Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfC: Does the video cited in the article confirm the claim it is purportedly confirming?

THE VIDEO DOES NOT SUPPORT THE STATEMENT

The consensus is that this video:

• Kelly, Brian (14 July 2018). "VIDEO:Coinbase just announced they could add five new coins to their platform". CNBC. Retrieved 14 July 2018.

cannot be used to cite the statement:

Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.

Editors found that although the word "Bcash" is likely said at the beginning of the video, there is no mention of "Bitcoin Cash" in the video so the video does not support the statement.

The statement currently is sourced to 12 sources. The consensus is to remove this source as one of the citations for the statement.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 12 December 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.

---

In the article, there is a claim that

Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.

One of the sources cited to confirm the claim is this video. Does the cited source confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• No In the source, there is no content that directly supports the claim as required in WP:NOR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes In this video a CNBC episode of Fast Money (talk show) journalist Bryan Kelly says at 00:15 in the video "There were some issues when they listed Bcash," referring to Coinbase's earlier listing of Bitcoin Cash. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, and please stop this querulousness - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes There are also scholarly sources that confirm this (e.g. Dascano's Bitcoin Cash; Teo & Chang's The Bitcoin Dystopia). These sources also cite that this term is not as popular, hence, the intro also correctly states that it is "sometimes referred to" as such. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I agree with all of the above. It's cited resourcefully in a myriad of press. I don't even know if its necessary for there to be an RFC for this. Is anything else on the web called BCash that would cause confusion? Cook907 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes I agree with the above. RockingGeo (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• No, not in the source. BCash is briefly mentioned at the beginning, but no mention of Bitcoin Cash nor any way to infer that they are one and the same. There several sources in the article that do explicitly say that BCash is a synonym to Bitcoin Cash. No need to use this video. “WarKosign” 09:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• No The term BCash is not used on many of the reliable/respected web sites. Hence, it does not seem to have become a part of the general vocabulary, yet. See [1] Only the odd Web site uses the term BCash so far. AND I don't see the Bitcoin site using the term BCash. https://www.bitcoincash.org/ Peter K Burian (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, the cited video fails to support the claim. I have no position on the claim itself, but that video is unhelpful for verifying that claim. I believe I heard B cash or something similar uttered at 0:15, but I was unable to verify any connection or reference to Bitcoin Cash from that video.  Alsee (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  P.S. I was summoned by bot, and I'd like to add an observation. The 'yes' votes generally focus on "querulousness" or on the issue of other sources. While those might be valid points (I haven't checked), those arguments have no bearing on the appropriateness of the specific source at issue in this RFC. Those editors should consider that their arguments might be considered to carry diminished weight if they are not sufficiently relevant to the issue at hand. Alsee (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• No Watching the video it doesn't really support the claim to the extent that I was expecting. Comatmebro (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• No not clear in vid HAL333 19:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Jtbobwaysf wrote: 'journalist Bryan Kelly says at 00:15 in the video "There were some issues when they listed Bcash,"' - yes, and that is the only mention in the source. That obviously does not directly support the claim, and the subsequent [[[WP:SYNTH]] by Jtbobwaysf just shows how problematic his understanding of Wikipedia policies is. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ladislav, the issues (alleged insider trading) that coinbase faced in their Bitcoin Cash listing are now noted in the article, and is also covered in more detail by TechCrunch here [2]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So, Jtbobwaysf you are making edits to the Bitcoin Cash Wikipedia article with a goal to "correct" this specific WP:OR by a WP:SYNTH of the content of the article you just added as a base? What a "highly reliable sourcing" method that is? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That looks a ridiculous accusation. You're firmly in WP:1AM mode here - David Gerard (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strike RFC as obviously querulous - the claim for use of the term "BCash" is exceedingly well supported in the article in RSes. I realise you don't like it, but the RSes are solidly against you here. This is the third WP:1AM RFC you've raised on this talk page. What do you think removing this will get you? - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Note Without mentioning any argument that is relevant, David Gerard claims that the citations are "exceedingly well supporting" the claim. This RfC simply proves him wrong. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This RFC does nothing of the sort, it's still just you asserting that RSes aren't RSes - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    • You should read above what I wrote instead of trying to speak for me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Question Hi, Darwin Naz. Thank you for your opinion. Nevertheless, it does not look related to the subject of this specific RfC, which discusses appropriateness of the video as a source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC) You also wrote: "There are also scholarly sources that confirm this (e.g. Dascano's Bitcoin Cash...)" After checking, I found out that this source is not scholarly. In fact, it is self-published, i.e. not reliable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
• There are many other sources that do support BCash referring to Bitcoin Cache, so why is this RfC needed? Just get rid of this source and rely on the others. “WarKosign” 11:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

References

---

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

Lightning content

@Ladislav Mecir: you reverted content to add wiki-linked Lightning Network content from this article here [3]. Please explain the removal of cited content. Note you are also removing Lightning Network content from the Bitcoin article, under discussion here Talk:Bitcoin#Lightning_Network, and have proposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning Network as well. Please explain, seems like a lot of anti-lightning network edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The claim I deleted is specific to SegWit, and if it belongs anywhere, then to that article. It is not related to Bitcoin Cash, since there is no source confirming that Lightning Network is used as a layer 2 system to Bitcoin Cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that there is nothing wrong about making bold edits to the article, your immediate reversal of the revert without waiting for discussion to take place and pretending you did not read the justification is not in agreement with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your point is that it is not clear that segwit was activated on bitcoin and not on bitcoin cash? If so, that is a simple edit you can make rather than to delete. This article is short and lacks content, really no justification to whitewash off the lightning content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Your point is that it is not clear that segwit was activated on bitcoin and not on bitcoin cash?" You obviously forgot what is the claim you inserted into the article. It is as follows: "Segwit enabled second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network." It is known and confirmed by the available sources that SegWit was not activated on Bitcoin Cash. Since SegWit was not activated on Bitcoin Cash, why should we claim that it enabled the Lightning Network in the Bitcoin Cash article? You can move such claim to the SegWit article, because it is SegWit related. However, it is not Bitcoin Cash related, that is why it does not belong to the Bitcoin Cash article. You may still pretend that you do not understand, and try to advertise the Lightning Network in the article where it does not belong. I am sure that it does not make sense, though. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that bitcoin cash doesnt have lightning or segwit and therefore it is not relevant is laughable. Bitcoin Cash came from a divorce with bitcoin and the dispute was over segwit and lightning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact about SegWit is mentioned in the article, and there is absolutely no need to repeat it. The Lightning Network is not relevant, and it was, in fact, not even a thing at the time of the "divorce". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The source that anchors the content says: "But the rollout didn't come without drama... [some say] alternative fixes like SegWit and the secondary layer solution it enables, the Lightning network (LN), were more efficient. The spat eventually spawned an offshoot of bitcoin called bitcoin Cash." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that you edited the text. There are several issues with the wording though:

• Grammar, you wrote: "...controversy let to the split..." Didn't you mean "...controversy led to the split..."?
• On 1 August 2017, when the fork took place, SegWit was not activated yet (see the sources for the exact times). At that time, SegWit was only proposed with the goal to enable the Lightning Network. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Good points, I have integrated those changes. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Which of the alternative formulations does The Verge article confirm?

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 conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a clear consensus in support of formulation #2. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The source cited is a The Verge article authored by Adrianne Jeffries. The alternative formulations are:

1. Some Bitcoin supporters like to call Bitcoin Cash "Bcash," "Btrash," or simply a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is the pure form of Bitcoin.

2. Bitcoin Cash detractors call the cryptocurrency "Bcash," "Btrash," or "a scam", while its supporters maintain that "it is the pure form of bitcoin".

Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

#2 The formulation #1 claims that 'Bitcoin supporters like to call Bitcoin Cash "Bcash," ...', while there is no such claim in the cited article. Such a change of the meaning is not supported by WP:RS requiring the source to directly support the information. As opposed to that, there is no doubt that formulation #2 is directly supported by the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

#2 (if I must choose) ("Bitcoin supporters" ≈ "Bitcoin Cash detractors"), so #1 would be acceptable. However, #2 the better choice of the two because it refrains from making a judgement on whether Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin is The Real Bitcoin. However, I think a third proposal would better capture the intent of #1: * #3: "Bitcoin Cash detractors call the cryptocurrency "Bcash," "Btrash," or "a scam", while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is the pure form of Bitcoin". (This also helps with parallelism). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I just realized that this is the entire sentence from the article more or less verbatim, so I am withdrawing it. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

#2 Not very excited about this, but 2 should do. JonRichfield (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

#2 Agree with the above. #2 follows the article more accurately and gives both the supporter and detractor sides. Cook907 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

&2 & strike bcash term "Bitcoin Cash detractors call the cryptocurrency "Btrash," or "a scam", while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is the pure form of Bitcoin." Note it is neeeded to strike the POV that detractors call the token Bcash, as we have only one source making that claim, while about a dozen that make no distinction of use of the bcash term. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

#2, which accurately describes what the article says. It isn't up to the voice of Wikipedia to assess where the scams really are. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

2 (summoned by bot) because of WP:V. However it needs to be either quoted and attributed, or paraphrased, because the proposed text is copy/pasted from the source. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Question Issue is part of this directly conflicts with the huge number of sources that support the Bcash use already on the article. Is this mini-rfc here is if the source supports the btrash comment? Or am I missing something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment to "&2 & strike bcash term" The source directly says it. Such a "strike" would be a misrepresentation of the source. Also, looking at "the dozen" mentioned above, I see that between them is the source you propose to misrepresent. Another one is the source that is a subject of the previous RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question, how would you like to treat this single source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Source removal

Ladislav, in this edit [4] you removed a source and cited an RfC. Was there an RfC to remove a source? If so, which one? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The above #RfC: Which of the alternative formulations does The Verge article confirm? discussed the source and found out that the source was misrepresented. The citation you returned is also a misrepresentation of the source per the findings - the source does not directly support that specific claim as required by Wikipedia standards. Since it was already discussed and the discussion was closed, you have got no justification for your revert. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop the WP:TE on the "bcash" WP:ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the last two RfCs together with several others suggest that WP:TE is, perhaps, practiced by somebody who tendentially misrepresents the sources. On the other hand, they also successfully demonstrate that it is somebody else who tries to apply such a method here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You ran an RfC on a different subject and are now trying to apply this to other text in the article. Really pushy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

Change block reward from 12.5 to 6.25 (do this after block 630000). No.1simplified (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Humm what the hell - Search up anything abt Bitcoin cash halving and it would come up - Are you serious? WOW!

1. https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-halving-countdown-50-less-block-reward/
2. https://coingape.com/bitcoin-cash-bch-completes-halving/
3. https://cryptonews.com/news/bitcoin-cash-miners-just-lost-half-of-their-reward-6250.htm
4. https://cryptobriefing.com/bitcoin-cash-sv-go-through-first-halving-heres-price-implications/
5. https://www.newsbtc.com/2020/04/08/bitcoin-cashs-halving-just-occurred-and-its-price-isnt-responding/
6. https://www.coindesk.com/todays-halving-may-be-non-event-for-bitcoin-cash-prices
7. https://explorer.viawallet.com/bch/block/00000000000000000169a496bfafa84ad8d3ef8039fc9e391a8eada67996b9c8?page=1
8. https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch/block/00000000000000000169a496bfafa84ad8d3ef8039fc9e391a8eada67996b9c8
9. https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/630000 (Shows clearly that the block reward is 6.25) No.1simplified (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done There is no need for outrage or surprise. Thank you for doing what the "Submit an edit request" instructions asked you to do in the first place, namely Please provide a specific description of the edit request and Please provide reliable sources if appropriate. All information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Retimuko lol then wot do you call as a reliable source? LMAO Do some research - Or simply check the blocks rewards! No.1simplified (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@No.1simplified: I would suggest you do some research into what Wikipedia calls an independent reliable source Retimuko (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

We are not allowing the use of cryptocurrency sites as WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. You can use WSJ, NYT, bloomberg, etc. The content you wanted added as been added, I did remove the coingape source as it is not an RS. I think the blockreward is not controversial and thus doesnt require a source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Ok. I get it - Just haven't read that stuff yet. It's also kinda true that you can't really relate crypto stuff to a RS source - Maybe I should include Sat's whitepaper next time (which is pretty exactly the same because Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin). But anyway, thanks for all that help No.1simplified (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@No.1simplified: the Bitcoin whitepaper is probably also not a reliable source for much on wikipedia since it is considered to be WP:PRIMARY. Also it would be controversial to say that the whitepaper referred to bitcoin cash, and we cannot use anything primary sourced for something that is even remotely controversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Co-creator of Bitcoin Cash

I propose removing the mention of the Fortune article that incorrectly refers to Roger as a co-creator of Bitcoin Cash. Roger has stated that he was not involved in its creation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlAMpzDQoqk&t=614 76.28.240.101 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Youtube is not an WP:RS for crypto articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, LaceyUF. You are right that the claim by Fortune is nonsense contradicting all remaining sources. This nonsense should not be there. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The split between BCH and BSV needs more clarification than what the wikipedia article currently states

Here is a reddit thread describing the changes. LaceyUF (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lacey, we are not using reddit as a WP:RS for cryptocurrency articles. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, but I'm unclear due to a lack of clarification. What cryptocurrency websites are currently considered reliable sources? LaceyUF (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ABC fork off

If you think I'm putting in nonsense or otherwise incorrect information, then delete my contributions. If you think it merely requires a citation, then please leave it and say so. The idea that current events in crypto are going to have great neutral point of view articles in the mainstream media is not tenable. Remaining extremely skeptical of the crypto centric press is also quite reasonable.Huckfinne (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

We require reliable sources. Are there any mainstream sources that covered this fork? As you mention it would be good to include it as it is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added the "most mainstream" one (NASDAQ) I could find. Huckfinne (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NASDAQ's news section is mostly not RSes - in this case, it's just a reprint of a crypto site. If this is the best there is, this is probably not noteworthy - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I went through 20 pages of google news and could only find this [5]. All the rest are crypto sources and one from ibtimes, but IB tiems is in perennial sources as unreliable WP:RSP. You might search in other languages if you can read some other languages. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NASDAQ News

NASDAQ News appears to be entirely reprints. Sourcing policy is to treat reprints as having the reliability of the original source - so if it's a crypto blog, it's treated as unreliable. If it's CoinDesk, it's explicitly noted as unreliable in WP:RSP.

Discussion started at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NASDAQ_News - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Adoption of Bitcoin Cash

I'd like to contribute a fact that Bitcoin Cash is arguably one of the most adopted cryptocurrencies to date. This fact should be updated into the article. Some sources:

• https://acceptbitcoin.cash
• https://map.bitcoin.com/
• https://greenpages.cash

-- Hieutvan (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done no, please review WP:ELNO about external links. If you want to make the claim, you need independent, verifiable, third-party reliable sources stating it (i.e., not crypto sites) - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash?

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

---

In the lead section of the Bitcoin Cash article, there is a claim that

Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.

One of the sources cited to confirm the claim is . Does the source confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (TechCrunch)

• No Per MOS:ALTNAME and per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article. Per WP:RSP, the TechCrunch is not considered useful by Wikipedians to determine notability or significance of the term. Moreover, the author of the article, Jon Evans, is not listed as a TechCrunch staff member, which further weakens the reliability of this specific text for the purpose. Finally, the text of the source does not directly confirm the claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, headlines alone are not usually a good source (because, on many sites, they aren't written by the authors of the pieces they're attached to and don't contain the sort of fact-checking the articles do.) Additionally, it doesn't provide any real indication of significance or any explanation for the word - at best it would be a WP:PRIMARY usage. Finally, I should mention that we already have an RFC on this topic above - it's not really helpful to open separate RFCs for every single source; just create one RFC that lists all the sources and asks whether they collectively support the claim instead. (Try to find all the sources in advance per WP:RFCBEFORE and maybe have some discussion to determine which ones are too weak to be worth including in an RFC.) More specific sourcing concerns can also be raised at WP:RSN, although I don't think that's necessary here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes and the presence of the term bcash in the title of the TechCrunch article lends weight to WP:DUE. Running two RfCs at the same time, on the same subject, is ridiculous. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Per WP:RSP, the reliability/neutrality of the author should be questioned as he is a weekly opinion columnist with possible conflict of interest (due to his software company Happyfuncorp); additionally Techcrunch is listed as only marginally reliable. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Now there is a second RfC running at the same time? The craziness on this article starts again. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

References

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 February 2021 -- Implementations

Replace the implementation Bitcoin ABC with Bitcoin Cash Node -- Bitcoin ABC is no longer developing for the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, but instead for the Bitcoin ABC blockchain. This can be seen on the header paragraph on Bitcoin ABCs homepage. I suggest it be replaced with Bitcoin Cash Node, as Bitcoin Cash Node is a fork of the Bitcoin ABC project, however is intended to stay on the BCH blockchain. Also, if needed, we could include Bitcoin ABC with something that says "formerly", or something similar. RealSwiftCoderJoe (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you provided is a primary source that is associated with the article's subject. Gaioa (T C L) 18:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Bcash altname again

bitcoin cash is not referred to as bcash. That's a putdown term. It's like calling bitcoin core - bcore. please remove! thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.183.89 (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

the information conveyed is already noted under controversy; this is arguably not the preferred nomenclature of bitcoin cash users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry

This has been discussed many times on this talk page. Please go through the history (as the talk page history gets archived. You can find that at the top of this talk page. We would need a new consensus to override the previous consensus. This content is exceedingly well cited with WP:RS Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the content is extremely poorly cited. I already succeeded to remove some blatant violations of Wikipedia principles, but there are others that are by no means better. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To illustrate what I mean by extremely poorly cited, I just tagged the first of the citations, because it does not directly support the claim, does it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding to the "consensus" that purportedly exists: actually, as the history of the talk page confirms, there is hardly any in that respect. Also note that, in fact, the "bcash" related lead section claim does not summarize the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You have participated in numerous talk page discussions and launched multiple RfCs on this subject. I dont think we have anything new to discuss here do we? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that you do not have anything to discuss. Nevemind, I will take care of the issues. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I was asking you a question if you have something new to discuss? Or are we just rehashing old issues you have raised in the past already? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Re "are we just rehashing old issues you have raised in the past already?" Obviously not. Or did you find any RfC at the history which specifically mentioned the poor citation I tagged? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I opened the tagged cite and the article literally, repeatedly, refers to Bitcoin Cash as "bcash". The tagger appears not to have looked at the article. So I've removed the tag - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the source does not say that sometimes it refers to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, I assume that I should take you as the source confirming that. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be poorly cited with unreliable sources. Also, what is "consensus" means in this context? Wikipedia editors? The citations are not reliable so this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedAUsername44 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

See attached article which shows the split between Bitcoin Cash: lead implementation BCHN and Bitcoin Cash ABC: lead implementation Bitcoin ABC (which implemented a 8% block reward redirect) on Nov 15, 2020, mining SHA256. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/13/2126220/0/en/Bitcoin-Cash-Undergoes-Hard-Fork.html Mazdamiata200 (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @Mazdamiata200: The provided source is a press release, which is not wp:independent. It is also unclear what changes you want to make. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 14:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

bcash name

Ladislav, you removed the text from the lede per the RFC close here, and I added it back & moved it down to the controversy section. First, you deleted a large number of sources. Second it seems one of the sources ("vergeone") state the word is being used to as a detractor, yet there are other list of sources that seem to indicate the bcash term is neutrally. The closing editor confirmed here that the close did not call for removal of content. I dont have a position on the btrash name, it seems clearly that is meant to detract. Maybe you or someone else could propose some text on how to unify the two statements. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sources again

@Ladislav Mecir: you again removed sources on the article.

• CNBC you said was WP:CRYSTAL for this diff
• Verge removal [6]: please explain what you mean by it confirms the subsequent sentence. Is there a prohibition on using a source twice in an article?
• 6 various corporate sources here. Is it your position that these sources are not RS?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)