Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Bitcoin Cash. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Update Development Section
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
COI disclaimer: I currently produce The Bitcoin Cash Podcast. There is no "official" bitcoin cash podcast & we are simply users with interest in the coin, but I figured I just be absolutely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.189.239 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed only Bitcoin Unlimited is listed under the implementation(s) section. The current node implementations are as follows: BCHN, BCHD, BU, Bitcoin Verde, & Knuth.[1] Those implementations also have much more recent releases than what is listed, including BU. BCHN is on V24.1.0, updated on May 29th, 2022[2] BCHD is on v0.19.0, updated on May 05, 2022[3] BU is on 1.10.0.0, updated on April 5th, 2022[4] Bitcoin Verde is on v2.2.0, updated on Jan 05, 2022[5] and lastly, Knuth is on v0.24.0, updated May 5th 2022[6]
- Hi, we are only using high quality WP:RS for all cryptocurrency articles. Things like bloomberg, wsj, fortune.com, etc. We cannot use any contributor sources as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current development section contains a single citation to a specific bitcoin unlimited release on gitlab. Should that be completely removed, then? 47.55.189.239 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it could be removed, or you could just update the version. Sometimes these type of non-controversial edits dont get removed. I dont have any big objection to it if is just a version number. Or you could remove it as well if it is confusing. I personally have no idea what version the SW is on Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The current development section contains a single citation to a specific bitcoin unlimited release on gitlab. Should that be completely removed, then? 47.55.189.239 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are zero mainstream articles on this subject and the quality of this Wikipedia page is suffering for it. Why not cite directly from the blockchain which nodes are being used? Surely that would be a reliable source. 2601:283:4602:FE00:A888:66D4:ECA7:A83 (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "nodes". bitcoincash.org. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "bchn releases". gitlab. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "bchd releases". github. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "BU releases". gitlab. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "Bitcoin Verde Releases". github. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
- ^ "Knuth releases". github. Retrieved 13 June 2022.
Not done: Denied due to unreliable sourcing. Quetstar (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2023
 | This edit request to Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "Latest release 1.9.1 / 17 February 2021; 2 years ago" to "Latest release 2.0.0.0 / 8 May 2023" 193.235.219.5 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2023
| This edit request to Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In 2018 split to create Bitcoin SV section, remove the unwanted . before the ending in size.. Benjamin Loison (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Motive of fork
Would like to change the wording of fork from “fork” to “preservation fork” because the intention was to preserve the bitcoin protocol in the face of a radical change (Lightning IOU system) that is not described by the original white paper. 2601:283:4602:FE00:A888:66D4:ECA7:A83 (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- The description "radical change" is not quite accurate. Lightning is built on top of Bitcoin as a result of the SegWit upgrade.
- I don't mind the idea here, but I'm sure sources exist. The sentiment by the Bitcoin Cash crowd was to preserve what they saw as the vision of Bitcoin. If I find a reliable source I will share here. ILoveFinance (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Undo of Removal of code repositories
@Jtbobwaysf Would like to discuss the external links. This is not quite the body article but an infobox. The links are directly to the code repositories and are therefore relevant, in my mind. As a comparison, the Bitcoin page includes an External Link to Bitcoin Core. thx! ILoveFinance (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the bitcoin core implementation is well documented and we have only one link. If you added three more links to other implementations (that are also unsourced) to the bitcoin infobox I might also remove those there. We dont need a link to every open source implementation of a protocol in the infobox, that is excessive and undue. It also starts to get too close to our rule on external links. We need things to be notable for us to link to them, and an easy test for that is if they have their own wikipedia page. If something doesnt have a wikipedia page, it is likely (but not always) not notable. At Ethereum we wikilink to other the languages in the infobox, I think we can do this on these articles if you would like. But the external links are a bit too much, unless they are themselves notable (as Bitcoin Core) is. But we could also remove the external link to bitcoin core and just use a wikilink to that other article, that would be maybe ok as well (but lets discuss that over at the Bitcoin article and not here). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that makes sense. All good if I add just the BCHN link back, as that is the most used node implementation? ILoveFinance (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I did not realize the latest releases were removed. I think that is still pertinent information, especially to anyone that is looking for such data. Given this is an infobox, it is important, I would argue.
- At a minimum, BCHN should be added back. But in reality, as there is no primary node implementation (granted BCHN is the most used), all are relevant. ILoveFinance (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure you can add the BCHN back since you feel strongly about it. I dont think any of them are particularly notable, but not a big issue. Maybe someone else watching this thread will object, but I have no strong objections at this time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure you can add the BCHN back since you feel strongly about it. I dont think any of them are particularly notable, but not a big issue. Maybe someone else watching this thread will object, but I have no strong objections at this time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that makes sense. All good if I add just the BCHN link back, as that is the most used node implementation? ILoveFinance (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)