Talk:SegWit2x

SegWit2x re-launch
I have deleted and section blanked this Segwit2x relaunch content which lacks WP:RS, has no coverage in even the reliable crypto-rags, and request feedback here before it is re-added. It seems controversial and the edits are being made by what looks to be a sockpuppet. It think WP:NOTNP applies here until mutliple RS appear, if it was real it would have been covered by at least the crypto-rags. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

i removed the article deletion tag after I deleted the offending WP:CRYSTALBALL text on SegWit2x. We are having an issue with and some news about a SegWit2x launch happening, and others saying it is a fake. I don't know either way. I have already requested and received page locking. Just thought we should discuss here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The major problem is that this is not notable. Other than a single WSJ ref, which applies to a single sentence, all the refs are from bitcoin fansites.  Find some reliable sources! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem that this might be a scam

"The new SegWit2x fork, which is scheduled for December 28th, was announced on December 16th. Despite sharing a name with the SegWit2x fork that was cancelled in November, none of the entities involved in the original SegWit2x fork have had anything to do with this reboot."


 * That may not be a reliable source, but it does raise the question of whether it is a scam. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its pretty clear that if this relaunch exists, it is WP:FRINGE. We need to stay away from it until it has sufficient WP:RS, as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies in this case. I have read in the press that lots of forks are coming this year, so we need to cover them after they occur, not before per WP:CRYSTALBALL, and that is if they are even noteworthy to cover after...It should be an interesting year of editing, noted another editor created fork (blockchain) today, i guess he/she was getting prepared :-)  Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see an interesting source here that another editor added. It appears that now exists, as dubious as it looks. Always interesting!  Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, , I am pinging you as you have edited the other crypto articles and thought you might care to comment on something here. I went through and looked at the sources for this SegWit2x (redoux) and they are all pretty poor. I am wondering what to do with this content. There was a real project earlier called SegWit2x (aka New York Agreement) that was associated with SegWit. Now a second token called itself SegWit2x, borrowing name appears to have arrived (maybe, sources are iffy). So how do we handle this on wikipedia? Thoughts:
 * Move the Segwit2x (real NYA content) over to SegWit, and leave the dubious content on the new token here, and/or delete the article.
 * Section blank this new content as seems to lack WP:IRS.
 * Other thoughts?
 * Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability
Is this article notable as a stand-alone, or should content be merged to SegWit? Comments anyone? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Advertising a scam?
This looks like advertising to me, so it should be deleted. There is a real question of what it is, who's in charge, and whether it is a scam stealing the name of another questionable business. It should be deleted ASAP. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same and was looking for some confirmation from another set of eyes. I will delete it. Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this is not scam, because this project have link in coinmarketcup, and link on explorer. This means that the network is working. btw, Reputable CryptoExchange NegocieCoins Started Trading with B2X, you can buy/sell token, what scam?

Unicted content
I have twice deleted your uncited content, see. Do not add it again. Look for sources to support it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok this is where your logic is confusing me. I cited in the link here https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/10/23/will-this-battle-for-the-soul-of-bitcoin-destroy-it which states clearly that the fork was to increase the block size to 2mb. It also states in the same article that SegWit forked in August "It triggered the upgrade to SegWit in August." I'm not sure exactly which sentence you are looking at where you claim it needs more support for, but once again these are facts that I am supporting with articles. If there is something SPECIFIC that you feel is not factual, please specify so I can back it with a reliable source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidswiki (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * first please sign your posts, do that using this symbol ~, four of them in a row, and it will generate your signature. Second, the forbes article is a good source. The source should be at the end of each sentence. In this case you will note i left the content that you added that had the forbes source at the end of it, but I deleted the content after it that had no source. If you want to use the same source to support two sentences, just put the same source at the end of each sentence. Making sense? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks Davidswiki (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)