Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed

Article necessary?

[edit]
RESOLVED
Determined that this article is necessary due to continued press in this area RebirthNA (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is this separate wiki article really necessary? Seems this limited content could all be in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf, the main problem I see in the article is that it cites only a few reliable sources. On the other hand, the Bitcoin article is already too large. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladislav Mecir: i posted this before I saw you move the content off the main article. Maybe instead of scaling problems, it can be renamed as a larger subject allowing more content to be moved off the main page. I don't have an broader subject in mind right now, just thinking out-loud. But scaling certainly the primary subject of twitter, and reddit, so it sure deserves some treatment here (if there is RS of course)...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf taking all circumstances into account, I think that it would be best to delete this article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladislav Mecir: I have moved the content back to the main Bitcoin page, per your remarks. Do we do an AfD here, is that even necessary? Or can someone just close it, it is just all redundant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jtbobwaysf, please do an AfD. TIA. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the original article as I wrote it justified a separate article, especially since the scalability problem is so critically important to the future of Bitcoin. The abysmally ignorant editing by User:Ladislav Mecir has indeed rendered this article into trivial nonsense. I have considered trying to get an administrator involved who is not ignorant on the subject of cryptocurrencies, but I have more urgent priorities in my life at the moment than to be fighting wikiwars. I wrote the article because the scalability problem is really a crisis for the future of Bitcoin, and I wanted the Wikipedian-reading public to have a good understanding of this crisis.--Ben Best:Talk 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry Ben i wasn't watching this small sub-article. Yes, the scaling article now lacks all kinds of content. Ladislav, please allow some of the scaling debate to be input into the main and sub-articles, it is both conversational and relevant. Both sides of the debate are making points, and for NPOV we should allow it. I also note that you are trying to prune the main article back in size, so maybe let the small blockers and big blockers have at it on the scaling article? Sorry I got in the middle of it. I think a lot of users must come to wikipedia seeking coverage of this event, which is essentially current events, I will hold off on the AfD for now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any problem with any content based on reliable independent sources. That, however, does not mean that it is reasonable to put in WP:OR or other self-published and unreliable content. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for being so insulting to you as a result of my outrage and frustration. And I give you credit for not responding nastily, as you would have deserved to. As for "original research", I did not base what I wrote entirely on the source listed, but I did think that what looks like "original research" was a very good summary of what I know from reading vast amounts of literature on the subject. I could have cited more sources, but the summary would not have been as good. If the article is reconstructed in such a way as to clearly define the real issue of SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited, I can add more sources. --Ben Best:Talk 11:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, {U|Ben Best}}. Similarly as Jtbobwaysf, I think that it would be best to describe the situation in the Bitcoin article in a concise way. I am not convinced that the issue deserves a standalone article at this time. In the past, there were similarly discussed issues that were not put into a separate article either. Also, seeing the shortage of reliable sources, it does not look as notable as you seem to perceive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can supply many reliable sources, if necessary. You really do not seem to understand SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited problem or the deadly seriousness of the scalability problem to the future of Bitcoin. You seem to be living in a cave with respect to this terrible crisis of Bitcoin. The Bicoin community is very bitterly and acrimoniusly divided over this issue, and there is a very real possiblity that the Bitcoin blockchain will hard fork within the next year, with the result being similar to the two Etherium blockchains: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. --Ben Best:Talk 12:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been traveling, but I have taken a moment to assemble a few news stories (I did not spend much time on this):
--Ben Best:Talk 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a succinct summary that was posted several months ago:
Things have progressed well beyond that analysis by now, with major new support for SegWit2X
but technical issues like this are beyond the grasp of mainstream media, and Wikipedia readers for
that reason will not be permitted to learn about them. --Ben Best:Talk 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Benbest, and thank you for the source list. However, I found out that:
  • The bitcoinchaser.com does not look reputable. Per WP:IRS, the source must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I do not see the reputation in this particular case.
  • The cointelegraph.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place. Thus, again, a problem with WP:IRS.
  • The newsbtc.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place. Again a problem with WP:IRS.
  • The livebitcoinnews.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place. Again a problem with WP:IRS.
  • The coin.dance site is a primary source of information, and per WP:IRS, "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material". Thus, again, a problem with WP:IRS.
Taking into account these findings, I have to repeat that the above-mentioned shortage of reliable sources is a real issue. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you are doomed to be blind about the Bitcoin scalability crisis, and you are committed to keeping others as blind as you are. Bitcoin is not "mainstream" and neither are cryptocurrency news media. But cryptocurrency news media know vastly more about cryptocurrency than mainstream media. I believe that Wikipedians would be better served by knowing the facts, even if you allow them to be published with the caveat that there are other points of view, that the sources "do not look reputable" in your point of view (I know they are reputable), or even with the information about editorial policies. There are many other cryptocurrency media reports, that I could have cited, all corroborating the information I have presented. There will eventually be coverage of the situation in mainstream media rather than Bitcoin insider media, but that may not happen until the crisis has unfolded in disaster. I hope that too many people are not harmed by your obstruction of information. --Ben Best:Talk 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Bitcoin is not "mainstream"' - Seeing the quantity of WP:IRS cited in the Bitcoin article, it is obviously notable for a Wikipedia article. As to your lack of WP:AGF, for which you offered apologies above - apologies accepted. Regarding your "you are committed to keeping others as blind as you are" - I am comitted to hold onto the principles behind Wikipedia. If they state "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material" then I do not think it is any kind of "keeping others blind". I think that publishing opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material may be even more dangerous and misleading than not publishing.
I support this article. The subject has long dominated bitcoin development and the bitcoin article is already long and detailed. The scaling issue is problematic and notable within the field of software development. User:Benbest could easily find more reliable sources and get into the details here. Using sources without editorial policies is okay as long as there are many other more reliable sources used. Editors should be mindful of avoiding the addition of individual statements and making predictions. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" User:Benbest could easily find more reliable sources and get into the details here." - if he does, I will support publishing the findings. "The scaling issue is ... notable" - notability is defined as "being published in independent reliable sources" and per WP:IRS "if no reliable sources can be found on topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added content with RS in the article today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some information worth adding, finally! A question: are you sure that the Nigeria Times can be considered WP:IRS? (I know nothing about the source, but noticed that another editor deleted it as unreliable.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladislav Mecir: no idea about Nigeria Times :-) Is bitcoin.com an RS for this subject?... I see bitcoin.com also covered it, as well as the other small crypto site like bitcoinnews.com, and some others. Looks like coindesk never covered it, and I didn't see anything in mainstream press either. Maybe it should be deleted...I've also added some bullets for XT and Classic, but didn't add much content, as they have full pages already. I think we could also begin to categorize these as soft-forks and hard-forks, correct? (Rather than leaving segwit as the the one to represent softforks, as there might be other softfork proposals in the future that gain sufficient coverage in the press. Maybe even mimblewimble qualifies? I dont know much about it, but I have heard about it. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bitcoin.com is a primary source. It can only be used for properly attributed opinions such as "bitcoin.com claims that..." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Benbest:, we have added some content to the page. Please feel free to comment. In general I think editors are supportive of adding content. Please look for WP:RS for what you want to add. I think the overall concept you have to include this scaling debate has support of the editors above, we just need to abide by RS rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf:, the added content is much better. I don't have time to get more involved with this issue, to say nothing of having my content deleted because of someone's opinion about the reliability of the sources I cited. Suddenly "CoinDesk" has become a reliable source. I believe that all of the sources I cited above are reliable. Mainstream media is clueless about these issues, but the sources I cited above are from the tech-savvy Bitcoin news community. Anyway, the article is now much closer to my original intentions and is good enough to achieve what I was hoping to achieve by starting it. --Ben Best:Talk 15:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Benbest:, sources are always a debate on wikipedia. There really isn't any good logic to it, sometimes primary sources are ok, sometimes editors assert that reliable sources are blogs, we have seen it all. Please post on this page when you find sources mentioning segwit, lightning, bitcoin unlimited in teh mainstream press. That is really what this article needs now. I have also added a lot of coindesk to this article, yes I too agree not a big difference between coindesk, cointegraph, and bitcoin magazine. They are all industry rags, but I think that is all we have to use for now and they are far better than primary sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposal to change article name

[edit]

RESOLVED- Article will not be moved as per survey in a section below.RebirthNA (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this article be changed to something more neutral, rather than problem. Since this is by nature a debate and there are people on both sides, someone must think this is not a problem, rather they might think it is a feature. Therefore, for NPOV, we might consider to drop problem from the name.

Options:

  • Bitcoin Scalability Proposals
  • Bitcoin Scalability Debate
  • Bitcoin Sscaling

Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed to a small s per your suggestion. I am ok with any of the above, just throwing something at the wall to see what sticks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Scalability is a problem for the Bitcoin network because the one megabyte block size limit is leading to increased delays in transaction processing and increasing fees for processing transactions. If the trend continues, the network will become less and less useful, eventually even useless. There is no debate about these facts, the debate has been about which proposal can best solve the problem.--Ben Best:Talk 15:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer made me think that we need to cover the debate in this article, as there for sure is one, I will try to find some RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Scalability is a problem for the Bitcoin network because" - you seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia works. It strives to represent all relevant opinions, not just the ones you find reasonable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen or heard of any person in the Bitcoin community say that scalability is not a problem. If opinions of Wikipedians are to be added, they should give citations to reliable sources that claim scalability is not a problem. The latest news, however, is that scalability is a less urgent problem than has been believed. Although the problem would become more serious as the network grows. This is a matter of technology and growth, not a matter of opinion. The problem is going to be dealt-with, one way or another, within the next year, which means that a scalability problem article will be a matter of history. --Ben Best:Talk 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also various opinions in the Bitcoin community about how to handle whatever scalability problem solution is implemented in the near future. --Ben Best:Talk 13:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this proposal to change the article name? The article has developed quite a bit over the past few months and seems to discuss bitcoin scaling solutions (BCC, Lightning, SegWit, SegWit2x, etc). This article doesn't seem to be just limited to a discussion of a problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said, I do agree with the rename to Bitcoin scaling. Reasons: The name is short and does not contradict any of the claims in the article. The name is neutral, reflects the fact that some of the sources do not see bitcoin scaling as a problem. The name is in sentence case as required by WP:MOS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladislav Mecir: & @Ben Best: I propose a RfC on this talkpage to rename the article, with the RfC purpose to get broader opinions and more votes. Do you have any suggested names? I know you suggested Bitcoin Scaling above, and I am fine with that name as well. Should we only offer one new name, or should we propose a few? I think that this page is a somewhat important sub-page now as it seems that over the past year a few different events have occured that all are now their own articles, and this article tends to link them. I am talking about Bitcoin Cash, SegWit2x, Lightning Network, and SegWit, and maybe even Bitcoin Gold could be added to the list. I just think the 'problem' in the name is an obvious WP:NPOV issue and ought to be resolved. I think we could just propose to leave the article name the same "Bitcoin scalability" and just drop the "problem" as well. Any comments? But I think I would prefer Bitcoin Scaling as it seems to be better grammer. Maybe we can get a few choices here even we disagree, and then we put it to a vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covering the debate

[edit]

RESOLVED- Debate sections have be included under background. Additional information is included under the various proposals and is linked to relevant articles. RebirthNA (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding the different proposals currently listed in the article represent a few different ideologies (maybe two if we distill) about bitcoin. Seems to me they are often referred to as the small blockers (who prefer higher fees), and the big blockers who prefer more transactions on chain. Let's see if we can find the RS to add this content.

Here is a quote: "Small blockers argue that an increase of on-chain capacity adds resource requirements on nodes, thus increases costs, which leads to a decreased number of individuals who are willing to run a node.

They then extrapolate to sometime in the next century to say that as on-chain transactions are kept forever, nodes will eventually have to be in massive data centers, thus decreasing their numbers considerably to perhaps 10 or 20. On-chain transactions, therefore, should be kept limited, argue small blockers.

Big blockers say that technology grows exponentially with resource requirements to run a node being negligible, therefore on-chain capacity should operate above demand so that it is useful to the most amount of people." http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/05/31/ethereum-now-three-times-nodes-bitcoin

Here is a Roger Ver quote, I think we can use this given the source. 6. “The current path that the small blockers are taking has the wrong economic code and will likely end in failure if Bitcoin isn’t allowed to scale soon.” https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/roger-ver-block-size/

Is there more content we can find to cover this subject?

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure trustnodes or cryptocoinsnews qualify as WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added some content from coindesk. Is there another industry rag source you find acceptable as RS? Too much coindesk in this article, and not much mainstream media coverage, with the exception of nigeriatoday :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent non-industry rag source covering this debate. I added a little content from it, but I think more could be added. http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoins-hard-fork-bitcoin-unlimited-segregated-witness-explained-2017-3 Happy editing :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

RESOLVED Copyright violations have been removed. Please stop adding copyright violations of the cited sources. Also note that existing violations must be deleted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised some article text. If you feel something else is amiss, feel free to let me know. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[edit]

RESOLVED Source was added under appropriate section. RebirthNA (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent source today to help expand this article. http://www.coindesk.com/explainer-what-is-segwit2x-and-what-does-it-mean-for-bitcoin/ Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upper or lower case

[edit]

RESOLVED Consensus was reached and article was modified accordingly (see below). RebirthNA (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my use of Bitcoin (upper case) for the protocol/network, and bitcoin (lower case) for the currency has become out-dated [3], at least by Wikipedian standards.--Ben Best:Talk 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed by Wikipedians, and unanimous consensus was established. Some sources can be found in Bitcoin#Terminology. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Explanation

[edit]

RESOLVED -Adjusted in the background section RebirthNA (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual meaning of the "Bitcoin scalability problem" is that transactions are handled too slowly due to too few and too small blocks. That should be explained in the first few sentences.

Also the problem is not just because the blocks are too small, they are also just too infrequent. That should probably be mentioned as well.

ReneHSZ (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Segwit/Segwit2x sections & article structure problem

[edit]

RESOLVED-The point of this section was to give a brief overview on the Segwit plan. Variations between Segwit and Segwit2x were deemed not important enough for the creation of another section. RebirthNA (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the current structure of this article makes it very difficult to clearly explain the topics. Segwit & Segwit2x are very closely related to one another, their history is intertwined. It's not possible to explain the activation of Segwit for example without mentioning the New York Agreement & Segwit2x, but edits that do this has previously been removed from this page for mentioning Segwit2x in the Segwit section. I'm not really sure what the answer is here, but the current structure isn't working. Perhaps specific details of Segwit/2x/BCH etc. etc. could just be moved to their own pages, linked to from here? Thoughts?Omcnoe (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you mention was not a consensual edit, and, in my opinion, it would be best to revert it, for the reasons you mention, to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How are we then to explain the activation of Segwit? It was activated under the terms of the NYA, I don't feel like this current seperation of Segwit/Segwit2x works well. Perhaps it's better to remove explanations of scaling solutions from this page entirely, and merely refer to the individual scaling solutions pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omcnoe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think segwit was activated in "under the terms of the NYA". It was activated by BIP 91, which is not a segwit2x thing. Since there is no proof, you cannot conflate them here. It is synthesis. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ladislav & Omcnoe that these edits are not helpful nor are they consensus based. The fact is as pointed out above that the sources all listed NYA and Segwit together, and it is part of the history. I also suggest a revert back to earlier versions. I noted that user Ysangkok made segwit edits across a number of pages all on the same day. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All sources mention the NYA and Segwit together? This is impossible since Segwit was authored before the NYA was conceived. That the article cites biased writeups does not change this. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ysangkok, clearly, segwit is about broader things that the NYA (litecoin, etc), and hence SegWit has its own article page. This section, however, is about segwit and Bitcoin, and most (or maybe all) of the sources seem to connect it to the NYA whether you like that or not. Maybe you can find sources to improve the article, your opinions on if a source is 'biased' has no relevence here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SegWit predated the NYA. The NYA agreed upon SegWit2x. --Ben Best:Talk 12:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table

[edit]

RESOLVED- Will not be included as no proposal is truly dead and still receives support from at least one developer. In order to add this, a consensus on "dead" proposals would have to be reached and has been unsuccessful.

I think a table on this page would be useful to show successful and now ended scaling proposals.

Dead: Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Unlimited, 2x

Survived: Cash, Segwit

We could add in the dates proposed, date activated, date died. Does anyone else think this would be useful?

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Bitcoin XT is "dead" is unfounded, since the client software works, exists, and is supported.
The claim that Bitcoin Unlimited is "dead" is unfounded too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oh, ok. maybe we would lack the RS to show the updates on these types of projects then? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Segwit is a scaling solution. Where is this demonstrated? What I think is more accurate to say is that the "problem" has been "solved" by Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Segregated witness creates a larger block size. Today the block size has increased about 10%, so thus 10% scaling as of now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: WP:IRS such as The Telegraph and others seem to disagree with your original research. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bitcoin scalability problem → ? – This article is currently named Bitcoin scalability problem. I believe the use of the word problem is a WP:NPOV issue as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem, and what are solutions to it (such as already deployed scaling solutions Bitcoin Cash, SegWit, and Lightning Network which are discussed in the content of this very article). I propose the article be changed to "*Bitcoin Sscaling", thus dropping the word problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Seems some (or maybe many) of your examples are Mathematical problems. The subject of this article does not refer to a math problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Year 2038 problem is a mathematical problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. AIRcorn (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page you linked to doesn't say what you think it says. What it actually says is "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." The current title is an encyclopedic title. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. As you quote it can be valid or invalid. So basically quoting a bunch of other stuff does not make something valid or indeed invalid, it is just other stuff. Anyway I will stand by my position. This as a descriptive title and we should avoid judgmental and non-neutral words. "Problem" seems to fit the bill of a judgemental or non-neutral word. Especially as their are other more appropriate ways to describe the content of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon - seems wasting time offtrack with labels for scenarios or labels re what is being solved for or who created it -- not cases applying here or the question RFC asked. Is there some way I'm not seeing that informs whether this article should, or helps ask Aircorn what he meant by 'encyclopedic', or can we drop it? Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no one faced with the rising transaction costs and lengthening confirmation times should fail to see this is a problem for bitcoin as a medium of exchange. --Ben Best:Talk 14:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In this case, the balance of reliable sources indicate that the issue is widely seen as a problem that must be solved; debates over the severity of the problem, how best to implement the solution, etc., do not change the fundamental point. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the content of the article, I don't see a problem with the current title, since it seems that it is indeed a problem that people are trying to solve. However, a more neutral-sounding title like "Scalability of Bitcoin" would also be appropriate and perhaps better. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree -- Bitcoin does have a scaleability problem according to numerous evaluations, it is not a WP:POV issue to report something accuratly. Damotclese (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The author of this RfC has presented zero evidence that any reliable source does not think that bitcoin has a scalability problem. The only debate is about how best to solve it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't know whether Bitcoin's lack of scalability is really a problem. But it's generally presented as one in the popular press and on cryptocurrency sites. Wikipedia should follow those sources. A couple of centuries ago it might have been called the "bitcoin scalability question", cf. Schleswig-Holstein Question, Irish question. Maproom (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-ish The current title is inappropriate to the article and topic, and generally looks like the current structure of articles is a bad fit. Basically the article is not doing well at communicating and does not seem like the set of bitcoin articles is covering things well as an encyclopedia.
First -- The article leads with stating why the problem exists without describing what the problem is, and the body is generally about scalability proposals so title "Bitcoin scalability approaches" would seem to a more appropriate title for the article. The concern on if "problem" is a POV thing or label concern seems a maybe -- "scalability issues" is more clearly about events or impacts and seems more common, and "problem" is a negative connotation. But it seems more severe that even in TALK folks are reading "Bitcoin scalability problem" as different meanings, and one would need to scope the topic before the label can be judged. I do see online articles describing it as technical growth in transactions and governance, or as arising politics, or as being the internal fight of deciding on implementation change, or as a red herring, and so on. I think the general description " a debate about the best protocol to be used to expand the network" suits -- but that also argues for using "issue" instead of "problem" as the article title and substantially changing the content. I
Second - the structure of articles has this article referred to from Bitcoin Scalability section as the main article on the topic - which would imply this article should be "Bitcoin Scalability" without a further narrowing -- or maybe the Bitcoin article should change the section title and make the link a See Also. For encyclopedic and educational value I think it seems missing a layer - if the title/scope is the 'problem', then things other than problems would be WP:OFFTOPIC and I'd think it would be more encyclopedic to be explaining Blockchain Size Effects as a subsection somewhere and perhaps the other diverse meanings of "Bitcoin scalability problem" could be subsections ? Scalability seems a broad general topic, and this article is a fairly narrow subfocus so it seems missing either a parent level between it and Bitcoin or missing some sibling article(s) about Bitcoin scalability.
As a sidenote -- since the article seems to lack content describing what the problem is, and this RFC is about title for the article rather than doing so, I'll try putting in a couple External links of such explanations in the meanwhile. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A quick Google search for "bitcoin scaling" (without the 'problem') finds that most sources refer to it as the 'Bitcoin Scaling Problem' or some clear variation on that term (eg. issue, drama, solution, all in contexts that make it clear that it's a problem people are trying to solve.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't have much to add and I don't think that the title is likely to confuse any reader. If the article can be improved by rewriting, what else is special? As for the pedantic points raised, small earthquake in Andalusia, say I. JonRichfield (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Regardless of personal opinion, many reputable sources use the term "Bitcoin scalability problem". Nanophosis (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the issue is that this article is about a problem; removing the word that tells readers this is of no help to anyone. The fact that reliable sources refer to it as a 'problem' is irrelevant to this discussion. Article titles should give an accurate account of the content of the page—if we are providing a page about issues with something, readers should be aware of this as soon as they arrive. –Sb2001 11:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - summoned by bot. Reading the arguments, I originally thought the article could reasonably be entitled "bitcoin scalability", but then I saw nothing in the article about anything but the problem. If the article discussed the scalable nature of bitcoin in general, and then included info about how it isn't scalable in some ways, I'd support the move. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]
  • Where is the evidence supporting the claim that "there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem"? I have yet to see a serious assertion that bitcoin has no scaling problem, just debates on how best to fix it.[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2000+ hits for "bitcoin scalability debate" (using quotes to exclude non direct hits) in google, see [5] as evidence. I guess while maybe the majority are not WP:RS, there are likely a dozen (or more) RS inside that search. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Start reading them. I did and the first twenty that looked like RS were debating how best to address the scalability problem. I couldn't find one that said that there is no scalability problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The background subject of this article is generally called the "Bitcoin scaling debate." These sources [6] & [7] from CoinDesk dont refer to a "problem." In this source [8] Coindesk does refer to a scalability problem. Yet, to be clear for us editors to go through all the articles one by one and count them (as you said you have done) the result is still alas WP:OR. A better approach is to simply name the article something without bias and allow the sources to define the debate, and we cover it as best as we can in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can all use Google to find webpages that use the term "bitcoin scaling debate" without using the term "problem". None of your citations say that no problem exists. None of them say that there is a debate about whether a problem exists. They all talk about the debate concerning how best to fix bitcoin. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must agre that Bitcoin does have a scale problem as supported by the glut of articles and news reports as well as technical publications all of which one may Google. Recent technical articles have been covering the scale problem and the electric power requirements to sustain Bitcoin which are projected to become insurmountable and insupportable. But this has always been a known issue with the block chain application, it has always been realized from the start that there was going to be a scale problem.
The extant article's title is fully supported by all available evidence. Damotclese (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to my own WP:OR it does seem to be a problem as well. However, to my understanding the word "problem" in the title is not encyclopedic. A title should be "non-judgemental", see WP:NDESC. This whole discussion of whether bitcoin has a problem or not, is missing the point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's your problem. You think "Bitcoin scalability problem" is judgemental. It isn't. It is a descriptive title that complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Neither is "Year 2038 problem" judgemental, for the same reasons. BTW, WP:NDESC clearly states that it is for names invented specifically for articles and instructs you to read WP:NPOVNAME and apply it to common article names such as this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above on the 8th you acknowledged there is a bitcoin scaling debate, saying "None of them say that there is a debate about whether a problem exists. They all talk about the debate concerning how best to fix bitcoin." Now you are talking about the 2028 problem which is a software bug aka the Unix Millennium Bug. Are you saying bitcoin has a scalability bug, are you referring to the widely cited scalability debate as you said above, or something else? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, I have yet to see a serious assertion that bitcoin has no scaling problem, just debates on how best to fix it. I don't know how I can possibly be more clear than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the article covers as you mention the debate as well as various solutions Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said at the top of this RfC: "...as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem...". Wrong. There exists no such debate. Despite repeated requests, you have utterly failed to produce a shred of evidence that there is such a debate. You keep trying to hide this lack of evidence by talking about a completely different debate (how best to fix the bitcoin scalability problem that everyone but you says exists). --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is plainly clear that a debate exists. My WP:OR WP:SYNTH is that the 'small-block' community say there is no problem and the 'big-block' community say there is a problem. You are saying that everyone agrees there is a problem and the debate is how to solve it. I am not sure that my opinion or your opinion is really relevent here. The article should have a title that is broad enough to cover the various opinions in the debate. Why are you so opposed to calling the article the Bitcoin scalablity debate? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me what is being discussed here is, according to CoinDesk called the Block Size Debate. Coindesk says "Though widely known as the "block size debate", there is by no means agreement in the bitcoin community that bitcoin needs to change the size of the network's data blocks in order to achieve a more scalable platform."[1] Coindesk goes on to say: "Bitcoin is divided. Some are calling it the currency’s "constitutional crisis", a debate that has split its community right down the middle."[2] I think this should be pretty clear that a debate exists, and some of the parties to the debate are comfortable with the status quo. Whether the status quo is good or bad is for the reader to make their own decision about, it is not the role of wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Rizzo, Pete (19 January 2016). "Making Sense of Bitcoin's Divisive Block Size Debate". Coindesk. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
  2. ^ Caffyn, Grace (21 August 2015). "What is the Bitcoin Block Size Debate and Why Does it Matter?". Coindesk. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
More links about how best to address the bitcoin scalability problem -- in this case they are debating whether increasing the block size is the best way to address the bitcoin scalability problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no position on the above mentioned block size debate and assuming arguendo I did, a wikipeida talk page would not be the venue for it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote something that was untrue ("there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem") when you posted this RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sb2001: What does RM mean? I was the one who setup as a RfC and am open to suggestions Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: WP:Requested move. It’s the standard method of getting an article renamed. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of converting it from an RFC to an RM. If anyone finds such a third-party action objectionable, feel free to revert. —same user as above on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this subject truly notable? It doesn't strike me as something that would pass the ten year test. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would. Of course, once the bitcoin scalability problem is solved and/or bitcoin either implodes or becomes a dominant currency this article may end up being merged into a history of bitcoin article, but the scaling problem will still be of interest ten years from now, same as the IP address scaling probolem will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sb2001: Thanks for clarification on what RM was and I support changing to Requested Move. Next, I am not sure if this topic will pass the ten year test either. However, this article is referenced in various other bitcion articles, such as Segwit, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin, and thus is a useful article to host this scalability debate content in one location. This article does not really cover the scalability problem (if one exists), rather it covers various discussed scalability proposals, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bitcoin Cash

[edit]

Hello @David.S.Wiki:, this bitcoin cash section was already deleted by @Laurencedeclan: and should remain off the page until a discussion has been engaged see WP:STATUSQUO. I have blanked the section in this edit [9], a second time reverting your content. Note that bitcoin.com is not an WP:IRS for Bitcoin Cash, see that it is owned by Roger Ver is listed as a supporter of Bitcoin Cash. Find consensus on this talk page first. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jtbobwaysf:, since I'm new to this please give me some lenience as I'm still trying to learn Wikipedia. But I'm not sure what bitcoin.com or Roger Ver have to do with this? The reference link to news.bitcoin.com was already there, I didn't add it. But if you don't like that reference link there are many others. Again this is fact not fiction backed with citations and evidence. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-just-mined-first-block-making-blockchain-split-official/ https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/08/01/first-bitcoin-cash-block-mined https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/birth-bch-first-crazy-days-bitcoin-cash/
If you want to use any of those articles I don't really care either way, but the point is that Bitcoin Cash caused Bitcoin to fork on August 1, 2017. What other information do you need to have the edit readded? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswiki (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your posts. In order to get the information re-added, you need to find a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bitcoin's segwit fork predated Bitcoin Cash, thus I don't see how Bitcoin Cash could have caused Bitcoin to fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: "Bitcoin's segwit fork predated Bitcoin Cash, thus I don't see how Bitcoin Cash could have caused Bitcoin to fork." - Maybe this is the source of your misunderstanding of events (I don't mean that as an insult, I'm strictly speaking here). As per the references I was trying to provide in the other Wikipedia pages, here is the sequence of events: August 1, 2017 Bitcoin Cash forks.[1] On August 23, 2017 SegWit forks.[2] I used the same source on both as I have seen CoinDesk cited many times on Wikipedia as reliable. If they aren't reliable let me know, there are many others that published similar articles. I hope this helps, let me know if it doesn't. - Davidswiki (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
@Davidswiki: yes, I was wrong the the dates, as I just checked the bitcoin cash and segwit articles. Segregated witness was a software update that was added to bitcoin, thus bitcoin had a soft fork. This soft fork was in what I have read had nothing to do with Bitcoin Cash. From what I have read Bitcoin Cash did not cause segregated witness to fork. Have you found sources that state that Bitcoin had the segwit soft fork because of Bitcoin Cash? Or am i getting confused here with the content you were seeking to add? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is glaringly incorrect

[edit]

The blocksize limit is not 1 megabyte. See this recently mined 2.1 megabyte block. Laurencedeclan (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurencedeclan: I agree, let's find a source and change it. Cryptocompare.com [10] says 4mb, and coindesk [11] points to a theoretical limit of 4mb. Here [12] is an RS stating that as of recently 14% of transactions are now using SegWit. This [13] source also goes through some of coinbase's roles in fees recently. Here [14] is a cornel researcher talking about blocksizes, but not directly about segwit current sizes. All that said, I still haven't found source talking about these new larger blocks that many of us have seen in blockexplorer, and you correctly pointed out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should talk about "weight", which is how it exists in code. Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CC Ladislav Mecir. Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurencedeclan: We did add the weight over at SegWit, you could copy that content over here as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

[edit]

This article is pure fear, uncertainty and doubt. It factually misleading from the very first sentence. What limits? Parameters in software are coded. Set, artificially. There is no known limit on the number of transactions that the bitcoin network can process. None. There is only a limit set by developers. The fourth sentence almost gets it correct with "is limited", fifth sentence correct word is constrained. The last sentence in the lead is pure nonsense with the keywords being "proposed", "solutions" and "issues" showing the articles bias and true intent.

The current limit is selected by software developers. This is no problem. The maintainers of the Bitcoin Core software client choose the current rate for the number of transactions on the bitcoin network. The first sentence is factually misleading. The rest of the article is therefore bogus and should be deleted.

This FUD is being promoted by Blockstream for the promotion of its Lightning Network product. Wikipedia should be neutral. We must pay more attention to the Bitcoin Cash fork and its technical success. We must also note the researchers who have tested transaction rates on-chain at much faster rates than currently permitted by BTC. We should also note that similar cryptocurrencies are not grappling with the same scaling problems. Importantly (as another user tried to discuss) we must not invent fake problems that provide a excuse for an alternative vapourware product. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the non-existent or slow response. Fear. Owners of bitcoin shouldn't be editing this article because of the conflict of interest with their financial interests. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are typically unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Regular editors of cryptocurrency-related articles should be declaring their interests. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on whether a Bitcoin scalability problem exists has been duly noted. Be aware that the Requested move 19 January 2018 section above showed a strong consensus for a Bitcoin scalability problem existing. Bitcoin’s maximum throughput is between 3.3 and 7 transactions per second. If you have a citation giving a different number, please post it.
Your comments about owners of bitcoin are completely out of line. I don't own any bitcoin but I do own three Subarus. Does that mean that I have a COI when editing List of Subaru engines? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your proposed deletion because you failed to list a valid criteria for deletion. You may wish to try WP:AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is often used as a connector article between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin. My personal opinion is the name itself is an WP:NPOV problem calling it a problem when it is not a math problem and some industry sources state there is no problem at all. We did an RFQ on this subject and my opinion at that time was in the minority. I do agree this article and the general bitcoin cash and bitcoin debate need to be more strictly enforced in terms of NPOV. I do not support deleting this page, but I do support re-naming. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A move/rename proposal failed on 20 January 2018. We need to wait at least six months before proposing another move/rename. There was a strong consensus for a Bitcoin scalability problem existing. Do you believe that there are any NPOV problems other than the consensus disagreeing with your opinion that there is "no problem at all"? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTC blockchain

[edit]

@The Anome: This edit you re-introduced jargon into the article. There is no "BTC blockchain" there is only a bitcoin blockchain. BTC is the ticker symbol that is used for Bitcoin. Please don't re-add this content without justification and sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I strongly disagree. This is not just jargon. You’re calling it Bitcoin, but you’re actually talking about BTC. BTC, the asset, and Bitcoin, the invention are two vastly different things. – https://thatsbtcnotbitcoin.com/ --Bernd von Herrenburg (talk) 10:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTC is the unit of account on the Bitcoin network. That website is nonsense. BSV is a fork of Bitcoin (BTC) - This is obvious because Bitcoin (BTC) network runs on the original client (Bitcoin Core), whereas BSV does not. Also never buying BSV, shill it somewhere else. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than just one scalability ersproblems

[edit]

This article is about a single scaling problem of Bitcoin. I think it must mention the existence of furthers, must have a reference to them or must talk about them. 2001:4DD5:4947:0:CC1A:70B4:AF8:2A7F (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem&oldid=1206314280"