Talk:Counterparty (platform)

Undoing vandalism
An unregistered user from Sacramento, CA went in on April 20 at 19:44 UTC and vandalized the page with minor edits (here and on the page for Burning Man). I have reverted the article back to its previous state. Blck Blk (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Counterparty Screenshot
I added the logo to the top of the screenshot, as specified by the software infobox template, but I don't feel the screenshot is really necessary? Should we maybe remove the screenshot, maybe move it into the article, and have only the logo in the infobox? --Johanvanl (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and screenshot can go into software section for now. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Counterparty (technology). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518183043/https://xcpassets.org/all-assets/ to https://xcpassets.org/all-assets/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability
It was kept at AfD in 2014 mainly because of a single Minyanville article. The other sources they mentioned are mentions and cryptocurrency news. This would not be enough to pass today. Is there anything better? Џ 11:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The only thing I found from good sources is this Techcrunch article but it barely mentions it. Dr-Bracket (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
David Gerard, would you please elaborate on why you do not consider Bitcoin Insider and Crypto Briefing, in particular, to be reliable sources? -- Moontreasure (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * They're random low-quality crypto blogs. Why on earth would you treat either as a reliable source? There's no way either would last a second at WP:RSN.
 * In general, the crypto articles have been shifted towards being entirely sourced from mainstream third-party RSes and peer-reviewed academic articles, because the sources exist now, it keeps the spammers at bay - and the spammers are super-keen on trying to source their stuff to bottom-of-the-barrel pay-for-play crypto blogs - and there's no reason to use trash sources any more. Not that there ever was, but there really isn't now - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I had a quick look in Google Scholar - there appears to be some peer-reviewed coverage of Counterparty (this specific one, and not just the concept of counterparties in relation to blockchains). Should be high-quality material we can use instead of "coming soon" articles from crypto sites - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's great. I'll take a look there. Pretty surprised you deleted the material from CoinDesk, however. That's a very reputable publication that serves as the newspaper of record for the entire blockchain industry. Could you take another look at that? I think it qualifies as a reliable source.


 * Also, it's worth saying that unlike many other cryptocurrency projects, Counterparty is not actively traded as a currency and most notable development occurred in 2014. This content is primarily for historical purposes and really couldn't be used to pump the price or anything. -- Moontreasure (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)