B text, mentioning just Riot Blockchain's services. Option B characterizes the 'Bcash' word as a 'nickname', which is also not confirmed by any of the cited sources. Note also that the 'Staff Writer' last name of the author of the Reuters article is not confirmed by Reuters in the current version of the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, I didn't make anything up, please WP:AGF and see the archive here[18] the source was signed as "Reuters Staff". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, but cannot assume that you do not misrepresent the source, when that is what you do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B for being both neutral and factual.

☑ The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious

☑ it is sometimes referred to as Bcash

Also, 'Bcash' is not pejorative while 'Btrash' and 'a scam' obviously are. Option A fails in making this distinction. 'Bcash' is used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident. That is not being pejorative. Oska (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was (rudely) challenged on my third sentence above - that people use the name Bcash to avoid confusion with the original Bitcoin. I have given a greater explanation and sources for this statement in the discussion below, referencing a detailed article by Aaron van Wirdum which includes quotes from commercial providers who have opted to use the alternate name and who explicitly gave the reason of avoiding confusion for this choice. Oska (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B (invited by a bot) A is POV, especially in including 'a scam' as one of the "names." (Please keep discussions out of the !vote section.) Jojalozzo (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Option B As per Oska's remarks Dryfee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Note that this bcash altname is the subject of prior RfC's here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash and Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time Jtbobwaysf described the issue nonneutrally (see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash). That is why I attempted to make the formulation more neutral. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Jtbobwaysf, I suggest striking your version to increase readability of your Rfc for new contributors. 84percent (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have never seen an involved editor revise an RfC. Then the second involved editor (you) ask the RfC creator to strike his RfC text (not to mention you continue to edit the content being discussed after the RfC is created here [19]). I will instead ping an uninvolved editor and get some advice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. No problem; I'm happy to help. 84percent (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I did another RfC on this bcash altname subject on this article. Want to ask your some procedural questions and seek some advice. First, Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) has re-worked the RfC description claiming it was not neutral here [20] and Ladislav then removed a source here [21]. Also 84percent (talk · contribs) carries on to edit the disputed content that is subject of the RfC here [22]. Maybe you could take a look, and let me know what you suggest. FYI, you have my permission to edit the RfC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Oska:, You say that "Bcash" is "used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident", however this is not supported by any of the sources; it's blatant original research. Can you produce a reliable source agreeing with that view? You also write that "Bcash" is not pejorative, however there is a reliable source which explicitly states that the term "Bcash" (or "Btrash") is used by Bitcoin Cash detractors. 84percent (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@84percent: if you want sources for what I've said just ask for them; no need to heat things up with aspersions of "blatant original research". Your bad faith is not appreciated.

Now, to provide some sources that confirm what I stated above.

In an article by Aaron Van Wirdum, one of the most respected and informed journalists in the Bitcoin/crytocurrency space, he says:

Many proponents of the coin, judging by popular sentiment on social media like Reddit and Twitter, prefer the initial name: Bitcoin Cash. But an increasing number of users, including many who are more skeptical of the new coin, consider this name too close to “Bitcoin” and therefore confusing. They instead refer to the new coin as “Bcash.”

He then goes on to quote a number of important commercial voices in the space who are not even necessarily 'detractors' (as their services support the use of the coin) but chose the Bcash name to avoid confusion on the part of their users:

It was one of these exchange, Bitfinex, that also announced a full name change for the cryptocurrency itself. As opposed to ViaBTC, Bitfinex decided it would use the name “Bcash” instead of “Bitcoin Cash” as the descriptive name: “to avoid confusion with Bitcoin.”

Bitfinex’s lead was followed by two of the three wallets that initially decided to integrate the new coin: hardware wallet Trezor and multicurrency wallet Jaxx. In a statement on Twitter, Jaxx COO Charlie Shrem explained that they, not unlike Bitfinex, made their choice in order to avoid user confusion.

“We have hundreds [of] thousands of users who have no clue what’s going on,” Shrem wrote. “Saying ‘bitcoin cash’ is confusing as hell to them. Unless you’re in user ops for a big company you probably have no idea how much people don’t understand technicals of bitcoin. 99.9999% #bitcoin users aren’t on Twitter or Reddit and don’t know anything technical about it.”

Similarly, when asked by Bitcoin Magazine, Trezor architect Marek “Slush” Palatinus explained:

“The reason we prefer to use ‘Bcash’ is to protect users from using the wrong wallet by accident. This would be a huge problem especially because Bcash has the same address format as Bitcoin, so we cannot protect users on the application level. We asked the Bcash team to change the address prefix before launch, which would solve it. But they refused.”

These concerns do appear to be backed by real-world data. A survey conducted by Pierre Rochard suggests that some 25 percent of regular people don’t know that “Bitcoin Cash” is distinct from “Bitcoin.” And so far there are, indeed, a number of reports on social media from users that accidentally sent BTC to a BCH wallet or vice versa.

And here is another article that talks about BCash in a neutral manner without going into the controversy about the name:

https://www.weusecoins.com/what-is-bcash/

which provides a simple example of the BCash name being used as an WP:ALTNAME for Bitcoin Cash.

Oska (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately, none of your sources qualifies as WP:IRS. Specifically, the Bitcoin Magazine is known to not be a WP:IRS and the weusecoins.com website is not reliable either. This applies in general to the option B text, which actually does not cite any reliable sources confirming its wording as illustrated above on several examples. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Known by whom? Bitcoin Magazine is in the top tier of journalism on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies generally. And, using good journalistic practice, the article I linked directly quotes and links to original sources. Oska (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

See this RfC. Also note that your "...using good journalistic practice, the article I linked directly quotes and links to original sources" actually translates to the fact that the article cites reddit and twitter as its sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This will be my last response to you here as I feel you are wasting my time with misleading objections. Are you trying to deny that a number of the major crypto exchanges and a number of the major hard wallet providers use the name 'Bcash' and have done so on the explicit rationale of avoiding confusion? No, you can't do that because it is a fact and van Wirdum's article links to those exchanges and hard wallet manufacturers stating that. Now it doesn't matter where they make those explanations - either on their own websites or on twitter or on reddit (both of the last two being major places for cryptocurrency discussion). They are going to make the explanations where they feel they will be best seen. So trying to take this discussion into the weeds with a derail into questioning sources is simply a time-waster. The fact is that Bcash as a name is widely used and used by major players in the space. And they have explained their reasons for doing so in a non-pejorative manner. We need to mirror those facts in the article and we need to quote those sources from the media in which they chose to make their explanations. Full stop. Oska (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe you have proved my first point for me (that there is not a single reliable source supporting this view), as to my understanding crypto blogs and websites, including Bitcoin Magazine and WeUseCoins, are not accepted as reliable sources for crypto articles; coverage on blockchain-related articles requires mainstream RSes. My second point, which you may want to revisit with WP:VER in mind, is that there is at least one reliable source stating the naming is nickname is pejorative. If there is a reliable source stating that, and there are no reliable sources contradicting that statement, I suggest that we include that detail. Furthermore, you write that "Bcash" is used by people who seek to avoid confusion: this could indeed be true, however it doesn't discount the point that "Bcash" is used pejoratively by Bitcoin Cash detractors; it's very possible that both statements are true, i.e. there is more than one reason why some people use the shorter moniker. However, only the latter should be included as the former is currently an unverifiable theory. 84percent (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. B doesn't take a position on why the name exists or what it means. B simply states that it exists and we have lots of RS for it... Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Quite obviously, not. B presents the 'Bitcoin Cash' name as 'controversial' or 'contentious', while the 'Bcash' name is presented as if it were neutral. No source you cite actually supports that, some of them are just mentions of services of some unimportant company and do not confirm any of the B claim, and exactly no source does confirm the B claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This RfC's Option B doesn't suggest controversial. It says "contentious." Are you seeking to add that the altname bcash 'controversial'? This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Are you seeking to add that the altname bcash 'controversial'?" - quite obviously, not. As opposed to your effort, I do not seek to add any information that is not confirmed by WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, then i guess i dont understand your point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I think that some of the contributors overlooked that the problem with option B is that its wording is not confirmed by the cited sources and that the other sources they suggest are not acceptable per this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Discussion about previous RfC close

This discussion about a previous close of this RfC is copied from User talk:DannyS712 for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. Cunard (talk) 00:26, 24 June 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.

---

Hi, I want to discuss your close at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. What I am missing in your close is a reflection of the problem that the "option B" you chose as having consensus is not confirmed by the cited sources. Can you explain it to me, please? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Both option A and B agree that Bitcoin cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash. The source from A, [23], says "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam," - thus both proposals agree that it is sometimes referred to as Bcash. The sources for B specifically also use Bcash: "Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,”", "Bitcoin Cash, now also known as “Bcash,”", "parts of the community are referring to the new token as Bcash" - those are the first 3 of the sources cited specifically for option B. I checked the cited sources before the close, since so much of the discussion was about how it is named, and see evidence that it is indeed, at least sometimes, called Bcash. DannyS712 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, that part of the "option B" seems to be confirmed by the sources. Nevertheless, there is also the first part of the "optionB" stating: "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious;" and this part is not confirmed by the cited sources. In my opinion, this part reverts the facts, trying to inform the reader that the "Bitcoin Cash" name is contentious without having any source confirming this claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: (edit conflict) There wasn't any (as far as I could see) discussion about whether or not it was contentious, and given that an RfC had to be held it seems to me that it is contentious. That being said, I was primarily persuaded by the arguments about NPOV and DUE weight. The consensus favored option B, and from a policy perspective it is at least as acceptable as option A. Does that make sense? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reponse. It does make sense, as far as the second part of the "option B" is concerned. As far as the first part (the part having a prominent position in the "option B") is concerned, it ignores the fact that the contentious nature of the "Bitcoin Cash" name is not confirmed by any cited source. I know that there are editors trying to cite the discussion as the proof, but that is against the Wikipedia policies, as far as I am informed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: yes, the discussion itself can't be cited, and I'm sorry I personally can't track down a source at the moment, though I believe that those who were supporting B have some (I didn't read all of the sources listed) - maybe tag a CN template there? DannyS712 (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that what is necessary is to appeal the close based on the fact that the Wikipedia policies were replaced by a logically incorrect conclusion that if there is a disagreement on formulation, the subject itself must be contentious in nature. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I did not say that it was contentious because an RfC was held, I said that it seems to be contentious because an RfC needed to be held. The close was based on the consensus that I saw at the discussion. Maybe wait a few days and see if the contentious part is sourced? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think that your suggestion misses the purpose of the RfC. It is to find whether the Wikipedia policies are held. Since they are not, the "option B" should not have been picked as consensual, so an appeal is justified. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I have reverted my close - clearly there is more to this than just what was written in the discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe my contributions were also a part of the problem, since I may not have explained the issue as well as I intended. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2019 (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.

---

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.