Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 8

RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash?
In the article, there is a claim that "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash." One of the sources, actually the first one cited to confirm the claim is. Does the source directly confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Modified question per the suggestion of User:MJL:

Since User:MJL, the editor closing the Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? suggested me to modify the above question, and since several editors discuss the modified question below anyway, I replace the original question by the question modified as follows:

In the article, there is a claim that "Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash."

In support of the claim, these sources are cited:























Do the sources support the claim that "Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic", i.e. do the sources confirm that the requirement specified in MOS:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES is satisfied? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * No
 * The source is unreliable per WP:RSP.
 * The source was written by Jon Evans, who is not a TechCrunch staff member. Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus that articles published by TechCrunch, especially when their authors are not staff members can support any claim, especially such articles shall not be cited to support any notability (significance) claim.
 * The source says that "A new digital currency is about to be created" or "This will create a new, separate digital token called Bitcoin Cash.", etc. In other words, the source says that it is a forecast. As such, the source has been obsoleted by the creation of Bitcoin Cash that provably happened after its publication. Since Wikipedia is not a crystalball, this source is not acceptable.
 * The source says that "Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin." Thus, it actually contradicts the significance of the Bcash term, saying that the usage of the term is essentially as significant as the usage of the Btrash term, i.e. not at all. The sources and are written by the same author and depict essentially the same picture.
 * The source mentions just one person, the Litecoin founder Charlie Lee to use the Bcash term, which does not really add to the significance of it. The same holds for the source, which also names just Lee as a user of the term.
 * The source also names just one man, Aurelien Menant to use the term. Taking all these findings into account, there is no support for the claim that the Bcash term has significant use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No The source is obviously biased against Bitcoin Cash. This is one 'crypto journalist'; it is not some people. The majority of sources listed have alot of reliability questions, as noted below. Bcash is used by detractors to distance Bitcoin Cash as a viable software fork with upgraded block capacity vs. Bitcoin Core's strategy of limiting blocksize to 1 megabyte, and directing new users to use controlled payment channels which their funding company (Blockstream) controls. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a statement on what the source says, but on your own opinions on the topic as an advocate. WP:NOTFORUM - David Gerard (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes The source confirms it 22 times. This Bcash altname subject has already been covered extensively on these talk pages. Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1, Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3, Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_5, Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_6. There are also a half dozen other talk page archive sections dedicated to this same subject (I only linked to the previous RfCs). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement was that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash. That is one source (of which one writer uses the term 'Bcash' 22 times; if she wrote a 10,000-page article using the Bcash term a million times, would the reference of bitcoin cash as Bcash be more evident amongst its users? No, it would only have been one person). 3 of the sources cited (Jeffries, Adrienne) are written by the same author on the same platform (the verge), so please remove 2 sources (since this does not support the statement it is used multiple times by different people (it is used multiple times by one person on the same platform)). One of the sources is by an author (Charlie Lee) who holds a rival cryptocurrency and is naturally biased, hence an unreliable source. Another source is an author whose exchange has shut down and is hence unreliable. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact the the source mentions all of bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Bcash terms repeatedly does not suffice to confirm that it uses the terms Bcash and Bitcoin Cash for the same cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. The text of the article literally unambiguously uses the term repeatedly. This RFC is nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement was that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash. The term is used 22 times in one article. It does not support the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash (by multiple users) but only by one crypto journalist. What about sources like NYtimes and WSJ whose authors are actually writing out the whole term Bitcoin Cash? Here is another article by the same author Leigh Cuen on the same website in a similar date range (July 31,2020) https://www.ibtimes.com/what-bitcoin-cash-reveals-about-future-cryptocurrency-2572714 where she is able to type out the whole Bitcoin Cash term. And another more recent article (dated November 15, 2020) https://www.ibtimes.com/bitcoin-cash-price-plunges-hard-fork-goes-live-what-happened-3082922 on the same website (ibtimes), where bcash is not used, but bitcoin cash is used. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC) — Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how many times the source uses the Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash or Bcash terms. The fact is, that the source does not say that by Bcash and Bitcoin Cash it means the same cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No In the IBtimes article, the author does not say how Bitcoin cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash by multiple people. It is just a singular example of an author using the term throughout their article. I also think that some of the sources mentioned below are poorly cited. Debiday (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)  — Debiday (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mazdamiata200 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder, . I think that there is definitely a need to take care of that too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No--Is anyone gonna point out that IBT is a wholly unreliable source? Find better sources first. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I was too blinded by the claims of about an "exceedingly well cited WP:RS" to check. Thank you for this information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes - May be I am missing something obvious here, but the article is very clear on the usage of Bcash, references it 22 times and uses it interchangeably with Bitcoin Cash. While it might not have the exact words in that exact order, it seems pretty clear to me that the article refers to Bitcoin Cash as BCash. I am not commenting on whether this is an acceptable RS or not though --Molochmeditates (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: I'd also like to add that https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/9/17217354/bitcoin-twitter-shut-down-conspiracy-theories this source from The Verge for example clearly states "Bitcoin Cash, also known as Bcash" --Molochmeditates (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, according to your opinion the disputed source "uses Bcash interchangeably with Bitcoin Cash" and that suffices for the source to directly confirm the claim? Can you, please, enlighten me how can I find out that the unreliable source confirms anything? Being at it, can you also enlighten me how, not being yourself, can I detect from the disputed source that it uses the term "Bcash ... interchangeably with Bitcoin Cash"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Read my original post - I've already enlightened you. --Molochmeditates (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes; while consensus seems to be that is a rag, the Verge article also calls it that. It seems like there is some complicated politics thing going on here about which name people ought to use; that said, this is an encyclopedia, so I don't think it matters a whole lot if people are calling it that for complicated politics reasons. What's significant is that they call it that (even if they were just cribbing that nickname from the Wikipedia article, they're a RS so we have to repeat whatever they say). Maybe there is some other source that covers the controversy about the complicated politics thing, that can be added to illustrate that some people really don't want to call it that... who knows? But that's definitely what it says. jp×g 20:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you, please, reread the above question and stick to the point? Being at it, I am also curious why, if you know some better source than the disputed one, want the disputed source to remain in the article, pretending that it, in some perverted way, "confirms" the claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the opposite of what I said... jp×g 03:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No per Ladislav Mecir - Idealigic (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No. This is just too trivial for the lead. Putting aside the IBT (which is a low-quality source), the other sources only use the term in passing or by quoting someone using it, and often not in the sense it's being cited for here - in particualr, the Verge source that people are trying to use to argue for inclusion above mentions it only once, in passing, halfway down the article and says Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin. The term also should never be used in the article text, since it's a neologism. --Aquillion (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Verge article never says anything even remotely close to that.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  08:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No and it looks incredibly awkward in the lead paragraph. What is even the importance of it for including it in the article? It's like saying "Bitcoin is sometimes referred to as BTC". Who cares? HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bitcoin's Ticker symbols are BTC & XBT and Bitcoin Cash's ticker symbol is BCH. The subject of this RFC is not ticker symbols. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No Per Ladislav Mecir. Comatmebro (talk) 06:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes – Per Molochmeditates presenting The Verge RS stating exactly that; backs up the lesser quality IBT source's usage of the term as an alternative. Also, I guess since there's some anecdotal evidence here that the use of the term "bcash" is somehow seen as a sort of pejorative by some proponents for political reasons, by reason of basic principles of cause & effect, it would be common sense to conclude that yes, Bitcoin Cash is in fact sometimes referred to as bcash.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  08:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Expanded comment – It appears that the author of this RfC decided to raise the goalpost by modifying the question shortly after the above !vote and comment. The original question regarding the actual claim made in the article that, Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash, has been changed in order to promote discussion of the non-claim that Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic. Having been surprised to discover that such a trivial shorthand name draws such a (seemingly forced) outrage by presumed WP:Advocates of the subject, I looked through the past talk page archives on this term. The author of this RfC clearly appears unable to maintain a WP:Neutral stance here as evidenced by the years of promotional rehashing of this exact contention. That said, the dispute here is that the term "Bcash" is sometimes used to refer to Bitcoin Cash, as that line in the article states. The validity of the claim is quite easily verifiable as others have provided RS to show. Beyond that, given that there exists this continuous and excessive push by other editors to assert that the term is somehow derogatory, offensive, and vehemently opposed to, it would be common sense to assume that all editors agree that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash.   Claiming that it's not would contradict the argument that the term has a negative connotation, or any connotation at all associated with it. Yet, editors disagreeing with the claim are consistently making both arguments simultaneously. This repeated conflict creation appears to be tantamount to WP:Tendentious editing or at best, WP:Civil POV pushing.  If there are some administrative methods to make a final resolution through some sort of arbitration and/or other similar formats, I'd think it could have been tried long ago. Surely this issue should not need to be re-debated for sport every so often... especially not when the issue seems to be a resilient platform for WP:Activists to engage in promotion of insignificant wordplay akin to WP:Propaganda thats primarily built on Strawman and WP:Specialized-style fallacy arguments. Is this term even worthy to give it due weight in the article, regardless of its context and presentation? Its hard to even tell by having to go through all the WP:USTHEM nonsense.   H iddenL emon  //  talk  21:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No it's not fitting for the lead. The name was coined by detractors and is used infrequently when looking at the whole of terms used to name this crypto and it's typically only in comparison to bitcoin by decorators to bitcoin cash in favor of bitcoin and rarely except in passing commentary and not published news or other sources. A single news source (that arguably has a bias against that was mentioned earlier in this thread) just not make a common pattern for the alternative naming. We already have a section for the names coined by detractors to this crypto. -- Zac  Bowling  (user 19:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. The source is unreliable and it's not terrible relevant to the article, let alone the lead, either. The fact that this is a term (alongside Btrash) used by detractors is probably the biggest argument. This isn't that different from people on internet forums referring to the "Call of Duty" videogames as "Call of Doody" or to "Star Wars" as "Shit Wars" or whatever. Sure, that is a thing people say. Should it be on Wikipedia? Hardly. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. None of the sources are recent. They all are from up to 6 months after the initial creation of the coin. A major event at the time, Bitcoin had never forked before like that. Facts were hard to get and reporters didn't know who to ask. The Bitcoin Cash creation event was 3½ years ago with no bcash references for the majority of its lifetime. The references are easy to explain as a miscommunication. TZander (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. While the name might have been used in the beginning, there isn't a single third-party market (that is, not affiliated with either bitcoin or bitcoin cash) using it. For example, all major exchanges like Bitstamp, Kraken, Gemini, Coinbase, Blockchain.com etc. use Bitcoin Cash; a few use just BCH; none use bcash. • R ED G OLPE  (TALK) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
It seems like the crypto journalist Leigh Cuen is using bcash to disassociate the Bitcoin Cash fork and its supporters from Blockstream's Bitcoin Core fork.

Here's an article from coindesk in the same time frame of the fork (https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-supports-fork-doesnt) which doesn't use the bcash moniker.

And another article from NYtimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/business/dealbook/bitcoin-cash-split.html) dated July 25, 2017, where the professional journalist is able to write out the whole name of Bitcoin Cash throughout the article.

Sources 2, 4, and 8 (Jeffries, Adrianne) are the same author, in a compressed date range (9-Apr-18 to 1-May-18) on the same platform (The Verge). This is possibly unreliable. Please remove 2 sources.

Source 3: Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin, is obviously biased against the Bitcoin Cash fork, as his coin thrives on Bitcoin Core's inabilty to process blockchain transactions. https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/1004420298496569345 In this twitter message, he calls bitcoin cash a coin. Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.

Source 9: The article involving Evans Jon uses the bcash epithet in the title of the article, and proceeds to call it bitcoin cash in the body. Please remove.

Source 10: Aurelian Menant's exchange- Gatecoin - is shut down. https://www.coindesk.com/gatecoin-crypto-exchange-to-shut-down-on-courts-orders (mentioned in the tech transformers article). Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.
 * The sources you have listed (twitter, coindesk, etc) are not used on this article, and are not RS on cryptocurrency articles. We are not using twitter, coindesk, etc as WP:RS on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This article https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/14/litecoin-bitcoin-cash-lee-ver/ shows that the author (Charlie Lee) cited in the article (Source 3) is engaged in some kind of naming attack on Bitcoin Cash due to his personal position in his cryptocurrency Litecoin. From the talk pages I looked through, it seems multiple people have stated that the Bcash moniker is used again to bring about negative connotations about Bitcoin Cash, although it is a viable software fork of the Bitcoin open-source software.

Here's another article from the Wall Street Journal where the author is able to also spell out the whole name Bitcoin Cash https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-was-meant-to-be-the-better-bitcoin-its-down-nearly-90-1535115600.

I think a more accurate statement on the Bitcoin Cash summary page would be: Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash by its detractors [10]. as mentioned in this article where the author groups the terms Bcash, Btrash, scam together. (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/17229796/bitcoin-cash-conflict-transactions-fight) This has already been referenced under Section 2 Controversy; why is it popping up again in the summary subsection? Bcash nickname sources [10] should be inserted after [21] under Section 2.

Another article by the Wall Street Journal detailing tax implications of the Bitcoin Cash fork from the Bitcoin Core software where the journalist is able to type out the whole name 'Bitcoin Cash'; https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-one-knows-how-much-to-pay-in-bitcoin-cash-taxes-1503658800.

(Mazdamiata200 talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry


 * Two single-purpose accounts have shown up in this RFC. While participation in Wikipedia is excellent to see, we need to note that these discussions are not a ballot, but a policy-based discussion. As such, I've added the relevant banner, particularly as this is a formally-convened RFC - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Due to the modification of the question explained above, I refer to all contributors to the above discussion up to now: Mazdamiata200, David Gerard, Jtbobwaysf, Debiday, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Molochmeditates, jp, Idealigic, Aquillion, Comatmebro and H iddenL emon  Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems you should pull the existing RfC and start over. Also it appears you seek to conflate the RfC by adding the extra word "significant", which is not contained in the present text of the article. You are putting forth the argument that this nickname is significant, which is found nowhere in the article. You are also putting forward it is an altname, which if it was, it would be in the first sentence (aka). You dispute that it is a formally an altname, as far as I recall, and I believe prior RFCs have also come to this consensus if I recall. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I did it as suggested by here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jtbobwaysf's above reply. My recent "Expanded comment" may have been better suited to be added here to the discussion section, but since it elaborated on my original comment I made it a sub-bullet point under my !vote. (comment diff) TL;DR: This whole issue is a recurrently ridiculous and unproductive game.  H iddenL emon  //  talk  21:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be recurrently ridiculous and unproductive, why not remove or edit the sentence in the lead summary? I agree that it is ridiculous and the constant RfCs on the topic from different users seems to point that whomever placed that sentence there is not doing their job of maintaining neutrality. The sentence could read 'Bitcoin cash is called bcash by its detractors', since that is what seems to be happening, and you have one side of wikipedia editors not wanting to add that attribute of controversy (putting their own personal viewpoint into a neutral article). Obviously the best action is to just remove the sentence, since the attribute (that bitcoin cash has a name controversy by its detractors) has already been pointed out in section 2 controversy. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry
 * Hi, . I appreciate your effort to propose a compromise solution, but as described above by, e.g., the problem is, that the available sources do not justify the use of the Bcash term as a MOS:ALTNAME of the article subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that Ladislav's repetitious RFCs on basically the same question - whether "bcash" needs mention in the intro as an alternate name used in RSes for Bitcoin Cash - have reached the stage of being querulous - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I think that it would be much more comfortable for you to consider it from the point of view of the quality of information Wikipedia can serve to its readers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a behavioural problem on your part. You were nearly topic-banned from all cryptocurrency articles previously. - David Gerard (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding close
you closed the above RFC and noted in your closing comments that commented that financial markets weren't using the term Bcash. I was curious if that was true, googled it, and see that most financial markets have used the term at some point in time, and some continue to use the term. I have added sources today that demonstrate that major market operators continue to use the term, including Bitfinex, LocalBitcoins, Paxful, BitMEX, Gemini, and Gatecoin (in the CNBC source). In the past these type of sources are removed from crypto articles, as we have not been using corporate sources on cryptocurrency articles. However, in this case the matter if financial markets have or continue to use the term has been raised and highlighted in the close summary. I added the sources today as it would be impossible to discuss this claim if we don't at least look at these type sources, with both bitfinex and paxful using the term within the last year. I thought I would ping you and ask the degree to which this factor affected your close decision. I added the sources one by one but you can see the summary of the diffs. If I have made an error by adding another section to a closed RFC (I did do it outside of the dont edit box), please forgive me and feel free to move my question down to a new section at the bottom of this talk page. Maybe you could comment here on the weight you gave in your close to this industry use of the term matter. Please note it is my recollection that these corporate sources have been removed in the past from the article by the nominator and he has again removed those new sources in the past couple hours. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaving a comment under the close is perfectly acceptable, and in fact the best option when new information comes to light. Closes aren't the end of discussion, but a jumping-off point for further discussion so that everyone is on the same page. With that in mind, the reason I mentioned Redgolpe's comment is that it was a novel argument that was interesting but not discussed. I thought editors might find it a useful piece of information to investigate and discuss after the closure, and it might turn up new sources or inspire new compromises. For my part, I know very little about cryptocurrencies and took Redgolpe at their word, so I've noted in the close that the accuracy of the statement is disputed. To your specific question, I didn't give the argument much weight since it was only one comment and not widely discussed. I think the outcome would be the same even if the comment were incorrect or never made. That said, consensus can change, and if discussing this point changes peoples' minds then the close should be disregarded. I'll look into the recent edits. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything needing admin action at the moment. It looks like has been offline since your revert, so I would give them a chance to log in and join the discussion. If you two reach an impasse let me know and I'll do my best to mediate if that might help. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wug·. I know that, e.g. the source was discussed in the RfC, since it was a forecast. That is the reason why I removed it from the article body. Do you think the deletion was unjustified? Another source I deleted from the article body was, because I know that it now directly confirms the subsequent sentence, not the one that was the subject of the RfC. Then there are several other sources cited, sources which do not directly confirm the sentence in question as discussed in the RfC. Thank you for your opinion on these issues. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact Mecir removed the content at 06:26, 13 March 2021, I reverted that removal at 16:18, 13 March 2021, and then Mecir again removed the content at 12:10, 14 March 2021. It appears to me that the March 14 edit by Mecir violated WP:GS/Crypto by continuing to WP:TE within a 24 hour cooling off time limit, and generally speaking represents a continuation of a long pattern of TE often related to this bcash name on this article, of which there has been countless RFCs. and  please have a look (pinging you both because are involved in GScrypto). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the recent reverts are a smoking gun, but looking into this dispute more it seems this RfC is part of a pattern of disruption that really does need to be stopped. It seems like LM has been on this "Bcash" horse since at least 2018. Other editors have pointed out that LM's repeated RfCs are disruptive, and given the follow-up to the close I'm expecting that yet another RfC is waiting in the wings to waste more editors' time. So for the pretty clear tendentious editing I've banned Ladislav Mecir from Bitcoin Cash and related pages under WP:GS/Crypto which should hopefully allow people to get on with their work here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar data is inaccurate and outdated
The sidebar lists inaccurate / outdated information for items like 'Implementation'. The ABC client is listed but if you look at their website you can easily confirm that they are not a BCH client. Looking at bch.info you can find 6 actual implementations.

The sidebar lists 'Latest release', which is not relevant since this is a crypto-currency, this is not a software. 6 implementations have different 'latest releases'.

The sidebar lists 'Website' which is similarly outdated. More explanation and plenty of references can be found on this special page on bch.info.

The Bitcoin Cash page needs to be updated as new facts become available, the wikipedia page looks like it got stuck in 2018. Thats like the Android page can't refer to facts of the last 10 years for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZander (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I changed the sidebar to include the one node implementation that has been able to get their own Wikipedia article. I wonder if there is any standard on what should be in the sidebar? The Implementations section could easily become a messy list of every node software. If I were voting, the “Latest Release” would be the protocol definition, again so it is not a list of different versions of each of the implementations. I know ABC was working on a defined protocol. Has anyone taken that up after the split? Were you involved with that at all? I wish there was a BCH industry group to manage these things.Beakerboy (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

BitcoinABC split
I added a sentence about the BitcoinABC split which was reverted by. I think we all can agree that this split occurred. BitcoinABC was, for a while, the most popular node in Bitcoin Cash. Many existing sources in the article refer to ABC. It no longer is. I’m not at all interested in writing about the politics and opinions of either side of the split, but it certainly seems, to me at least, important to note that there was a split, and the consensus chain is not the ABC chain. If this news was not noteworthy enough for the Washington Post or New York Times to report, what can we do about this? Can we use the BitcoinABC website where they now state that they follow the BCHA chain instead of BCH?

I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream sources need to be used for anything with an editorial take on a subject, but I would think that there would be a lower bar for things that are plain facts. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would fit this IMO. Beakerboy (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, we have been in general reverting everything that doesn't have good sources. Are you referring to the split that created Bitcoin SV? That is what I get when I google that. Or is this related to the more recent event where the ABC software created some sort of fee paid to developers and then that was another fork. Are there any sources for this? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m talking about the later. Yes there are sources, but I have been unable to find any from Reuters or the AP. For example, I included one from in the sentence you reverted. . Let’s figure out how we can get to ‘yes’ given the material we have to work with.Beakerboy (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please find some other better source. I am unsure this is WP:DUE at this point in time. I did a little search for the usual crypto RS (ft, fortune, bloomberg, wsj, etc) and I got ft on CSW. Anything else we can find? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m guessing you are merely a Wiki admin-type and do not follow crypto correct? That’s probably a good thing in one hand in that there is no worry about bias on the part of administrators. What happens in most cryptocurrencies in not important enough given everything bad that happens in the world for the major news outlets to report on. Why should they? However, that does not mean they didn’t happen. Like I said above; I agree that editorial aspects should heavily rest on large mainstream news outlets, but for things that are just plain facts, why is there not a lower bar? Does this mean that Wikipedia editors are only allowed to include topics that the New York Times considers had broad enough appeal to write about? I realize these questions are maybe a little off-topic, and possibly above your pay-grade. This seems a lot more cut and dry from the people crying about their feeling being hurt by the whole “bcash” nonsense. Again, tell me what you need to get to a yes on what is clearly a fact, and also was a very important event for BCH. To distill it down to an analogy that a non-crypto person would follow, what basically happened would be like if Microsoft said they were changing Windows to enforce a subscription-based model, and in response all PC manufacturers said they would switch to Linux with Wine...and then Microsoft went through with their change anyways. ABC was the largest software client used by miners. Their threat to change the protocol to fund themselves was a big deal, it happened. I guess if the rules are that because CNN didn’t report it it didn’t happen, then those are the rules...Wikipedia will die by the sword it lives on. I’m not going to risk being banned from this article by getting into a fight over this. But you are trying to convince a volunteer with no motive not to add undisputed facts to an article.Beakerboy (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Coinbase, a major bitcoin exchange, had a press release about this. Beakerboy (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am not an admin I am just an editor like you that edits a range of subjects. We have had promotional problems in the crypto articles so the GS and the tighter sourcing rules were I believe primarily put in place to that end. Here poloniex and kraken both talk about the pending fork before the fork, like coinbase did in the example you gave. I am generally familiar with some mainstream crypto concepts, but as it runs off into the weeds (such altcoin forks) my knowledge wanes. I do read that this dispute was between Roger Ver and Amaury Sechet (I guess an important developer), but I am not sure how much meets the criteria for inclusion, and what is more important (us staying on the same sourcing rule set) or including something that is WP:OBVIOUS as you mention. Let's ask another editor, we are discussing here if/how to include the BCHABC hardfork. Thoughts? I think we could just include that it had a hard for on a particular date, and if no other editor removes it (as unsourced content), then it can stay (I wont remove it as it isn't controversial). But my opinion is we dont use the coindesk sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this with me, and the advice on which sources are rock-solid going forward. Amaury is the lead developer for BitcoinABC, so he was important in this fork. Roger Ver is more a business and marketing guy. I’m guessing there were both technical and philosophical reasons the fork resulted one way over the other, but I’m not planning on addressing that editorial aspect without better sources. If I did I’d make a new section about prominent hardforks and combine it with the existing BitcoinSV fork section.Beakerboy (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, no worries. I would suggest to wait for 24 hours from the original insert of content, and then just add something really vanilla to the article. Maybe later we can find something in google books that we can use. Seems the mainstream press wasn't much interested in the fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

move Bitcoin SV to its own article
Since the split in November 2018 the two chains Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV have diverged significantly.

Bitcoin Cash is going forward with its goal to be electronic cash while Bitcoin SV has made big changes by reactivating most of the original protocol and removing most of the limits that still exists in the other Bitcoin variants.

In addition there are published articles from reliable sources:


 * RNZ - Tuvalu chases digital immortality on a blockchain
 * Humboldt University Berlin - Blockchain Mechanism and Distributional Characteristics of Cryptos
 * The European Business Review - Bitcoin SV: A Year-End Review
 * ZDNet - Bitcoin SV hits new transactions record

The decision to delete and redirect Bitcoin SV to Bitcoin Cash was based on the lack of reliable sources and significant coverage.

Both arguments are not valid anymore and hence Bitcoin SV has become notable and should receive its own page. torusJKL (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever decision was made then is still valid today unless something changes. What you are asserting is that these 4 sources are sufficient for article creation. I would suggest you to create the article in your sandbox and seek comments before you attempt to create a new article. That was the path that IOTA (technology) proponents used (another article that faced multiple deletions.) I think many editors here would support a seperate article. I am guessing 4 sources is probably not sufficient, I suggest trying to find a couple more at least. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also believe BSV should have it's own page., I think the appropriate action to take for now is to create a Draft: Bitcoin SV article for now and get active editors to contribute to it and build to a good standard. In terms of the info within the Bitcoin Cash article, I don't think there is enough information to warrant a seperate article, however it would be wise to actively contribute to the draft until there is enough info.  GR 86  (📱) 11:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There's too much junk in this article
The article should state what Bitcoin Cash is and why it was created (which it does). It could state, briefly, that there is controversy around the need to create Bitcoin - with a link to online sources that discuss the controversy, perhaps. A brief section titled "History", stating what actually happened and about a quarter of the length of the current blow-by-blow he-said/she-said history section would be reasonable.

All the rest is junk. Details of who said what about Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning the current price of any cryptocurrency is pointless because prices change daily. Maybe there could be links to a couple of the (many) websites that track cryptocurrency exchange rates, but even that is redundant because any search engine will find them. As for volatility of cryptocurrencies, again it is ephemeral information, anybody who wants to know what it is right now can look at the exchange-traded options or at one of the volatility indexes like BVOL24H or one of the indexes calculated by T3Index.

Does anyone seriously disagree that most of this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and should be deleted? Longitude2 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would we delete cited content? The article is not too long. We are listing historical prices in the Bitcoin article as it is encyclopedic. But I do think some style changes would probably be useful. Thoughts? Maybe we address your thoughts section by section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that good sources should not be removed, but the article certainly could be reorganized. Many wikipedia articles suffer from what I call "section syndrome" where a couple editors focus on specific sections, and not the overall organization of an article. Then people come in and add a sentence, and each section becomes a list of facts. IMO the article should have a section on why BCH exists, what the unique features and philosophy is, what influenced it, and what did it influence (fork from and what forked off it). The problem with "History" sections is they become lists. If does some of this in their sandbox, I'd be happy to collaborate. Beakerboy (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did some cleanup of the prose a bit today, some of it seemed to repeat itself. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
Bitcoin Cash open Official Twitter Handle ( @BTCTCH ). Zoyahssn (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021
All I know is that the date says august 1st 2017 is 3 years ago and now it’s 4 years 47.24.128.68 (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I purged the article to update that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Assign: Thong Ngo

Splitting proposal
proposed at the AfC Help Desk that the Bitcoin SV section be split into a separate page called Bitcoin SV, which is currently a redirect leading to this page. The user has already created a draft: Draft:Bitcoin SV. They didn't know how to create this split discussion, so they asked me to start it for them. There is an old AfD regarding this. Seeking consensus for this split. Curbon7 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: The new Bitcoin SV article has multiple reliable sources from published research papers, news companies not related to blockchain, the w3c Github repository and from organizations run by country states. In addition the BSV blockchain has deviated in many ways from Bitcoin Cash hence adding it as a chapter in Bitcoin Cash would be inappropriate and misleading in the parent article. torusJKL (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: I support a split as these are separate article subjects and it appears that there are sufficient RS on the split article to pass AfD. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The draft's RS support is very skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I note there's a fair bit of BSV in Financial Times, if not entirely complimentary at times. That's a bit more RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added multiple additional RS to the article. torusJKL (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe. The draft article almost reads like it was written by a non-native English speaker. My apologies to the author if they are. It requires a bit of proof reading. Beakerboy (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * English is indeed not my mother tongue. I would appreciate any help. Thanks torusJKL (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have already declined Draft:Bitcoin SV once, because I was relying on the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV. I have created a copy of the deleted version of the article, which is available for inspection at User:Robert McClenon/Bitcoin SV.  I do not know much about cryptocurrency, and I do not think that I want to know much about it.  However, I will try to comment.  I think that the previous article needed deleting, but at the same time I am not sure that redirecting it to a different Bitcoin variant made sense.  I personally consider the whole subject area to be a mess; I am not sure that there is any right answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for retrieving the old article. I think it is fair to say that the new article is nothing like the old one and the arguments against the old article (no RS and too early) do not hold against the new. torusJKL (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at the older deletion and it was pretty close, a number of keep votes. Since that time this SV is the subject of ongoing controversy in that Craig Wright has taken many people to court in the promotion of his 'real bitcoin' concept. I am not sure if this news about Wright has made its way into mainstream press yet, but there might some. What is different between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV is that they worship different masters, with SV for Craig Steven Wright and Cash for Roger Ver. Separating the articles would be useful from an encyclopedic perspective if we are close on the sourcing level. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * “Worship different masters” is a pretty strong statement and hints at some bias from this editor. I’m worried this user may object to edits and improvements if they feel BCH and BSV proponent are unable to be fair and objective due to their perceived religious motivations.Beakerboy (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I support a split as the content is different. This is not a religious article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest query: Does User:Gal Buki have any conflict of interest?  They have been a single-purpose account, editing only with regard to this topic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 16 years both in the English as in the German Wikipedia. During this time I have created multiple articles and worked on many others. I find the suggestion that my account is a single-purpose account disturbing and far from the truth.
 * As for conflict of interest. I'm not paid to write the article and I don't believe I get a financial gain by working on this article. The majority of text in the article has an RS and is not for publicity but to show facts and uniqueness that should have a place in an Encyclopedia. torusJKL (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * it appears this editor has indeed been around a lot longer than this SV article. You might consider to retract that statement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jtbobwaysf - Yes, but they have become a single-purpose account since the previous SV article was deleted, and all of their subsequent edits have had to do with that article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has gone far enough. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am currently working hard to get the draft we are discussing to a level that is good enough for you. It is perfectly normal that someone would invest the limited time he has to get the one draft, where he is the sole contributor, ready and doesn't at the same time do other contributions. I would also like to point you to the following quote on "who not to tag" from the single-purpose account page "Recent edits by an established editor which focus on a single topic. Once an editor is well established with a large, diversified edit history, they are welcome to focus on single subjects for extended periods without their edits or their accounts warranting the SPA tag.". I think I qualify. I kindly ask you to drop the absurd claim and remove the note. Thanks. --torusJKL (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We all know that SPA is quite a disparaging remark, and if someone has been editing a long time and recently became obsessed with a particular subject, that doesn't mean they are an SPA. I am sure we are guilty of being obsessed with a particular subject for some period of time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Bias not fitting an encyclopedia
The article actually does not even support the blatantly biased claim that Bitcoin Cash was created with "the goal of creating money out of thin air".

In fact, the article says:

"When it split off a year ago, Bitcoin Cash jump-started the forking craze in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names (hello, Bitcoin Diamond)."

It seems very clear this article is saying that other projects saw Bitcoin Cash's fork as an excuse to make forks with that goal - forks with no meaningful support whatsoever. There's absolutely no evidence this is the case for Bitcoin Cash itself though. Unlike later forks, Bitcoin Cash is accepted for payment alongside Bitcoin. It has a substantial following and I believe this claim should be struck from the page unless actual evidence can be produced for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapbox (talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash
 Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that came in to existence when numerous involved parties within the bitcoin community disagreed on software implementations, namely increasing the blocksize vs. Segwit [is a fork of Bitcoin]. [Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017.[5][6]]
 * What I think should be changed:

[] to be removed.

'''[In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash split further into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.[7]'] this entire sentence has no bearing on the existence Bitcoin Cash and is an event that happened long after it's inception.


 * Why it should be changed:

The original formulation does no justice to why Bitcoin Cash has been created in the first place. Similarly statements such as "spin off" "forked off" and "alt coin" is a complete misuse and misunderstanding of blockchain technology.


 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475

92.64.157.100 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I also believe those changes should be made because Bitcoin SV is not relevant to Bitcoin Cash, especially not enough to be in the first sentence ChaseF (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal to create a Bitcoin SV article here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_8. You could participate in that discussion. Also note that the splits that created Bitcoin Cash and then the sub-split that created SV are all encyclopedic and likely to remain on this article. Most of the notability of these two subjects stems from the controversy surrounding the splits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Transactions per second (tx/s)
Considering one of the biggest challenges facing Proof of Work blockchains today is the difficulty to scale on chain in number of transactions per second and BSVs has managed to achieve this with 50k tx/s on the mainnet and up to 100k tx/s on testnet. Why is this not mentioned? In comparison BTC only allows around 6 and ETH 10-20 at astronomical costs. This seems to be extremely important information. 109.232.69.73 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2022 (add notelist)
The article needs a Notes section and added in order to fix the cite/note error. - Galactic-Radiance  (Talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

✅ PianoDan (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

BSV Turing complete
How come there is no mention of the fact that BSV is Turing complete and allows equivalents of Smart Contracts? This is a huge feat considering that the original limitation of BTC that lead to the development of Ethereum and a myriad of other altcoins was the inability to e execute code on chain. With this solved on the BSV blockchain, how can we neglect to mention it? 109.232.69.73 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and add it! WP:BEBOLD Mathmo Talk 05:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You need a WP:RS source for this. Coindesk, blogs, etc dont work here. Must be something like fortune.com, wsj, etc. I doubt there is coverage of BSV in these mediums, but if there is, then great. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Coingeek has covered this more than once as a reference. And Coindesk can't be used to establish notability for an article's existence, but can be used as references within the article itself. Mathmo Talk 12:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

BSV RS
Remarkable a new CNBCTV18 source for the BSV chain. Doesnt address the claim it being the largest blockchain (if true) which would be interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * BSV (I think its Bitcoin Satoshi Vision) is a completely different chain and crypto currency than Bitcoin Cash. It seems off topic to this talking page. TZander (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)