Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency)

Deletion
I dont think this article should be deleted, but it sounds like an advert too much, ive edited it a little and intend to eidt further.--Nzoomed (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel the Afd can be removed now, ive made the article as neutral as possible, if anyone feels like changing further, feel free. If there is no discussion here in a week, ill remove the Afd.--Nzoomed (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Deletion discussions typically run for at least 7 days, and it was nominated for reasons unrelated to this article's content, but because the nominator felt the subject lacked notability. It will sort itself out before long. Agyle (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkcoin logo in history section
Please, someone add the darkcoin logo in the history section. I don't have picture rights. Terrorist96 (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Dash (cryptocurrency)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Dash (cryptocurrency) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://blog.cex.io/cryptonews/x11-4927
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Dash (cryptocurrency)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Dash (cryptocurrency) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://blog.cex.io/cryptonews/x11-4927
 * Triggered by  on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Forum post as reference 123
A user on the bitcointalk.org forum is being used as source for the early mining distribution. This source is a self-published forum post which is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia's verifiabilty guidelines (WP:SPS). As such, I think this source should be removed and/or replaced with a more reliable one and the section in dispute be rewritten in more neutral language (WP:NEUTRAL) and corrected for grammar (WP:STYLE). Raze182 (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources were submitted to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard for community input. The consensus is that self-published and user-generated sources such as bitcointalk.org and devtome.com are a clear violation of WP:RS policies. Moving forward, I'll add relevant templates to the sources until suitable ones can be found. Failing this, or removal of the templates I'll request a WP:DISPUTE resolution as a next step. Raze182 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution has been requested: [Dispute resolution noticeboard]. Raze182 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The devtome article uses figures easily verifiable on the dash blockchain and the tone of the article is fair. Especially this page has an undue amount of dash created material and the overall tone is one of salesmanship.
 * The problem is that blog and forum posts are generally prohibited as sources by Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:USERGENERATED). Direct links to the blockchain, however, should be fine. Statements like "abnormally fast" are considered weasel words (WP:WEASEL) unless there's some verifiable consensus as to what's considered "abnormally fast" which would need to be sourced. As it stands now, it's just editorializing. The statement "claims a fair launch" also needs to be sourced. Regarding Dash created material, self-published information about yourself is acceptable provided it follows WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Raze182 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TNTed and rewrote the launch section, with quote from only industry news source I could find so far. See Dash (cryptocurrency) -- 1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also changed the source for the distribution numbers to a direct link to blockchain stats, as well as added the developer's response. Raze182 (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

What internet port does Dash Client operate on?
I can't find anything on the old letmegooglethatforyou. com website: what internet port (TCP/UDP) does the Dash client require opened to act as a node?

Halp?

Reid Sullivan (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content
The article has had the following:

As of July 2017, Dash is the sixth most valuable cryptocurrency by market capitalization.

This content keeps getting tweaked as Dash moves up and down the ladder. This is not encyclopedic content -- WP is not a blog or ticker where we track this sort of thing, especially not for something as volatile as this. I considered if there was some kind of encyclopedic content that could be created from this source, like "The market capitalization of Dash is tracked" but that is trivia. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I keep wondering if we need to do something about the market capitalization updates in all cryptocurrency-related articles. First of all, I agree that this is hardly encyclopedic. Second, I doubt that coinmarketcap is a reliable source. And third, we effectively promote coimparketcap and give it credibility. I would think we should mention price movements only if reliable sources write about them. Retimuko (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yes and trends, not point data. encyclopedic! Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Major cleanup
This whole page was either sourced to Dash or was unsourced. This is not how WP articles are written. There was one decent source; and that is what was left. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was quite a cleanup. I would think this puts the notability into question unless we find significant coverage in reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * :) yep on both counts. i'm not leaping to AfD but will wait to see if anything emerges... i don't have time to hunt for refs on this right now. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a couple, quite slim pickings when exluding the cryptorags. I didn't bother to add the dubious 2nd tier cryptorags, as I am wondering how long even the first tier ones will be accepted for AfD notability purposes (or even in articles to anchor content for that matter). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are going to start seeing some proposals from User:Technoir2 who appears to be an entirely reasonable person and seems authentically interested in becoming a Wikipedian... Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's correct, I'm currently compiling a list of articles on Dash from reputable sources that I can use to construct an article and will propose each change on this page technoir2 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes
Technoir2 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC) proposes the following changes:

1. Update the Dash logo image - Dash updated its visual identity in May this year (see www.dash.org/graphics)

2. Add comment about Dash being the first cryptocurrency with a community governance and treasury system.

3. Add comment about Dash being the first cryptocurrency with instant payment confirmations.

The updated article would appear as follows:

Dash (formerly known as Darkcoin and XCoin) is an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). It is the first cryptocurrency with a community governance and treasury system, and the first cryptocurrency with instant payment confirmations. Dash operates a system of transaction mixing that aims to improve privacy. Dash is referred to as an Altcoin.

Reply 06-JUN-2018
✅   spintendo   05:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes 2
Technoir2 (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC) proposes the following changes:

1. "Dash operates a system of transaction mixing that aims to improve privacy." --> "Dash operates a system of transaction mixing that aims to improve fungibility and privacy."

2. "Dash is referred to as an Altcoin." --> "It launched on January 18th 2014 and is a codebase fork of Bitcoin."

3. Add interwiki links for fungibility, privacy and mixing.

The updated article would appear as follows:

Dash (formerly known as Darkcoin and XCoin) is an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). It is the first cryptocurrency with a community governance and treasury system, and the first cryptocurrency with instant payment confirmations. Dash operates a system of transaction mixing that aims to improve fungibility and privacy. It launched on January 18th 2014 and is a codebase fork of Bitcoin.

Reply #2 06-JUN-2018
✅  spintendo   11:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) As the sentence "it is the first cryptocurrency with a community governance and treasury system," is a word for word copy of the d'Anconia source, quote marks were added.
 * 2) The Stevenson source was omitted, as it does not add anything to the sentence that isn't already covered by the Galt source.
 * 3) The founder is prominently featured in the Aru source as being fundamental to the establishment of the subject currency on the date indicated, thus the subject's name was placed in the article.
 * 4) The term fungibility was not added, as the claim that anonymity creates fungibility is either (A) original research — or if it isn't — is (B) unreferenced by anything beyond Mr. Duffield's remarks to Mr. Aru in his interview.
 * 5) Due to the restrictions in place for this page, a limit to requested changes which override previously placed edit request material (such as that in your second edit request) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Sources Cointelegraph
I have posted on the RS noticeboard here Reliable_sources/Noticeboard about the source cointelegraph.com. I also wanted to ask more in detail on this talk page about edit by user Spintendo. can you please explain why you deleted two RS (one academic and the other an actual print magazine) and replaced them with cointelegraph? I was reading this source recently added to the article reads like promotion. Wondering outloud why there are so many other cointelegraph sources and little else. I really wonder if cointelegraph can be considered an RS for this article. Note here that cointelegraph charges 1BTC for a press release. That's a lot of money, so what does this buy? Is this source really just a paid submission site for cryptocurrency promotion? Thought I would ping a few eyeballs to this, , to comment as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that Cointelegraph is used as a reference in the WP articles on Bitcoin and Ethereum and that favourable coverage does not necessarily mean to untruthful coverage. I chose Cointelegraph it because it's one of the most mainstream crypto media outlets and has been around for 5 years, so I expected you would consider it reliable enough. If you decide otherwise then I will have to abide by that. My latest proposed changes (beneath) refer to Forbes and Bitcoin.com, and I have future changes to propose that reference Arizona State University and City University London, so I hope for this article to end up using a mix of different sources, but Cointelegraph is by far the richest source of secondary information about Dash Technoir2 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have doubts about Cointelegraph. It is one of many industry news outlets that sprung into existence virtually yesterday. They did not have a chance yet to establish any reputation. Very little if anything is known about their editorial practices. Many publications look like promotion. I would suggest using it sparingly. I don't like that the whole article is based on it. I understand that it would be hard to avoid such sources entirely, but, on the other hand, if a particular subject is covered by such sources only, I would question the notability of the subject. Retimuko (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will attempt to source my information from a wider range of sources. There certainly are many mentions of Dash in various RS, but not always providing the necessary detail. I hope that Cointelegraph is a sufficiently reliable source for some statements provided they are not controversial and overly self-serving? Technoir2 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this post until now, but in response to, I didnt think that the City source (which is essentially a press release about the activities of people who work at City and not an "academic source") was necessary to substantiate the claim that DASH is an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and decentralized autonomous organization. The City source only tangentially refers to its professor doing studies on DAO's, and mentions DASH as something else they are working on. But to those with an uninitiated ear, there is no obvious connection made in that source that one implies the other. The City source certainly doesn't specify anything like the first sentence of the DASH Wikipedia article's subsection on DAO, which states "Dash's self-funded, self-governed organizational structure, referred to as the treasury system or decentralized governance by blockchain, makes Dash a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO)." which is a much more clearer description of DASH, despite the fact that this clearer sentence still needs two references to be made in the Wikipedia article. As the Cointelgraph source was and still is in the article referencing that initial lead sentence, it was chosen by me as the lesser of two evils. The other "reliable source" you've mentioned that I removed, the North Bay Business journal, was an opinion piece that — it should be noted — is no longer in the article as a reference.  spintendo   04:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes 3
Technoir2 proposes the addition of the following section:


 * Masternodes

Dash masternodes are servers on the internet that host a copy of the Dash blockchain. They are a type of full node, relaying and validating transactions according to the network's consensus rules.

In addition to the services provided by full nodes, masternodes perform governance of the network and enable Dash's InstantSend and PrivateSend functions.

Masternodes must conform to a minimum set of hardware and networking requirements. They receive 45% of all newly created Dash as compensation for their services.

To prevent Sybil attacks (where an attacker creates a large number of masternodes to interfere with the network's operation), masternode operators are required to hold 1000 Dash per masternode. This collateral can be moved at any time, but doing so results in the associated masternode going offline.

According to Bitcoin.com, Dash was the first cryptocurrency to introduce masternodes.

-- Technoir2 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the Forbes source, excellent. Can you please add the link to the antonopolos page in google books so we can link to it. I will then add that. Please feel free to ping me in your response. I didnt add the cryptorags. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

bitcoin.com as a source
I would suggest avoiding bitcoin.com as a source altogether. I believe it is widely known for practices incompatible with being an independent reliable source. It is owned by Roger Ver and company and is used for promotional purposes. Perhaps, it can be used very carefully to confirm some facts about itself, but not more than that. Retimuko (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's fine if we have to remove that last line. An alternative source for the same statement is https://cryptovest.com/news/what-are-masternodes-a-brief-introduction-to-running-validator-nodes/ or https://coincentral.com/what-are-masternodes-an-introduction-and-guide/ - would either of those qualify an an acceptable source for that statement ? Technoir2 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In my view, all these sources like cointelegraph, coincentral, cryptovest and such are of this "barely acceptable" kind. I would love to see them not used here at all. At least not so prominently. I would even say that if we cannot find two or free decent articles in some reputable sources (like CNN or BBC, for instance) then the subject is not notable enough. Retimuko (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think these three (plus bitcoin.com) are not even barely acceptable and may be used only as a primary source (except on articles where the PR edits get so bad that the must be banned). BTW, this http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/ is quite a nice source, maybe small, but it is a legit print newspaper (if i remember right) and far from a cryptorag. Indeed the article still needs another couple of good RS to be safe from AfD, but it might be passable as is... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes 4
Technoir2 proposes adding the following line to the introduction section:

The name 'Dash' is a portmanteau of 'Digital Cash'.

The updated section would appear as follows:

Dash (formerly known as Darkcoin and XCoin) is an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). It is the first cryptocurrency with a community governance and treasury system, and the first cryptocurrency with instant payment confirmations. Dash operates a system of transaction mixing that aims to improve privacy. The name 'Dash' is a portmanteau of 'Digital Cash'. Dash is referred to as an Altcoin.

Technoir2 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Technoir, great suggestions. I added most but I didnt add the sentence where dash is the first to do this and that. Both of those cited the dubious cryptorags and need a proper mainstream RS to make those claims (in my opinion) as I am sure there are other cryptocurrencies that also claim to be first for this and that. I think the article is much better and likely to survive AfD at this point in time. Awesome! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes 5
Technoir2 proposes the following update. It adds new information sourced from Arizona State University's website, and has been structured to read more coherently while preserving all the information from the existing WP article:

Dash (formerly known as Darkcoin and XCoin) is an open source peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and decentralized autonomous organization (DAO). It features instant transactions, private transactions and a self-funded, self-governed organizational structure sometimes referred to as the treasury system or decentralized governance by blockchain (DGBB). These features rely on a global network of masternodes which vote on proposals for improving Dash's ecosystem. Approved proposals are funded from the treasury, which receives 10% of all newly created Dash, with 45% allocated to miners and 45% to masternodes. Dash is a fork of the Bitcoin software and is referred to as an altcoin. It was launched in January 2014 by Evan Duffield. The name 'Dash' is a portmanteau of 'Digital Cash'.

Technoir2 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont love the ASU source, but the content it anchors is uncontroversial. Other changes do seem to be a slight improvement. I dont much like the abreviation DGBB, as I have never heard of that before, I might delete that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

DAO
the thing that I find most interesting about Dash is that I have read it is the first real functioning Decentralized autonomous organization. If you come across good sourced content for this, lets add it. I think it is interesting to the reader. I am ok with CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, but I am not sure if others will be, but we can try. Keep your eyes out for it and let me know if/when you find it. Would be interesting if we could do a section on it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes 7
Technoir2 proposes the addition of a section on DAO Funded Organizations ( is this what you had in mind?):

KuvaCash
KuvaCash aims to provide a peer-to-peer payment service, accessible by anyone with a phone-number-based messaging system. By allowing users to convert between Dash and US dollars, it aims to fight hyperinflation in Zimbabwe, providing access to a stable currency with the possibility of sending cash instantly to anywhere in the world. The project received $550k in funding from Dash's treasury and passed with 871 votes in favour to 357 votes against.

Alt Thirty Six
Alt Thirty Six is a Dash-based payment platform that aims to reduce cash-handling costs in the legal cannabis industry. It uses Dash as a method of transaction between consumers, merchants, suppliers and vendors.
 * Im not comfortable with any of these sources. A press release and some type of payment industry magazine. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the press release is not acceptable here. WP:SELFSOURCE says that self-published sources are fine as long as the source is providing information about themselves and the information is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. Saying that Alt36 uses Dash as a method of transaction between consumers, merchants, suppliers and vendors does not violate any of the WP:SELFSOURCE criteria imo. As for the payments industry magazine, why does that violate WP:RS? It's a magazine with paid subscribers that offers independent analysis of the payments industry - it's not even a 'cryptorag' by any stretch. Technoir2 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies probably trumps the rest of the sourcing policies in this case. I could be wrong, but its likely the case. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies doesn't say anything that is relevant to this conversation afaict, it says there's a 1 revert per 24 hour rule, but nothing about sources whatsoever. I really think my proposed section on Alt36 conforms to all WP requirements in its present form. Could we get a second opinion on the Alt36 section please ? Technoir2 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, brain fart on my part. I was thinking of this Talk:Bitcoin_Cash which obviously doesn't apply here. But as for my opinion, i am opposed to adding primary sourced or 2nd tier cryptorag content to articles. I think this article just had a large cleanout by and I guess he will also be against low quality sourcing as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk)
 * Press releases are generally terrible sources - self-published (obviously) and are highly promotional in nature. If the only source available is a press release, it's probably not notable enough to include in an article.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As you can see, it's not the only source. I'm referencing a combination of sources including 'Payments Source', which appears to be a reputable independent publication with paid subscribers. I don't understand why I can't reference PaymentSource, and then add a piece of additional detail using the press release - the detail from the press release is not an exceptional claim or overly self-serving and self-sourced information is not prohibited on Wikipedia as long as it conforms to the requirements in WP:SELFSOURCE. If you're going to deny me these two lines, can you please provide reasons rooted in WP:RS and WP:SELFSOURCE, because I'm going to a lot of effort to make my proposed changes comply with Wikipedia's policies and feel like I am getting dismissed for reasons that have no basis in the policy pages. Technoir2 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Technoir, I like to support this article as you can see from my edits. And I think we did a good job to rescue it from near AfD status. The last thing that you would want is to get one of these Talk:Bitcoin_Cash on this article. Take a look at how it went down, the voting was unanimous. I am guessing the same would go down here, and then the sourcing rules would be even more strict than it is now. Just a suggestion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know you're being supportive and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational. Regarding the PaymentsSource reference specifically though, I don't understand why this wouldn't count as a reliable source? If it is a RS then can we have a single sentence about Alt Thirty Six that says: "Alt Thirty Six is a Dash-based payment platform that aims to reduce cash-handling costs in the legal cannabis industry. "? Technoir2 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * yeah, let's just look at the paymentssource and see if they are a reliable source. is this a press release platform, or do they have independent sourcing? I dont know the answer to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is written by John Adams who is the executive editor of PaymentsSource - it seems to be an independent article. I have no reason to believe it's a press release - if you take some text from the article, put it in "" marks and search the internet, the only hit is the PaymentsSource article and references to that article ie. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Even+though+legalized+cannabis+and+cryptocurrency+payments+are+still+vexing+markets+by+themselves%2C+WebJoint+and+Alt+Thirty+Six+are+quickly+looking+to+take+their+combined+dispensary+play+to+other+businesses.%22&t=h_&ia=web Technoir2 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear you, I looked at the source and it isnt awful like I originally thought. That said, I am not comfortable to add it. Maybe another editor will want to add it. I think it is borderline and can go either way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * or are you happy to make this addition? "Alt Thirty Six is a Dash-based payment platform that aims to reduce cash-handling costs in the legal cannabis industry. "Technoir2 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Dash Venezuela
Dash Venezuela is a treasury-funded project aimed at educating Venezuelans on the subject of cryptocurrencies. It promotes Dash as a method of payment and operates a Spanish-speaking technical support centre for problems related to Dash.

Blockchain Research Laboratory
Arizona State University's Blockchain Research Laboratory requested $350k in funding from Dash's treasury to create blockchain-focused scholarships, an online blockchain course and perform research pertaining to Dash. The proposal passed and Arizona State University received funding in December 2017.

Technoir2 (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Kuva v2
KuvaCash is a Dash-funded startup in Zimbabwe that aims to offer a payment solution in the country. Dash masternodes (more than 1000 dash are required to hold a masternode wallet) voted on the project with 871 votes in favour of its proposal and 357 against. I deleted all the other details, too much forwarding looking WP:CRYSTALBALL kinda stuff. Please comment Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ok, I'm fine with stripping some of the forward looking statements out, but I don't think this section is a good place to insert technical details about masternodes. How about the following:
 * ====Kuva v3====
 * "KuvaCash is a Dash-funded startup that aims to offer a payment solution in Zimbabwe. The project received $550k in funding from Dash's treasury and passed with 871 votes in favour to 357 votes against. " Technoir2 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should add the masternode 1000 dash to the article somewhere, it is interesting. Maybe add up higher in the article rather than this country specific content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, one thing at a time, let's deal with DAO funded projects first :) I can write a separate section on masternodes with the 1000 Dash requirement and maybe talk about InstantSend and PrivateSend. Do you consider www.mycryptopedia.com to be a RS for technical info about Dash? I could do a lot with that source. Technoir2 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope that source wont work either, probably user generated content. Generally has to be mainstream non-crypto press. Like I said earlier, I think coindesk and bitcoin magazine is ok for me. The rest pretty much not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, the 1000 Dash requirement is noted, I'll see how I can fit that in somewhere. How does my last KuvaCash suggestion above sound? Technoir2 (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Can we merge Kuva v3? Technoir2 (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks :) Technoir2 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

venezuela v2
An organization called Dash Venezuela has held to date 8 conferences in Venezuela aimed at community outreach and promotion of the cryptocurrency. It promotes Dash as a method of payment and operates a Spanish-speaking technical support centre for problems related to Dash. -The dash blog link doesnt work for me to substantiate that this is a treasury funded project. Others might disagree with me on this point though. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What dash blog link ? I specifically haven't sourced anything from Dash itself, it's entirely secondary sources. Technoir2 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i meant the dcdroid etoro link. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source lists Dash Venezuela under "Dash DAO & Projects" and introduces the list of projects containing Dash Venezuela by saying 'Dash based projects that have been supported by the treasury are:...', so it's clear to me that it's a treasury funded project. Do you still disagree? Technoir2 (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the DAO mention? I dont see it in the spanish source. Did I miss it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not in the Spanish source, it's in the eToro report. That's the source you were referring to above. Technoir2 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, for sure that etoro source doesn't work. Maybe if the dash website has a list of funded DAO projects we could use that to substantiate it is a DAO project (but we can't add projects that dont have WP:RS to anchor the content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you're happy to bolster that section with some WP:SELFSOURCE then I have https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Caracas-Venezuela1rstconferencerepositio and https://www.dashcentral.org/p/Caracas-Venezuela2ndand3rdconference which are two funding proposals for Dash Venezuela that passed. Can anyone please elaborate on why the eToro report is not acceptable? eToro is a well known company. Technoir2 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As for me it is no to selfsource per the policy that was enacted on Bitcoin Cash as I am going to assume (maybe I am wrong) that is likely to apply here as well. However, you have proposed one source (the spanish source) so I think the content that is anchored by that is ok. Maybe we just add that now and then discuss adding something selfsource if it is non-controversial and non-promotional. Maybe just saying that it is a DAO project. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, if we can use one self source from dash.org for the treasury-funded part then how about "A treasury-funded organization called Dash Venezuela has held to date 8 conferences in Venezuela aimed at community outreach and promotion of the cryptocurrency. It promotes Dash as a method of payment and operates a Spanish-speaking technical support centre for problems related to Dash. "? Otherwise remove 'treasury-funded' if you aren't happy with the selfsource, but I think it's pretty uncontroversial that they are DAO funded. Technoir2 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

reorg
Hi, I did a small re-org to try to make sections. Please comment if ok. Please also send the citation for the 1000 dash requried to be a masternode, that is interesting content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! In a bizarre twist, I actually don't like the use of the word 'novel' as it feels subjective and promotional, I'm going to remove that :p. I'm happy with the rest of the re-org, I might suggest some small tweaks but let's go with the new structure - I'll dig up the MN source on Saturday and see if there's anything else I can source about them. Technoir2 (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * are we allowed to say 'makes Dash one of the first decentralized autonomous organizations' rather than 'makes Dash a decentralized autonomous organization'? Tbh, I think it might actually be the first, but 'one of the first' plays it safe to avoid controversy. What do you think?
 * "one of" in this case would be WP:WEASEL. If we have a source to show it is one of many, sure we can use it. But if we are just saying it, cause we think it to be true, then that would be WP:OR. Using a weasel word doesnt help. About removing the word novel, that is fine with me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks for sourcing the policies on that. Technoir2 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about the 1000 Dash requirement for MNs, sourced from Forbes - I trust that's ok. Just the Alt36 section to review now and I can close these requested changes Technoir2 (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Neptune Dash Technologies Corporation
Technoir2 requests the addition of a section on Neptune Dash Technologies Corp. as follows:

Neptune Dash Technologies Corporation
Neptune Dash Technologies Corporation is a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange that operates Dash masternodes and invests in Dash related technologies. The company was founded by Troy Wong and Cale Moodie and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Technoir2 (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, first i was going to say that neptune dash is an unrelated company, thus it didnt belong here. I think we could maybe add one sentence to state that 'there are companies that mine dash in canada, such as Neptune Dash.' I think we could not create a whole section on this, as it would sort of be a WP:WEIGHT problem and dominate this already short article. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok let's leave this out for now. When the article has been expanded more, maybe we can add this in without it being a WP:WEIGHT issue. Technoir2 (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well all the WP:RS that a small stub article like this can find can be useful if/when challenged in WP:AfD (good to add in advance). I would suggest to add it. Maybe you can find a couple other sources about mining. Even if we add a sentence that says that "Dash is secured by mining." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've dug up a bunch of new sources and I have some proposed changes that overlap with the outstanding requests I have open, so I'm going to consolidate all these edit requests in one place including the new stuff. Stay tuned... (Also Neptune Dash runs masternodes, I don't think they have anything to do with mining) Technoir2 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Changes 9
Technoir2 requests the following changes:

1. Add a sub-section 'Alt Thirty Six' within 'Community Outreach':

Alt Thirty Six is a Dash-based payment platform that aims to reduce cash-handling costs in the legal cannabis industry. The company received $496,000 in funding from Dash's treasury. (Yes, that last point is self-sourced, but it is an uncontroversial, non-promotional and important piece of information, also the only self-source in the whole article so I think it's ok? See WP:SELFSOURCE).

2. Add a sub-section 'Dash Core Group' within 'Community Outreach':

Dash Core Group is a company responsible for development, marketing and expansion of Dash's ecosystem. Dash Core Group receives funding from the treasury in the same way as other projects (by submitting proposals that are approved or rejected by the network). (<--Coinsquare reference is not a crypto rag, it's a Canadian Bitcoin exchange.) The current CEO is Ryan Taylor.

3. Rename 'Community Outreach' to 'Treasury-Funded Organizations' (or similar).

4. Add a new section 'Stock Market':

Dash is included in the Bloomberg Galaxy Crypto Index and the HOLD 10 Index from Bitwise Asset Management. A company called Neptune Dash Technologies which operates Dash masternodes and invests in Dash related technologies is listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. Technoir2 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont much like any of the text, seems too promotional. I do think the cannabis stuff with two different news items at are not crypto related should be good to include. Let's just shorted it a bit and make it less promotional. Community outreach term is general, and dash core projects sounds like jargon. The independant source is a good one and we should add that as well. Let's try to make a section that is seperate from community outreach called Dash Core, it is an interesting topic and I think is unique to dash. What is unique is how dash gets money from mining and then uses it to fund core, which is run by a CEO. The independant source is suffient to start to anchor the content. Thoughts? I have a few questions. First is Ryan CEO of the Dash DAO? Or does dash core get money from dash DAO? Would be nice if we could include this as I think it is unique to bitcoin, ethereum, etc. Maybe my misunderstanding of the difference between dash core and community outreach is the root of my questions. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So to answer your questions - the Dash DAO has no CEO (it makes no sense for a decentralized organisation to have a CEO). Rather, the Dash DAO funds a company called Dash Core Group, and that company has a CEO. Dash Core Group submits proposals for funding from the network at regular intervals, and the DAO approves those funding requests. But equally, if the DAO doesn't like what Dash Core Group is doing, it can cut off their funding and fund a different group instead. For that reason I proposed putting DCG in the a 'Treasury-Funded Organizations' section with the others, because in terms of how it gets funded it is no different to any other community project. Technoir2 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, that is very interesting content. I was not aware of that. Yes, I think it makes sense to put the Dash Core under a supported projects header. See if you can find some sources to support the statements you just made too, that would be great content to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, i added the cannabis content. It is just supported by 3 different writers at the at payments magazine, but that looks ok enough. Pretty borderline like I mentioned before, someone else could challenge it FYI. About the dash core content (which would be interesting) coinsquare is covered by WP:COI (cant use) and the two bitcoin magazine sources I am seeing more and more those sources being deleted from even Bitcoin, so I think I will just stay away from those sources for now (especially the Bitcoin Magazine source that is just an interview). The stock market one looks to vaguely related to dash, it is just some private company that is mining dash. I guess we could make a section on dash mining...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the cannabis stuff. I'm happy to ditch the stock market suggestions if you think they're too promotional. Technoir2 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For Dash Core Group, how about: "Dash Core Group is a company responsible for developing Dash's core technology. Its current CEO is Ryan Taylor.  Dash Core Group requests funding from the treasury on a monthly basis. "? Technoir2 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources do speak to Taylor being CEO. The source you gave doesn't really speak to funding of dash core. But I did click on a link and did see a 2015 blog post where Taylor is talking about funding for team members. Is the dash team funded as a group and then Taylor splits up the funding for each member based upon Taylor's opinion of funding, or is there direct funding for each of the staff? Is this 2015 link that I sent the up to date link? Is there a source for any of this stuff in secondary source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The core team is funded as a whole by the treasury and then that funding gets split internally between the various employees (either by Ryan Taylor or the new CFO Glenn Austin). The only secondary source I can find that talks about Dash Core Group's funding is this CoinTelegraph article: https://cointelegraph.com/news/arizona-state-university-partners-with-dash-to-fund-research-scholarships also available from the dash.org site at https://www.dash.org/2018/01/19/ASU.html Technoir2 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thats a bummer, that would be good content to add. Let's just keep a lookout for it. I guess we cannot use cointelegraph due to the RS noticeboard result. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we use CT 'sparingly' as Retimuko suggested above in the CT discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dash_(cryptocurrency)#Sources_Cointelegraph )? If not, is there some other way to get this content in, for example by attributing the claim to the source eg. 'according to dash.org, Dash Core Group requests funding from the treasury on a monthly basis'? Technoir2 (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Logo
can you please update the logo to match what is used on the website? I think digital cash is a tagline and not part of the logo. I think we should use the logo here, not the logo plus tagline. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Technoir2 (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sake of housekeeping, were there any outstanding requests still pending, or may I close the template? This thread appears to be completed, but the one above it does not, although it's been 12 days and no response yet to your last proposal. Would you like more time to contact editors? Please advise.  spintendo   06:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've closed the outstanding request. Technoir2 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

ASU Research - Block Propagation Applied to Nakamoto Networks
Technoir2 proposes the following addition to the section on 'ASU Blockchain Research Laboratory':

In June 2018, ASU published a white paper on the scalability of Dash's network.

Technoir2 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont think this is notable enough. I think WP:NOTNEWS would apply, unless this gets some extra coverage or is deemed noteworthy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

History: Milestones
I would like to add more detail to the History section, perhaps under a Milestones subheading, with a sentence about each of the different software releases to date (12.1, 12.2 and 12.3) - something similar to the milestones section on the Ethereum article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum#Milestones). However, I notice that the milestones section of the Ethereum article is sourced almost entirely from the Ethereum Foundation and 'crypto rags'. Is this a case of those sources being sufficient for the type of information they are anchoring, and if so can I use similar sources (like Cointelegraph or Dash.org) for my milestones section? Or is it the case that the Ethereum milestones section is not acceptable because of poor quality references and should be removed? Technoir2 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well i think the answer is probably both. Both it might be removed and it is probably also ok (if it is done neutrally), each answer will be different depending on who you ask. Let's not use cointelegraph for anything, but i think we can use WP:PRIMARY to go over a summary of software versions. Note we cannot make any forward looking statements per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Let's keep in mind this is short article, so this should be a short summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Network
I notice you've added a Network section containing the following: "Dash has a privacy system that along with Monero and Zcash is considered to be more private than Bitcoin, and as a result is widely used in darknet markets."

However the cited source does not say that Dash is widely used in darknet markets. At most, it says that there is a correlation between the emergence of cryptocurrencies with privacy features (of which there are several, Dash being only one) and the amount of activity on darknet markets. This does not imply causation and nowhere does it say that Dash is 'widely used in darknet markets'. There is also evidence to the contrary - according to Ryan Taylor (CEO of Dash Core Group), Dash was not accepted on *any* darknet market as of late 2017 (https://www.dash.org/2017/10/09/interviewryan.html). Technoir2 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed the oxford post doesnt specifically mention dash about the darknet when I read it again. I also read the SSRN paper and it goes over Dash as some jargon they created called shadow coins. It appears to refer only to crypto in general and then it goes on to say these three tokens have better privacy features. I guess we can just add the part of about how it has obscuring technology not the darknet as you pointed out. Good eye! Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Milestones
In line with the article on Ethereum, I propose updating the History section for Dash as follows:

History
Dash was launched in January 2014 by Evan Duffield. It was originally known as Darkcoin, but rebranded as Dash in March 2015.

Milestones
Since the initial launch, Dash has undergone several planned protocol upgrades. Release versions 12.1 to 12.4 are described by Dash Core Group as laying the groundwork for a planned protocol upgrade in version 13.0, codenamed 'Evolution'.

Changes in version 12.1 included the introduction of a governance logic system known as 'Sentinel'.

Version 12.2 included a doubling of the network's transaction capacity and a 10x reduction in fees.

12.3 introduced named devnets and backported performance improvements from the Bitcoin codebase.

As of July 2018, versions 12.4 and 13.0 were unreleased.

Technoir2 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be more suitable if we just did the main releases, such as v1, v2, v3. More along the lines of microsoft win3.0, win95, win98, etc. Seems too granular right now. Maybe just a bit more historic overview. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 12.1-12.3 are major releases (eg. https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/v0.12.2.0/doc/release-notes.md says "This is a new major version release"). Minor releases follow the convention X.X.X eg 12.3.2. Ethereum follows a different numbering convention but the releases I describe here are just as significant as the ones described on the Ethereum wiki. Technoir2 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the rest of the versions, 1-11? Seems those could be encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've managed to piece together the full release history (the first version is 0.8.x). As a start, how about adding an infobox within the history section under a Releases subheading ?
 * Very nice. For v13 we cant say what is planned in the release due to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Any idea why it started with v0.8? What happened to the earlier versions? Is this documented anywhere online that we can source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It started with v0.8 because Dash forked from Litecoin v0.8, so there are no earlier versions unless you count Litecoin releases <0.8. I've replaced the details of v13.0 with its codename in the table which I assume is fine to document. Technoir2 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that speak to following the litecoin source code version naming? It would be useful to include in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think continuing from the version number where you forked is a standard thing to do when you fork a project, I'm not sure it's worthy of documenting beyond saying that Dash v0.8 is forked from Litecoin v0.8. The only source I have for this is the one I've used in the table (https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/doc/release-notes.md#older-releases) which says 'Darkcoin tree 0.8.x was a fork of Litecoin tree 0.8'. Technoir2 (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, i was not aware of continuing the same number after a fork. Learn something new on wikipedia sometimes, that is why I enjoy it. Yes, I think your treatment in the table looks excellent. Any other thoughts/comments before we include it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no more thoughts at this stage, feel free to go ahead! Or I can add it if you prefer, i've made the reused references in the rest of the article match the ones in the table so it should be an easy add Technoir2 (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * you can go ahead and add it, i think it is great. very nice content, good job! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Releases
Technoir2 (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I notice you removed our version history infobox from the article, can you please explain why? As you can see above, the change was proposed and reviewed before making it. I also note that the article on Ethereum contains a similar infobox of their release history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum#Milestones), and Google Chrome has an entire wikipedia article that follows the same format as my infobox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history). Technoir2 (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the website for Dash. We do not have big self-sourced history sections.  Yes there is a lot of corrupt shit that goes on in WP and people edit off-mission. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:SELFSOURCE: "Self-published... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves... so long as the following criteria are met:
 * The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
 * It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
 * It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
 * There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
 * The article is not based primarily on such sources."
 * Please can you explain why a box of the release history is unsuitable with reference to an actual wikipedia policy? As I pointed out, there are examples of other self sourced history boxes on wikipedia, I do not accept the argument that these are the result of corruption. Technoir2 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, WP is shot through with garbage, just like it has lots of good parts. See WP:PRIMARY. See WP:PROMO and all of WP:NOT. Do not abuse your editing privileges to try tot make this page into a technical manual or proxy for Dash community websites.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We have to ground decisions in wikipedia policy pages if there is going to be any sort of consistency because what you consider to be garbage, others might not. Both myself and the neutral reviewer above thought that a release history infobox would be good to include. I see similar boxes in other articles. I am looking at the policy pages you linked and can't see any reason why a release history infobox is not suitable for this article. Specifically, WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and the neutral reviewer above on this talk page said "i think we can use WP:PRIMARY to go over a summary of software versions.". Perhaps we have both missed something on one of those policy pages - can you specific the exact policy that the infobox contravenes? Technoir2 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes there are people who edit WP who think big passages of self-cited or primary-sourced material are just fine, and that turning WP pages into technical manuals is just fine. Nothing I can do about them. Please do read User:Jytdog/How to get grounded on the mission and how we realize it, and please do see User:Jytdog with respect to how good sources helps us realize the mission of WP. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that big passages of self sourced materials are not fine, WP:SELFSOURCE says 'The article [must not be] based *primarily* on such sources'. But in this case we are not talking about a big passage, rather a small infobox within a medium sized article. Re: the mission of wikipedia, your user page says "Our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge" - I think the infobox is in line with that mission as it summarises in a single table accepted knowledge that is otherwise scattered as text across a number of github pages. It is 'accepted' knowledge because the source is an authority on itself, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity and the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim (i.e. the WP:SELFSOURCE criteria). Again this comes down to interpretation. If you can show me where in the actual WP policy pages we are violating some policy I'll gladly concede, but I don't think it's fair for you to make major reversions of changes that were discussed and approved (and took a lot of work) without specifying where exactly in the WP policy pages we are violating a policy - referencing your own user page that was written by you does not count. Technoir2 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

here i will copy/paste the policy bits from there I have no interest in discussing this further with you. I get it that you are here to promote this cryptocurrecy. You are free to pursue any form of content WP:DR that pleases you. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them";
 * WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * WP:VERIFY, in a section called "Original Research", says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy."

appearance issues
i think it would be great if we could work on the appearance issues:
 * reduce the size of the dash logo
 * right justify the new software version infobox.
 * add a cryptocurrnecy infobox

do you know the content to fill in the infobox? I have added the bitcoin infobox below as a reference.

Do you have thoughts on this? Maybe you can see the info we need in the code, even if it doesnt display the infox on this talk page. Thanks!

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey, yes I'm broadly in agreement with you about those things, but there are problems with the first two which is why I haven't done them already. 1. Re: reducing the size of the Dash logo, if it goes below ~350px then on Samsung Galaxy mobile devices you get one or two characters of text per line wrapping around the logo in the LEDE which looks terrible and is hard to read. The solution to this might be having the logo inside a cryptocurrency infobox. 2. Right justifying the releases infobox (you also mean making it float) looks horrible because there isn't anywhere near enough text in the History section to fill the page to the left of where the box would be floating. What happens is that the infobox extends downwards out of the History section and into the sections that follow, it's really ugly and is the reason why I chose to place it inline with text. 3. I like the idea of a cryptocurrency infobox, but there are a few ways in which Dash doesn't fit neatly into the template used by Bitcoin - let me see what I can create and maybe we can solve those issues. Technoir2 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya, the infobox is very long compared to the article. But in time the article will grow. Maybe we could delete some sections of the infobox to make it shorter. We pruned the bitshares infobox on Daniel Larimer to make it fit, after the bitshares article got deleted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , uploading https://media.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/dash_logo_2018_rgb_for_screens.svg to Wikimedia will allow with more ease using a logo in reduced size in teh infobox. In general, it is better to have the SVG file on Wikimedia as PNG files of different sizes are generated automatically. This would enable removing https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dash_logo_2018_rgb_for_screens.png which probably has incorrect license mentioned. Articles using that image should be changed to use the SVG. As for the cryptocurrency infobox, I am in favor of adding it and collectively improving it, that is what it is there for, to summarize info on a crypto currency article. Pander (talk) 11:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the svg advantage. Yes, please update the logo if you believe it will look better. Be WP:BOLD and make the edits :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

source
this looks like a good source Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good article to me too. Where do you think this can be added to the article? For what exactly is it a proper reference or would it fit the section further reading? Pander (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Or has this already been answered in the section on Venezuela below? Pander (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

i dont recall if the source has been discussed below or not. Sometimes I just add a source to a talk page as a lazy way to record an RS in case it is useful in the future. Any editor (assuming they dont have a WP:COI should feel free to add what they want using the source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Revision
There were a lot of bad sources and there wer great sources that were barely used. Bizarre. Revised in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit has introduced a number of inaccuracies. Namely:
 * 1. Dash was not, as you write, forked from Bitcoin in 2014. It was originally forked from Litecoin and then rebased on Bitcoin years later. (This was stated and referenced in the old version).
 * 2. PrivateSend does not use funds pooled in masternodes, rather masternodes faciliate the mixing of users' coins. The masternodes themselves never hold any of the funds being mixed as your statement implies, and the source does not say this either.
 * 3. You wrote "A proof of service protocol ensures that masternodes have the most current blockchain protocol and are online", which is less comprehensive and less accurate than what was written previusly. The source says that a proof of service protocol ensure that masternodes are online, responding and have their blockchain (not blockchain protocol) up-to-date.
 * 4. I take issue with the statement "Because of this two-tiered system in which miners have no vote, it is uncertain if Dash is truly decentralized.". The dictionary definition of decentralization is 'having no central point of control', being decentralized does require every element in the network to have equal power, only that power is shared among multiple elements rather than one. Secondly, miners themselves are not decentralized as they form mining pools (see the Bitcoin wiki), so even if miners were to have a vote, it would not imply 'true decentralization' in the sense that it is being used here. The statement is an ill-considered one, even if it comes from the source.
 * You also seem to have removed good content, for example the information about the Dash DAO funding Arizona State University, which was referenced by about 4 mainstream reliable sources. You have removed this piece of content twice, the first time because of self sourcing (which did not contravene the WP:SELFSOURCE criteria). The second time it was referenced by mainstream secondary sources but you removed it again with no justification given. Did you mean to do it the second time round? Technoir2 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) "Dash is a fork of the bitcoin protocol (ref)
 * 2) "a masternode uses the CoinJoin...protocol to mix unspent outputs of the same denomination from multiple nodes...in a pool and randomly selects an input for the next transaction" )same ref) Prusty describes it as a "coin mixing algorithm".  Fixed.
 * 3) the old version was a copyright violation as noted. Completely unacceptable in WP.
 * 4) Supported by RS. Your opinions are not relevant.
 * 5) With regard to ASU, your definition of "good content" is not apt. Content sourced only to SPS/churnalism and a passing mention in one independent source, is not "good content". I looked for independent sources and found none. With none this is not noteworthy (see WP:UNDUE). In this case its presence is due to promotional pressure. From you. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (tweaked Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC))


 * Re: 1., I think you misunderstand me on this point. I agree that Dash is *currently* a fork of the Bitcoin protocol, what I said was that it didn't fork from Bitcoin in 2014, which is what you have written. It forked from Litecoin (version 0.8) in 2014, and rebased to become a fork of Bitcoin in 2015, see: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/doc/release-notes.md#older-releases . The source you are referencing says that it is currently a fork of Bitcoin, it doesn't speak to the original fork from Litecoin in 2014. Technoir2 (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying. Fixed.Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ASU
Last version added here

Arizona State University's Blockchain Research Laboratory received $350k in funding from Dash's treasury to create blockchain-focused scholarships and perform research pertaining to Dash. In June 2018, ASU published a research paper on the scalability of the Dash network.

-- will discuss refs in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, first see WP:ORGIND. We (the editing community) have actually thought about this. You should too.
 * 1) this is churmalism in the ASU student newpaper from here.  They do add some of their own "reporting" on it. Nothing remotely thoughtful, but they did add stuff. But hardly independent.
 * 2) this is pure churnalism from here (same as above) (same quote used. for example)
 * 3) this is older, from 2017 and is churnalism from some Dash announcement that... that.. well gee.  the only thing on the Dash website now is a copyright violation of the Fortune piece.  Hm.
 * 4) report from CBS local affiliate. One sentence "Dash partnered with ASU and funds one of the first blockchain laboratories in the country to research the technology."
 * 5) actual university press release/blog.

So there is one arguably independent source. A local TV news affiliate, with exactly one small sentence. I do get it that speculators went WOO HOO about that. We in WP care only as much as independent sources care. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added a bit about ASU. The content didn't anchor Dash in space anywhere, and this content shows the roots in Arizona. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Corporate structure
this is interesting. Perhaps as an EL... Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What's an EL? Technoir2 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it came to me (external link). Technoir2 (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Venezuela
I've removed the content about Venezuela. I spent about an hour today finding and reading high quality sources about the currency situation in Venezuela. I found lots talking about the situation; none mentioning Dash. The business insider piece is obvious PR trash - the images are supplied by Dash Core Group and while the reporter did about 5 seconds of checking a few things the company said (for example, glanced at the website that lists Dash vendors), the reporter didn't talk to anybody independent of the company about the legal/regulatory situation there, or discuss other ways that people are adapting to hyperinflation (including other cryptocurrencies), or even describe what percentage of the economy was using Dash, not even an order of magnitude (a tenth of a percent? 1%? 10%)? The computerworld venezuela piece was even more schlocky. Without high quality independent sources there is nothing we should say about this here in WP at this time.Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the issue is that this content is UNDUE and essentially promotional ((WP:PROMO) as we have no (!) high quality sources discussing Dash in Venezuela and discussing the situation in Venezuela and the ways people are adapting; sources that do discuss the the situation in Venezuela and the ways people are adapting, do not mention Dash at all. Using these two essentially promotional puff pieces is not OK per those two policies. (The issue is not whether the sources are reliable for certain facts; the issue is that we cannot contextualize those facts in a way that is encyclopedic)


 * The content was formerly like this:
 * "The Dash DAO has invested about $1 million in Venezuela, where hyperinflation has led to rapid adoption of the cryptocurrency by merchants. As of May 2018, an organization called Dash Venezuela has held 8 conferences aimed at community outreach and promotion of the cryptocurrency. It promotes Dash as a method of payment and operates a Spanish-speaking technical support centre for problems related to Dash."


 * I had changed it to this, before I removed it completely:
 * "As of August 2018, the Dash DAO had invested about $1 million to promote and facilitate uptake of Dash in Venezuela, where hyperinflation has been, according to a German economist, 'forcing people to continue to take part in unusual and risky economic practices.'"


 * Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * You're removing content referenced by two major independent publications because you personally don't think the journalists did a good enough job? If the Business Insider and Computerworld articles don't count as high quality independent sources, are you going to apply the same standards for referencing to the other cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia ? I encourage you to look at the referencing on any of these articles:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EOS.IO
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_(payment_network)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardano_(platform)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero_(cryptocurrency)
 * Maybe it is the case that every cryptocurrency article on Wikipedia needs reducing to a few sentences, but if that's the case then please at least be consistent.
 * I'm requesting a third opinion on the Venezuela content and the release history infobox. Technoir2 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you are aware, there are general sanctions on the topic of cryptocurrencies because advocates, many of them with financial conflicts of interest, come here to promote them. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting anything. If you can provide independent sources the discuss the currency situation in Venezuela and put Dash in the content of it, and and provide a sense of the size of Dash in the economy there, nobody could validly object to implementing content based on such sources. While DCG and the Dash community must be delighted with the PR in the BI piece, we won't use schlocky "journalism" like that.  BI can sometimes be OK but this piece is not. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is it written that sources are required to discuss particular issues (ie. the currency situation in Venezuela and the size of the Dash economy there) in order to count as reliable? These are additional requirements that you're creating, where's the basis in WP:RS policy? Technoir2 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to wonder whether you have a COI, do you own a competing coin? It seems suspicious to me that you're clamping down so hard on this article, but are unwilling to apply the same standards to the articles of any other cryptocurrencies. Your comment about general sanctions doesn't explain the inconsistency. Technoir2 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at his edits, you will see he clamps down pretty much uniformly across much wikipedia. We need to keep this article informational, not promotional. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He does clamp down on various other articles, but specifically within crypto articles it seems to be just this one which has already been reduced to something pretty bare bones. Other articles are almost entirely full of unreferenced claims, crypto rags, forum references, SPS, primary research etc so all I'm asking for is some consistency. I agree this article should be informational rather than promotional, but now it has got to the stage where RSs can't be included because the journalist reported something positive. Technoir2 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are lots of people who abuse Wikipedia's openness for promotion, and lots of editors make mistakes or misunderstand the sourcing policies and guidelines and how they fit into other policies like NOT and NPOV to help us realize the mission. WP is actually decentralized, and there is no "management" to unify things. Every bit of content in Wikipedia is only as good (or bad) as the last person who edited it. It is radical.
 * Using places where WP has garbage, to justify adding more garbage, is a "race to the bottom" argument. If we followed that, this whole place would become a garbage dump.  Please raise source quality.  Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue with you, and I'm not even asking to add garbage content. I'm asking that the same standards be applied to the rest of the WP articles on cryptocurrency. When I was completely new to WP, I looked at similar articles to get a sense of what could and couldn't be included - those other articles formed the basis of my original edits to this article before your COI warning. Since that warning, I read the various WP policy pages and have raised my standards for referencing a lot. Discussions with neutral reviewers concluded that Cointelegraph was a borderline acceptable source, and CoinDesk was acceptable. You since decided that they weren't ok, and again I raised my standards to use only articles from books and non-crypto, fairly mainstream media outlets. I notice that even on other crypto articles where other editors come in and clean things up, they leave behind sources like CoinDesk or SPS. My point is that on this article, the standards for referencing that you apply are much much MUCH higher than yourself or anyone else has applied to the other articles I linked above. Could you please at least take a look at cleaning up those other articles to the same standard as you're doing with this one? Technoir2 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have a disagreement and you are choosing to argue. That is what it is.  Yes consistency is not our strong point -- see above about decentralization.  With respect to trade rags for crypto topics, see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3.  The way the immune system of WP works, is that the more promotional pressure there is, the more the community raises source quality. (please think about that and the role that sourcing plays in this community -- again please see User:Jytdog/How if you have forgotten.) Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Jytdog is going easy on you. You are a WP:SPA advocating for Dash and you have accused him of COI editing by saying that he owns other cryptocurrencies. Serious accusations require serious evidence. You need to apologize to him and retract your accusations or I will ask that action be taken against you. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note, Technoir, I think there is ~some~ legitimacy to the argument that we could include something like the 2nd version. I am still very troubled by the "huge inroads" clickbait aspect of the Business Insider piece (something they have been criticized for) as well as the lack of any actual independent reporting or contextualization quantifying those "inroads" (as I mentioned in the OP). It is unambiguously lazy, shitty journalism and we should not be citing it in WP.  The Computerworld Venezuela piece is worse.  But I could see some faction of the community saying we can use one or both to pull out one or two facts and that doing so is OK.  We could ask for feedback at WP:NPOVN if you like, but I hope you will instead drop this.  Let me know... Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable Forbes contributor source is referenced 5 times.
I was going to remove it, however it would be a large change. The following claims are solely supported by the Forbes contributor article:


 * "It was rebranded as Darkcoin"
 * "There are several prepaid debit cards that can be loaded with Dash and spent in local currencies."
 * "To incentivize their operation, masternodes receive 45% of all newly created Dash (with 45% going to miners and 10% to the organization's treasury)"
 * "There are several prepaid debit cards that can be loaded with Dash and spent in local currencies."

Anyone object the removal? See notes on Perennial sources and the recent Reuters article about Forbes contributor articles for sale. Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I object. Maybe if the referenced claims were extraordinary it might make sense to reject them on the basis that the source isn't good enough, but the claims referenced by that source are incredibly uncontroversial. Nobody disputes that Dash was once Darkcoin. The Prusty reference (page 20) also corroborates the sentence regarding the 45/45/10 split. That prepaid debit cards exist for Dash is also uncontroversial - these exist for many cryptocurrencies. These are useful bits of information so why remove them? Technoir2 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, statements need to be more than just uncontroversial if it is to be written without a source. See WP:WHENNOTCITE for when you can state something without a citation, and be sure to check WP:V if you're unsure. Dr-Bracket (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I support removal. The community decided to set higher standards for topics related to cryptocurrencies. Many things here can be controversial and viewed as borderline promotional. For instance, claiming existence of several debit cards can be viewed as asserting popularity and such, and must have a solid source. Arguing that this information is "useful" is not based on policies. Retimuko (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, the contributor source cant be used even 1 time. FYI, I recall that Technoir2 is WP:COI editor, so please just proceed. This article had a lot of problems in the past and was greatly stripped back (maybe by ), I haven't been watching it for a while. In the past Technoir2 was doing edit requests do the COI, so I am not sure who approved all the new Forbes Contributor content (I did approve a lot of requests, but I would not have approved any contributor articles as in general I understand we have informally banned contributor sources from all crypto articles). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

removal
i removed these two links as they look promotional. find a place to put these in as sources, not as further reading. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

sourcing
coinmarketcap can be used to anchor content like the circulating supply, but it cannot be used to anchor content about features, etc. We are only using mainstream sources for crypto articles, such as wsj, nyt, bloomberg, fortune, etc. We dont use blogs, cryptosites (like coindesk, etc), and other lower quality journals. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The original text for 'Dash-funded organizations' needs major improvement. What does 'as the DAO chooses' mean? Do they use it to fight climate change or buy themselves new cars ... ? The quoted source (Prusty) does little more than regurgitate the primary source that I originally gave anyway. Yes, in this case, coinmarketcap is not prime reference material which is why, until you deleted it, I originally used primary source. See WP:PRIMARY >> "A primary source may be used ... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" I note from Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians "Inclusionism is a philosophy held by Wikipedians who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them" >> I originally came to the Wiki page looking for information. As the basic information was missing from the page section, I later added what I could, for others. I would prefer if you are you able to stop deleting my edits and see if you could use your knowledge on the subject to improve things. If you have better links I would appreciate it. If I find anything better, instead of talking about it, then I will add them too. Thanks, AlexBwineglass (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not using primary sources on crypto articles whatever theory says. You can read this talk page, this has been discussed a lot here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)