Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 2

Supporters
and you should not be adding content like this  sourced by primary sources. This is not a fanpage, and if it is, it sure needs to have WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not add the sources you mention, but I reverted your deletion per WP:SELFSOURCE. In this case, the source was used as an information on itself. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-controversial statements do not always require sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVERTISING applies here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you say that the claim that the entrepreneur Falkvinge supports Bitcoin Cash is advertising? Based on what? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the statements must be verifiable. On the other hand, the deleted claim was verifiable using Falkvinge's own writings, as WP:SELFSOURCE allows. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These statements are not controversial. The correct response would be to remove poor references with an explanation as to why and a citation needed template so other editors can tend to it.  We are also allowed to use primary sources to reference those subjects themselves.  When content that is not controversial is removed it shows bias.  The article requires expansion at this time.  Removing content is not advised as we are aiming for comprehensiveness. These additions are nothing to do with advertising or promoting.  I will re-add the removed content and if a source is not adequate please at the citation needed template. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples of use-cases are not promoting anything because I write in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Why downplay the utility of BCH?  Notice how a reason to remove is picked but when questioned on detail no answer is forthcoming. Undisputed facts regarding historical fees and basic differences such as no reference implementation, replace-by-fee were removed carelessly. Legitimate sources are objected to when the view expressed is not pro-BTC. This is a game for some editors who just pick the best rule to enforce or deny the content they prefer because of paid gatekeeping.  Do we see many other declarations of crypto ownership on here?  All the things I have wanted to include should be included because I am describing Bitcoin Cash neutrally with citations and briefly in a sentence or two. More supporters will speak up, editors will follow me with use-cases and they aren't going to appreciate the agenda-driven editing rampant across all media against BCH. We should not be removing so much knowledge about a growing new crypto. Please add a citation needed template if you have valid concerns and wait a few weeks for the best source to be found and exact wording to improve.  Too many editors do not want to work constructively to improve this article.  I want to cover 0-conf, Cashaddr and how signatures are preserved over Segwit but why should I bother if the censors are swarming here?


 * bitcoin.com doesn't automatically become an unreliable source for this article because someone suggested it was. You have to provide proof that a source is unreliable.  The lead is all wrong on this article.  Instead of linking to phony nonsense about a scaling "problem" it should discuss the reasons for the need to fork.  It should include a link to the original Bitcoin, explain how there is no scaling problem and how BCH is superior to BTC because on-chain scaling, low fees, rapid transfer, etc.  The article should also explain the internet disinformation campaign against BCH and more about the illegitimacy of BTC. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

quote box
How is the statement "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin and will have the bigger market cap, trade volume and user base in the future." promoting something? All this quotes contain is a statement of what Bitcoin Cash is and what it might become from one of the leading voices in Bitcoin. How can that in anyway be promotional? There are no words of encouragement. There is no product, organization, or venture that is being advertised. As the first ever investor in Bitcoin related startups our readers would be interested to know this. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

good article neutral source
Here is a good article to use. Jiang Zhuo’er is an investor who mines. He is neither a supporter of or opposed to BCH. Some of his views should be outlined here, including BCH as a competitor in marketplace and how BCH is the only coin that attracts proponents of on-chain scaling. Its important to explain how BCH fits into the crypto space. The article lacks context due to bias against BCH from BTC holders scared of valid competition. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. Self-published blogs are not acceptable. Your misrepresentation of the motives of the editors who insist on following the policies is not acceptable too. Retimuko (talk) 05:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you see the exception to this rule? Professionals in the field on which they write are excepted.  The statement requiring a source is a quotation.  I was thinking of "BCC is a competitor of BTC that wants to do better than Bitcoin, not kill it." because it explains how this currency is a substitute good competing in a market rather than a scam.  His pool mines both currencies.  Keep pretending there is no misrepresentation rampant on the internet and see where that gets you.  Its important for Wikipedia to be neutral.  All majority and significant minority views need to be covered. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Because Bitcoin Cash is so much more useful than BTC
Because Bitcoin Cash is so much more useful than BTC we need a features section that provides all the details of the technical advantages that Bitcoin Cash has over its rival. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

non-neutral edits by Shiftchange
insists on adding information that seems to push a non-neutral point of view. See edits: 1, 2, 3. Examples of promotional language: assertion that "Bitcoin Cash retained the decentralization of Bitcoin" with no sources to support that, "important distinctions", assertions like "Bitcoin Cash aims to be a medium of exchange as originally described in the Bitcoin whitepaper", "useful for making payments", "most successful spin-off and its adoption by investors was quick" without attribution. Some of that was removed, but later added again by Shiftchange. This promotional language needs to be removed or substantially rephrased to be neutral provided that reliable sources are cited to support the claims. Retimuko (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do agree that seems to be too liberal when inserting ideas into the article without basing them on reliable sources. Also, he seems to want to enforce his edits no matter whether there is any consensus with them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does this idea come from that every single statement must be sourced? Lets remember the lead is for a summary and key facts.  Detailed explanation and references are ideally suited to the body text.  Besides that I have been sourcing most of my additions.  If a music artist reaches number 1 on the charts it is not considered promotional to include that type of content on biographical articles.  I am just describing basic characteristics of the crypto, the ones that are significant for BCH.  Notice the content that is removed is done so without explaining why that content false or inaccurate.  It is always some other excuse. Is anyone suggesting its not useful for making online payments?  Has it not been the most successful fork of Bitcoin?  Did its price go up substantially immediately after launch? I can't see how explaining these things briefly in the lead, these things that make it distinct from Bitcoin the original, especially since we are discussing a fork, is promotional in nature.  Lets expand this article so our readers understand the subject fully.  I would encourage you to re-phrase if I am off in my wording, but don't just remove. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support Retimuko's efforts to removed unsourced WP:OR and promotional content from this article. Something that is unsourced should be 100% uncontroversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Another batch of blatant promotion by. Assertion that it is "useful" is clearly non-neutral. Assertion that it is "the most successful spin-off and its adoption by investors was quick" is based on one article in Cointelegraph. It might be acceptable with attribution and from a better source perhaps, and maybe not it the lead. Another assertion is about "common sentiment" based on a statement on bitcoin.com, the most biased source one could find. They make "official statement" that "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Please stop this. Retimuko (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Shiftchange, I just spent the past 5 minutes deleting huge quantities of unsourced content, promo content, garbage, etc. Large amounts of stuff are unsourced, some site twitter, others cite press releases. Horrible in general. Edits like [ are unacceptable. Wikipedia requires [[WP:RS]]. Don't add unsourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep making the bad mistake of believing that everything must be sourced. Ridiculous.  You must challenge the content first.  That challenge must be valid.  Removing content you don't like is not a valid challenge.  For example, are you disputing any statement about the Satoshi Vision conference I added?  What needs a source?  What are you questioning?  What is unclear about the single sentence about a recent conference related to the subject?  Our job here is to describe what Bitcoin Cash is.  That includes how it is viewed and used.  Describing Bitcoin Cash is not promoting it. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , you made this revert and justified it in the edit summary by saying "add main advantage over BTC, re-add content that was removed without valid reasons." At wikipedia we dont care what is Bitcoin Cash's advantage over Bitcoin.   you reverted content here  that is the subject of an ongoing RfC. Looping in a couple other editors, to see if they care to comment.  and  we have a promotion WP:CIRCUS situation going on at this article with two Bitcoin Cash advocates. Maybe you care to take a look and advise what to do. I was templated by both Ladislav and Shiftchange asserting edit warring for my removal of large swaths of unsourced content. Should I just continue to remove it? ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you decide what our readers want to read. Our readers would care because it is a fork of Bitcoin.  Why did it fork?  How successful is that process?  You keep failing to address the fact that not all content must be sourced.  You have to have a legitimate reason for removing content.  You also remove content regardless of whether or not it is sourced with a summary of "trash".  Can you see how this demonstrates bias?  I am just trying to expand the article with details that you keep removing because you don't like it. Bad editing.  Lets expand the article instead to get it to C class and then B class. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - the facts are that
 * the edit I reverted was discussed and it is known to not have required consensus here
 * the fact that you are trying to start a RfC (not really in a recommended way, see below) does not create a consensus all of a sudden, it only allows us to find a consensus in a discussion
 * discussing the edit here is inappropriate, since it is not related to the edit warring behaviour of Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * so here and here you added unsourced promotion/trivia like In March 2018, Bitcoin Cash enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo for the Satoshi’s Vision Conference were the main themes were scaling, tokenisation and adoption. and other promotional content about uptake or advantages sourced to SPS like twitter and a company blog. Please make sure edits are based on high quality independent sources and please add neutral, descriptive content, not content that attempts to persuade people to use this currency.  I remain interested in a response to my query at your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So which is it promotion or trivia? The first sentence in my contribution you linked as "promotional" was sourced to a reference already in the article used to source the first sentence.  Are you saying that source is unreliable or that what I wrote is trivial?  Describing its rapid adoption, its high market, its support and its use is in no way "promotional".  It is explanation.  I only use Twitter to source relevant statements made on Twitter.  I am not doing any persuasion.  My contributions are always neutral.  I am building an encyclopedia.  We must be comprehensive to reach B Class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the charts because they are just artwork of some unknown individuals and we have no idea about the quality of the data. The phrase about "the most successful" is clearly non-neutral. Yes, Cointelegraph says something of that sort, but it is an editorial opinion, not a statement of fact. Editorial opinions even from the best journalistic outlets should be avoided, and I wouldn't call Cointelegraph a very reliable source. Just look at this article: do you see a name of the author and the publication date? I don't see any. Unless there is some problem with my browser or my vision, it is an indication of poor editorial practices. It is one thing to state facts like "the market cap was X as of some date according to this reliable source" and quite another to give an opinion that "adoption was quick" (how quick is quick?) without attribution and based on a dubious source Retimuko (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * All the recent removals are done with no reason other than I don't like it because it is too supportive of Bitcoin Cash. That is false and too bad.  Bitcoin Cash has support and I will ensure it is reflected in the article.  BCH enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo is a basic fact so mentioning it in the article is being neutral.  The removal of that sort of information is non-neutral. One editor who removes wants to include derogatory slurs against it with Btrash.  We can see the same bias spreading here that I found on Roger Ver's article. I want the article to explain BCH's use and its popularity. To deny the success of Bitcoin Cash and its advantages over BTC is clearly non-neutral, just as it would be for anything that has utility. Many people want to learn about BCH because they want to earn it.  That is why my content about application gets removed because it is real world usage that demonstrates superiority over BTC.  The charts are fine without inaccuracies and Cointelegraph is fine.  The quality of my references is fine.  They get removed regardless, for example in the lead, when I re-used an existing citation.  If my contributions had been improved upon with the citation needed template and any other minor corrections needed, this article would be approaching B class.  The BTC as gold and BCH as cash aspect needs to be fully explored as well as how BCH is used and is better for payments. The bias against BCH in this article is appalling. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Why was this readdded, both  and I deleted this before? This ongoing WP:SOAP is awful. In general this summary of your recent additions looks highly suspicious. I don't understand how you think this is ok. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Unlimited Origin
I have posted many references proving BUIP055 became UAHF which became Bitcoin Cash. There are tons more in github repos, on Reddit and other message boards, etc. And I confirm the history as a first person source. Please do not revert this change -- post your questions here instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrewstone (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Andrew, we cant use reddit, github, or messages boards as WP:RS. Please review about RS and see if you can find better Reliable Sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, GitHub can be used as a source on itself. In this case, it is obviously unreliable as a source to confirm that Bitcoin Unlimited was the first to propose Bitcoin Cash, since it does not even contain such an information. On the other hand, it can be used as a source to confirm that it contained the BUIP055 proposal on May 10, 2017. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, thanks for providing the nuance that I failed to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I will use github to confirm that it contained the BUIP055 proposal and that subsequent BUIP055 documentation contained the term UAHF before the bitmain announcement. This shows that the bitmain announcement emerged out of BUIP055. Gandrewstone (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

But I disagree with your interpretation of reliable sources. The bitco.in forum is the official location in Bitcoin Unlimited where BUIPs are discussed and voted on. Therefore the official statements by solex on these forums, such as vote tallies, meet the requirement that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". We are simply discussing the history of Bitcoin Unlimited, and so the actual historical material is the best source to confirm that history, especially since the forum bitco.in is an independent entity. Gandrewstone (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No using githhub and random blogs is not what we do here. Wikipedia is not an extension of the blogosphere. The spirit of what we do here is summarize what other high quality sources say - we don't generate our own new content by describing what is found  in primary sources like github.  Please see User:Jytdog/How to learn how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Wikipedia
Are other editors becoming aware of what I am doing here? Bitcoin Cash will not be denied on Wikipedia. Its not going to happen. This is what is going to happen. I am going to write the definitive article for Bitcoin Cash. This is no battleground. This is for knowledge of Bitcoin Cash. Are we comprehending what that means? Comprehensiveness. I will write knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. This article is going to improve. I am going to do that. No paid gate-keeping of any magnitude is going to get in my way. This message is for clarity for the confused among us. I am also going to get or create charts and images to improve the page. Then I will ensure Bitcoin Cash is adequately represented elsewhere on Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is really inappropriate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Messages like this do not help your case for legitimacy. Free Bullets (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Notice there is no explanation as to why my comment was inappropriate. Why?  What is this message like?  My comment was fine and perfectly legitimate.  Everything I have written about he on the talk page is legitimate while everything opposed to what I am trying to do is bias against Bitcoin Cash. Everyone can see how you are not addressing my concerns.  Everyone can see the editors not discussing the issues and instead removing content for invalid reasons. This instant removal and dismissal because you don't like it is not going to fly. - 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftchange (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Related conference
This "In March 2018, Bitcoin Cash enthusiasts gathered in Tokyo for the Satoshi’s Vision Conference where the main themes were scaling, tokenisation and adoption." was added because it was a major Bitcoin Cash-related event. In the history of BCH the event features prominently and was highly regarded. Anyone wanting knowledge about Bitcoin Cash can learn about related events on Wikipedia pages. For example, when an artist makes an performance or someone notable goes on television it is often included in an article. Why do I have to explain basic content rules to other editors?

Why was it removed? Bias against Bitcoin Cash as discussed in this article. We see it here on Wikipedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Its not possible to censor
Its not possible to censor the same way online forums are because we have the goal of comprehensiveness. So editors should not be removing content, especially those who have made no declarations about the ownership of digital assets we are writing about. See WP:COI. Take your ideological war elsewhere. This is for knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Ideological war and adoption
Why was the Ideological war section removed? This has been widely reported on for months and months. We should have a large section which explains all the details concisely. The store of value versus medium of exchange needs to be covered in detail. This is about the only section where all statements should be referenced because it contains the controversy. Adoption of BTC seems to be slowing while the opposite is true for BCH. This needs to be expanded upon as well. This will probably need it owns section, apart from Applications in a few months. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

aka Bcash
in this edit you deleted cited content with the that said Bitcoin Cash (also known as BCash) Note the cointelegraph and bitcoin magazine sources were used later in the article, and we have previously discussed those sources before. My logic was to leave them down in the article as this small content is bordering on WP:OVERCITE I will revert your edit, as the content is properly sourced, and we can discuss it here. Please explain this edit. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you find a mainstream media source that supports this naming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhpike (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment was unsigned, please sign it. Here is another source from google books I think given that most of the industry rags are represented, a published book, and some non industry news such as Breibart we have more than enough to do an AKA name for this article. Also when I search for BCash in google  I am just getting Bitcoin Cash results, as it seems that google recognizes they are the same subject as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted the sources and the claim to WP:STATUSQUO since the sources are not WP:IRS. As an example, take the weusecoins.com website. It is a promotional commercial website, i.e. provably neither independent, nor reliable. The issue has also been discussed before and you know the result of the discussion. Restoring all the unreliable sources is not constructive. Take this as a warning, please. Edit warring is not appreciated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You again deleted the content . Please assist in restoring the content after reading this list of sources. This content adding "aka bcash" has been added numerous times by various editors (often anonymous), and normally you revert it, so I thought I would check sources, and now see there is a long list of sources, some quite fine as WP:RS. Please explain your assertion that above are not RS. I'll add more sources here such as               You can let me know which of these you think are also not WP:RS, but there are a few mainstream ones that I found per  request, such as Fortune (magazine) CNBC and Forbes (and note forbes is staff writer, not guest post). Your thoughts? Don't you agree we have enough sources here?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned 24 sources above. My findings are: Summing up, you lack consensus to use the formulation that "screams unprofessional and petty." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources such as Breitbart, Bitcoinist, Coindigo, (look like two citations of the same text) CoinBureau, WorldCryptoNetwork, TrustNodes, the Oracle Times, the BraveNewCoin or the ccn do not have the requisite reputation for fact-checking.
 * The sources such as 99bitcoins ("Buy bitcoin") or WeUseCoins have an apparent conflict of interest.
 * The Btcmagazine says that
 * "Many maintain that the name Bitcoin Cash simply is what the new coin is called" and that "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or even a 'social attack'."
 * "Bitfinex decided it would use the name Bcash instead of Bitcoin Cash." Btcmagazine, however, did not succeed to inform its readers that Bitfinex was criticized for this decision, and it returned to the Bitcoin Cash name soon.
 * "So far, most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name Bitcoin Cash."
 * The CoinTelegraph says that
 * the exchanges Bitstamp and Bitfinex using the Bcash name were criticized. The exchanges returned to the Bitcoin Cash name soon.
 * "A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally."
 * The John Clark's book is self-published.
 * The Merkle, the Cryptona and the CoinGeek say that "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."
 * The Verge article does not mention the Bcash name as an alternative of Bitcoin Cash.
 * The CNBC does not confirm the claim as formulated.
 * The Forbes is the only source which seems to confirm the claim, but it contradicts several other sources mentioned above and claiming otherwise.


 * You seek above to disqualify the sources one by one. However, the totality of the sources is clear that there is a pattern of aka using the term bcsah (not as the new article name, but as an aka). There are also a few obvious WP:RS as you will see below.


 * You said: "The sources such as Breitbart, Bitcoinist, Coindigo, (look like two citations of the same text) CoinBureau, WorldCryptoNetwork, TrustNodes, the Oracle Times, the BraveNewCoin or the ccn do not have the requisite reputation for fact-checking." In this case these sources are useful as they demonstrate a pattern of usage of the aka term by both industry publications as well as mainstream media (breitbart).


 * You said: "The sources such as 99bitcoins ("Buy bitcoin") or WeUseCoins have an apparent conflict of interest." I agree


 * You referred to source btcmagazine, which is Bitcoin Magazine an often used WP:RS and the headline of the source is: "Bitcoin Cash or Bcash: What's in a Name?", as well as lots of other text in the article that goes over the bcash name. The text you quoted presents the POV of the debate that rejects the bcash name.

Bitcoin Magazine: As Bitcoin Cash, or Bcash, is slowly but surely turning into a functioning cryptocurrency


 * You referred to the CoinTelegraph (another often cited RS) which is titled "Bitstamp Criticized For Listing Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Despite Community Outrage." Again your response is a POV, and here is another POV from the same source

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


 * You referred to the source The Merkle (another often cited RS), with the source title "Here’s Why Calling Bitcoin Cash “BCash” Is a Terrible Idea", yet another source that goes into the naming options.

TheMerkle: Over the past few months, we have seen various discussions regarding Bitcoin Cash. One of the main “problems” involves how people tend to refer to this altcoin these days. In the Bitcoin community, it is often known as BCash


 * You referred to the CNBC source (clearly an RS) titled " What will Bitcoin Cash be worth?" does confirm the formulation (aka BCash) and the source states:

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


 * You acknowledge that the Forbes source supports the content, but you assert the source is wrong. This is a widely used RS, and the source states

Forbes staff writer: "Bitcoin Cash, now also known as "Bcash"


 * You ignore another RS from Fortune that states again like Forbes refers to the aka for Bitcoin Cash as Bcash stating '

Fortune Magazine: "new Bitcoin spinoff, Bitcoin Cash or “Bcash,”


 * In summary, there exists a clear pattern of aka naming above to support the aka BCash text. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "You seek above to disqualify the sources one by one."&mdash;when I deleted your flood of unreliable sources recently, you just added more to the pile.
 * "...In this case these sources are useful"&mdash;unreliable sources are not useful, see WP:IRS.
 * Bitcoin Magazine: "So far, most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another... have also chosen to use the name Bitcoin Cash.", and all other informations mentioned. Note also that the source failed to inform that the use of the Bcash name by Bitfinex etc. was very limited in time (just days).
 * "CoinTelegraph: Throughout the past month, several major Bitcoin exchanges such as Bitstamp and Bitfinex have either listed or referred to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash in several instances."&mdash;and it also mentioned that Bitstamp quickly (within hours) changed their mind, failing to inform that Bitfinex also quickly changed their mind (within days). See also the above claim by Bitcoin Magazine.
 * "Here’s Why Calling Bitcoin Cash “BCash” Is a Terrible Idea"&mdash;this is in no way confirming that Bitcoin Cash is being called Bcash, only that such an idea exists.
 * CNBC does not confirm that Bitcoin Cash is being called Bcash. It only confirms that Aurélien Menant says so.
 * The fact is that the claim you introduced "screams unprofessional and petty." I am curious how, knowing the sources, you want to find consensus for an edit like that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about the content of the source and the POV (and also not responding about some sources such as forbes and fortune), and I am simply just confirming these are WP:RS. NPOV is needed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think we are talking about different things."&mdash;we are both discussing the edit you want to make, as far as I know. I agree that the Fortune may be treated as reliable, however, note that the great majority of Bitcoin Cash articles published by the Fortune uses only the Bitcoin Cash name, not mentioning Bcash at all. The same holds for the Forbes. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:LEADALT which states: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Significant usage of the alternative BCash name is demonstrated by the multiple WP:IRS that use BCash as an alternative name including Forbes, Fortune (magazine), Bitcoin Magazine, Cointelegraph, Aurélien Menant (CEO of Gatecoin) as quoted by CNBC, Jameson Lopp of BitGo as quoted by CoinDesk and the other twenty or so sources. Do you have any other objections to the sourcing of this content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Please see MOS:LEADALT" - I did and know that insignificant, petty names should not be put into the first sentence. The usage is insignificant, petty, fringe and misleading (see The Merkle article) as sufficiently demonstrated by your own sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

BCash is a decentralized coin in the gaming and casino industry, not Bitcoin Cash. Wikipedia is not a battlefront. It is widely known that use of Bcash to describe Bitcoin Cash is a pejorative term used to promote a cause or product known as Lightning Network. If Bcash is mentioned on this page it should be within this context. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , Are there WP:RS that mention this games website? You cited WP:NOTPROPAGANDA which states: "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." Are you suggesting we create a section to cover the naming debate? NOTPROPOGANDA does not provide a valid case for excluding widely cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Are there WP:RS that mention this games website?" - see your own sources, e.g. The Merkle, they do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just blanked some other promotional content from the Merkle, as it seems the Merkle allows these freelance journalists (aka user generated content). I have added a section per your comments. Seems we are in agreement that the debate exists and RS describe it. Seems there is some disagreement whether use is widespread or as Ladislav argues is WP:FRINGE and I argue useage is apparenlty widespread with a long list of mainstream WP:RS. Regardless WP:NOTPROPAGANDA does not provide a case for excluding the content. Can you find some other sources that state that usage of Bcash not liked, or is this single dubious Merkle source the only one? I have added the dubious Merkle source for now for the purposes of anchoring some NPOV views from this talk page section (I am not advocating that Bcash is the predominant name, see this talk page section is about usage of the term as aka).  Maybe you guys can find some better sources to state that the term is not the predominant term. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, now you are deleting The Merkle as a source from the article? Previously you claimed that it was a reliable source for your claims, so your behaviour looks highly inconsistent. We can discuss whether The Merkle is reliable or not, but your inconsistency in this respect is telling. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You section blanked the content I added of the name Bcash in this edit . Please explain why you think this content is not suitable. Note in the diff you will see that I included The Merkle source for NPOV, while noting that this is a low quality source but maybe workable for this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shall I presume your silence on the subject to mean you agree that I re-add the content? Please provide your justification for sectionblanking this well sourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Also, please take care you edit the source correctly next time, your unclosed ref tag caused unnecessary problems. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the war being waged against BCH needs to be explained in the article in detail. Use of the term Bcash would be part of that section.  I started an Ideological War section but it was removed for some random reason. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you remove valid content
It is going to be re-added because the article is just a start class. We want to expand the article to explain how useful it is or not, where it successful or not, what the various views on it are, etc. What are the features that distinguish it from Bitcoin. This is for knowledge about Bitcoin Cash. bitcoin.com doesn't become unreliable as a source because an editor claims it is. Besides that, if content needs better sources the best way to deal with it is to add a template requesting better sources. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

To be promotional
To be promotional the content must be subjective. It must treat the subject with encouragement, use puffery or inflated language or advertise a product. I always make sure I write objectively with a neutral point of view and no exaggeration. This first response to my additions is to remove because of promotion. False. The other reason is unreliable sources but that is also false.

All of my additions give the currency context. They explain why the fork occurred and what it means to users. My additions make the article more well-rounded and comprehensive. This is exactly the purpose of Wikipedia, especially if that subject is part of an ideological war. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't accurate. Excessive detail is promotional; adding content emphasizing benefits (eg here) is promotional. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The entire "support" section here is absurdly promotional. this edit note is... ironic at best. Your edits are generally promotional  - even addeing "celebrity endorsement" content, including a big set-off quote - with little to nothing negative. Where is the parallel "detractors" section? (I don't think we should have either, but this is the sort of thing I mean). Please do edit neutrally; we are not here to "sell" this currency. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article needs to explain why the fork occurred; what were the reasons this was done. If other editors want to create an Opposition section that is fine too.  Bitcoin Cash is the result of a long debate.  We should mention the various opinions by prominent people in the field.  My edits are not promotional at all.  I don't care what people do with their money or what property they own.  I have never "sold" a thing; my employment has been in government departments.  I hate marketing and I never watch advertisements.  I just want Wikipedia to fairly explain to readers about Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article should mention why the fork occurred if we can find RS to support that. But right now so much trash is being added to the article that it is becoming hard to read through it all and figure out what has proper sourcing and what doesn't. I have seen some stuff get deleted that was just caught up in the vacuum cleaner with the rest of the trash. I think your wholesale adding of content is actually counterproductive to your goals to explain things. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality template removed
I have been discussing the lack of neutrality on this article for 12 days now. None of the items I have mentioned have been addressed. When I re-add content it only gets removed for invalid reasons, rarely because it is inaccurate. If a source is lacking it is appropriate to request more referencing rather than remove the content. We are trying to be comprehensive. Can we all see the complete bias against BCH represented in the editing process? Anything suggesting positive comparison with Bitcoin is removed. Notice the tax implications section stays as "stay away" message too. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you need to mention a specific problem to justify the re-addition of the template. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The specific problem is that not all views are being represented on the article. You keep removing content that you don't approve of for invalid reasons. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I remove content that lacks reliable sources, is promotional, it or violates other wikipedia policies. Whether I personally agree with the content or not is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to back up Shiftchange on this one. Much of his edits were excessively self promotional and deserved to be reverted, but not all. For example, why did you remove mention of the other 2 Bitcoin Cash implementations that were developed prior to the launch of the fork? The section extolling the benefits of these multiple implementations was not neutral and should have been removed, but the mere mention of them did not I think warrant removal from the Development section. I think the point about the "Tax Implications" section is also very strong, I notice that you have reverted edits removing this section, but is the current content of the section significant enough to warrant an individual section in the article.? Especially when the contents of the section amounts to "the IRS have made no statement on the tax implications". This should be mentioned elsewhere, not allocated an entire section that is then given prominent mention in the table of contents. This sends a very non-neutral message to readers of this article that there are tax risks associated with the currency. This article is obviously a very controversial subject, so it's important that there is neutrality in edits that are made. Shiftchange is adding excessively promotional content, but rather than reverting these edits completely perhaps editing them to be more neutral would be more constructive & less edit-war'y. Until this article presents a NPOV I think the template should remain. Omcnoe (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. However. Not a single explanation has been given for how I am promoting, only assertions. On the other hand every single thing which suggests adoption, utility and acceptance is removed.  Its plainly obvious.  We have a cadre of editors purposefully distorting the article into fiction.  They treat BTC as an elitist status symbol so it retains value when in fact, compared to BCH it has little utility.  BCH threatens that due to its strong competition which is why my features section and the rest gets removed. This article is awfully un-informative.  I pushed it to a bare C:Class and would be close to B:Class if not for the interference.  Nevermind.  I see what has to be done.  I will write a draft here.  This is a dreadful thing for Wikipedia; how I can't write a proper article.  Just as BCH is adopted over BTC my superior article will be adopted at Wikipedia as well. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, if i did delete the implementations it was inadvertent. Shiftchange was adding a huge quanity of awful content, and a couple of us were reverting and deleting it as he was adding it (I suppose you see the section above related to shiftchange's non-neutral edits). Its possible good content got caught in the vaccum cleaner. Please feel free to re-add it. I too will go through and try to re-add some more stuff in the next weeks as well. The naming history, the mining pool that named it bitcoin cash orinally, the bitcoinabc implementation, i thought all of that stuff was good (some of it was I think deleted by jytdog if i recall, and then i might have killed off some empty sections). A few more eyeballs on this page is excellent. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already re-added the details of other node implementations. I can definitely see how edits simply got caught up in the removal by accident. I think that it is probably best to wait for a conclusion to the rfc before adding details of the naming. Omcnoe (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes definitely seriously
An external media box is an excellent ways to inform our readers. They also help break up the text as I expand the article. Its the same with the images I will add. Notice the media box was removed with no reason provided? Why? - Shiftchange (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there are no valid reasons to object I am going to re-add the external media box. We want our readers to know how Bitcoin Cash scales. The article is looking very silly without a Features section.  That section needs to outline all the useful features of this crypto. - 08:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "Tax Implications"
As it currently stands, I do not think that the "Tax Implications" section warrants its inclusion as an independent section within the article. It contains only a single line, which amounts to "IRS has no position on the tax obligations of the fork". Perhaps this information should be merged into the rest of the article, and the "Tax Implications" section removed. As it is, the article seems to place undue importance on the potential tax implications of Bitcoin Cash, and its inclusion as a section seems non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omcnoe (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gone. Notice the article gatekeepers didn't care about the WP:NOTGUIDE rule.  Can we see the reg flag here?  Can we all see the bias that I have been trying to counter? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In comparison to our article on porn
In comparison to our article on pornography which goes into far more detail than I have attempted here we can see the various ways that porn is made, used and abused are all outlined in detail. As it stand no editors are removing knowledge about pornography on the basis that is being promoted or overly detailed. The same should be done with Bitcoin Cash. All the technical details should be outlined for everyone to read. We need a Features section that details on-chain scaling, 0-conf, etc. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic are to be included. We need much more diverse views on Bitcoin Cash to provide neutrality. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

coin.dance
Where is the proof that coin.dance is an unreliable source? We can't just take another editors word for it. Unreliability must be demonstrated. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Few sources are "reliable" as in WP:RS}] on an abstract level. Per RS for a source generally what we look for is "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  So if a source doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy we generally consider it unreliable.   There are also kinds of sources that are not reliable - for example forums are not allowed per [[WP:USERGENERATED and of course WP itself is not reliable under that.  We also use "primary sources" sparingly and carefully.  If a source is more or less OK, we we think about "reliable" specifically - is source X reliable for statement Y.  There is another level, which is WP:WEIGHT; source X may be reliable for statement Y, but including it is WP:UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Coindance is a data visualization website and does not contain write-ups that I have seen. I find the website very useful for my personal learning. However, it does not contain journalism or academic write-ups that would be useful for us to use as editors. If we just take data from the website and then we interpret what it means, that will be WP:OR by definition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So relaying statistical data from coin.dance is fine as long as we don't interpret it. Simple node counts should be fine then.  I am sure such a fundamental question of "how many Bitcoin Cash nodes are operating?" can be sourced without too much drama. And yet when I do that it get removed, why is that? - Shiftchange (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of sources and pruning out fancruft

 * CoinDesk. Crypto-fanzine, marginally reliable IMO
 * blockchair.com. No evidence this meets WP:RS.
 * coinmarketcap.com. No evidence this meets WP:RS.
 * Daily Express, a tabloid.
 * Forbes. Usually RS.
 * CNN. Usually RS.
 * Slate. Usually RS.
 * Cointelegraph. Crypto fanzine. Reliable? Certainly credulous.
 * CNBC. Usually RS.
 * New York Times. Usually RS.
 * Bitcoin Magazine. Another crypto fanzine.
 * Quartz. Not great.
 * Bloomberg Businessweek. RS.
 * Huffington Post. Probably not RS for financial topics like this.
 * Github: WP:OR.
 * Bitcoing mailing list: Primary.
 * Coin Dance. No evidence this is RS
 * Bitcoin ABC. No evidence this is RS
 * Coinbase. No evidence this is RS
 * cex.io. Blog. Not RS.
 * kraken.com. Unlikely to be RS.
 * Bitstamp. No evidence this is RS.
 * Bitfinex. Fansite, no evidence of RS.
 * Bittrex.com. No evidence of RS.
 * binance.com. No evidence of RS.
 * huobi.com. No evidence of RS.
 * ledgerwallet.com. No evidence of RS.
 * keepkey.com. No evidence of RS.
 * electroncash.org. No evidence of RS.
 * satoshilabs.com. Is this RS? Seems unlikely.
 * Bitcoin.com. No evidence of RS.
 * ArsTechnica. RS for tech.
 * Falvinge on Liberty. Not RS.
 * News BTC. No evidence of RS.
 * Gavin Andresen on Twitter. No evidence of RS.
 * The Wall Street Journal. RS for finance,

I suggest the non-RS are pruned aggressively, and we rely on the unambiguously reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. CoinDesk is clearly an RS, it is an industry-rag but is not a fanzine. Probably the best source in the industry (albeit a somewhat dubious industry). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please realize that RS for cryptocurrencies are generally much rarer than for more mainstream topics, there is not a great deal of high quality secondary sources to pull from. I do wish the source quality of this article to improve, but it will be much more proudctive to actually find and add a source, or even simple, than the mass blanking that has happened in the past when editors have deemed certain sources unreliable. Further, the claim a source supports is relevant to how much the reliability of a source matters. electroncash.org is a perfectly suitable source for the fact that electroncash, a BCH wallet, exists. An opinion piece at Falvinge on Liberty, written by Rick Falvinge, should be a suitable source to support claims in the article about the opinion of Rick Falvinge. Omcnoe (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Bitcoin ABC. No evidence this is RS" - quite the opposite is true. Bitcoin ABC is not a source at all. You may have missed it, but Bitcoin ABC is a client software. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The list above are the sources cited in the article. We cite their website as a source. That is the issue. This article is full of spamlinks like that. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A source doesn't become unreliable because an editor makes a list and an assertion. Please see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.  Please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES.  Please note sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.  Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

trash
I blanked the comparison and wallets sections again. Wallets lacked a single RS. The 'features' section (really a comparison) to bitcoin lacked a single rs. If bitcoin cash has any notable features that RS care about, then list them. If not, we dont care about it. Same issue went on the IOTA article for a long time. Read WP:NOTADVERTISING if you are confused Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked you stop removing content and labelling it trash. I have asked for you to demonstrate why bitcoin.com is unreliable.  Why is reference 5 deemed unreliable but used elsewhere in the article?  Unreliability has to be demonstrated as we can't just take User:Jtbobwaysf's word for it.  Exodus is widely used desktop wallet for a range of crypto.  The idea that Exodus are misleading readers or unreliable is not proven.  The fact that there is no reference implementation doesn't require a refererence because its not disputable as the article explains with multiple clients.  Besides that the Sydney Morning Herald is considered reliable.  I have asked you to add citation needed templates instead of removing content.  The lead is for a summary, so not everything must be sourced, as I keep mentioning to you.  Only material that has a valid reason to be challenged needs references.  You seem intent on disrupting the editing process.  The article looks ridiculous without a Features section to explain what Bitcoin Cash is.  Comparisons are perfectly apt because this is a software fork, a spin-off, that is similar to the original.  It is actually the main point of the article subject.  There is no advertising, just explanations, discussion and the provision of knowledge that keeps getting removed by a few editors.  The Ideological War section needs to be returned and the Applications section is warranted as people build upon BCH with its low fees and speed. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Controversy over introductory sentence
The introductory sentence "Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency and worldwide decentralized payment system, meaning that it works without a central bank or government." does not seem non-neutral to me. And the wording is consistent with language used in the opening paragraph on articles such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Omcnoe (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the decentralized nature of Bitcoin Cash is highly controversial (unlike Bitcoin and Litecoin). So it seems to me that it is not acceptable to simply assert that as a fact in the lead with no discussion in the article and no sources to support the assertion. Could you point to any reliable sources supporting this assertion? Retimuko (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this text is supported in this Express source... and even if it was Express is not an RS for some kind of broad claim (global, worldwide payment system promotion). Find a RS for this. I have deleted this multiple times, stop re-adding it eg . In addition, your edits here to re-add the deleted satoshi whitepaper claim is a pattern of WP:TE.  Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)