Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntercoin


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Tawker (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Huntercoin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency that fails WP:GNG, and goes a level ahead to also start calling itself a "massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game". Possibly violates WP:PROMO. Citation Needed &#x007C;  Talk  20:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Gene93k, I have not had time to fully flush out a complete article, and am attempting to do it piecemeal as time permits. You can check the "Game" section to see that I have not written much there at all, which is purely due to time constraints on my part. I have also left out images and many references for the same reason. Marking this article for deletion is extreme and premature. Does it need improvement? Certainly.

Please take the time to revisit the article and understand what it is talking about. You say, "and goes a level ahead to also start calling itself a 'massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game'," which indicates to me that you haven't read the article and understood it, or that you don't know/understand what Huntercoin is and as such cannot make sense of the article. (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game then examine how that applies to Huntercoin to understand how/why it is a 'massively multiplayer online cryptocurrency game'.) That's not surprising though as the issues and technologies behind it are complex and not generally well-understood by many people. The core issues are all mentioned in the article, but no attempt to explain the significance of them is made. e.g. The issue of "human-mineable" is mentioned, but not explained in any significant detail. Similarly, the issue of parallel merged-mining is mentioned, but implications and analysis are left out (intentionally). When time permits, I will revisit those and post further information along with references. They are not minor issues, and are far from simple. To properly address those with decent references will take time.

You also say, "Yet another non-notable cryptocurrency," which indicates to me that you probably don't understand cryptocurrency technology very well, the relevant issues involved, the general criteria for a "crapcoin/shitcoin", or what Huntercoin is. You can do a diff of the Huntercoin source code with any other cryptocurrency to see that it is not a "copy & paste" coin like so many others are.

For disclosure, I am not a part of the Huntercoin development team. I do have some Huntercoins, but I also have significant holdings in many other cryptocurrencies as well. I started this article because Huntercoin is the most significant innovation in the cryptocurrency space in a long time. User:RenegadeMinds — Preceding undated comment added 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that your coin can become notable, as it is a very intriguing concept. I know altcoins are used in casino games online, but this is the first I've heard of an RPG using coins, which is why I actually gave your article the rare benefit of the doubt and looked for sources for a couple of days instead of just sending it to AfD immediately. Sadly, I couldn't find anything. My advice to you is to immediately request that it be moved into your userspace, where you can work on it without the fear of it being deleted for a period of time. Just know that you actually have to work on it and find good sources other than blogs or forum posts, or it's eligible for deletion again. I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but we have many of these "shitcoins", as you call them (you've hit the nail on the head), be created for the sole purpose of promoting them, and it's gotten to the point that some users adopt a "delete immediately, rinse, and repeat later" policy. I'm one of those people, and I rarely back out, but your particular coin is just so unique and different that if you start digging deeper for good sources, this might actually have a place here. I want you to prove me wrong that this isn't notable. Citation Needed  &#x007C;  Talk  13:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear on a couple points, this isn't "my" coin. I am not a part of the development team. Also, while Huntercoin (HUC) is used in some casino-type games (I made no reference to those in the article), Huntercoin itself "is" a game. That is, Huntercoin is 1) a cryptocurrency, 2) a game, 3) a massively multiplayer online game, 4) a serverless MMOG, and 5) completely decentralized. It is not an RPG though. I left that part of the article out, i.e. Huntercoin is a prototype for the Chronokings game, which is a full MMORPG, but Huntercoin itself is not an RPG. It bears iteration that the game doesn't "use" coins -- the game "is" a coin. This is the "human-mineable" facet of the coin that is still not fully understood by anyone (myself included) and the implications are profound (though not suitable for Wikipedia as there are no real sources to cite for that). I fully understand that there are far too many crapcoin/shitcoin/scamcoins out there. Innovation in the cryptocurrency space is often overshadowed by copycats and shysters (Catcoin is a good example of a "metoo" shitcoin. I will continue to add sources and update the article as appropriate, but I do have limited time. ——— As for moving it to my userspace, I'm not sure that's a great approach. For example, I purposefully left the "Game" section rather spartan so that I could focus on other more mundane/boring things that others might not take the time to do, e.g. adding references, etc., with the hope that someone else would flesh out the "Game" portion in more detail. i.e. I do not want to be the only one contributing here, and the game section is rather easy for many other people to add to. But I don't expect that to happen overnight. I have since backed up the article locally, so if it does end up being deleted, I will simply continue to work on it and repost it with significant additions of both content and references as I complete those. However, that is far from ideal, and defeats the purpose of a community effort to share knowledge, i.e. I am an expert on the topic, but I am not the only expert. ——— Regarding "find good sources other than blogs or forum posts," there is a problem there — the world of technology moves at a far faster pace than the academic world, and we will not see any sort of academic treatment of the relevant topics for several years at best. (There are treatments of the relevant topics, but they are extremely abstract, and would require far more time than I can afford to properly integrate into the article. The topics are mostly mathematical and about problems in computer science. To make sense of them in a sane manner that is understandable for regular readers is a challenge at best.) If you delve deep enough into technology, the forefront of it is in newsletters, blogs, mailing lists, and the like. I've been over this far too many times where the only reference available for some technological problem is some esoteric mailing list or an IRC chat dump. Those sources are increasingly shifting to more accessible social media, such as forums. Also, the primary method for cryptocurrency announcements is the Bitcoin Talk forum. It is simply the source. Satoshi Nakamoto released his paper in the same manner, i.e. one of those esoteric communication channels outside the mainstream. At worst, I have posted this article ahead of its time, with respect to notability. But I am certainly not shilling for a "shitcoin". I would invite you to visit http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1579 and get a few HUC to try the game so that you can better understand what it is — Huntercoin is very far from intuitive until you actually experience it, i.e. you can experience the blockchain directly (though only partially) through playing the game. You will need to download the game and sync the blockchain though, which is several GB (plan on that taking a day or so). I can assist if you need. I am certain that Snailbrain would also assist you if you PM him through the Bitcoin Talk forums or the Namecoin forums. RenegadeMinds (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - to me it doesn't seem obvious how a cryptocurrency is also a game. Correct me if I'm wrong, mining - the process of maintaining the block chain - can be played as a game in huntercoin, rather than just using a computer to process it?  I think a reference standard should be written for crytocurrencies to be included on Wikipedia.  This would aid administrators and editors avoid some of the repeated discussions. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Jobpatterns - Yes, that Huntercoin "is" both a cryptocurrency and a game at the same time isn't obvious at all until you actually try it. And yes, in addition to parallel, dual-algorithm merged mining, coins are also mined by humans that play the game (or humans that write bots to play the game for them). I'm not certain what you mean by a reference standard though. That seems like it would be rather difficult to do given the amount of new approaches and new experiments with cryptocurrencies. For example, since Huntercoin came out, there is at least 1 other coin that has come out with parallel, multi-algorithm mining. Prior to Huntercoin there was no such thing as parallel, multi-algorithm mining, so things like that would be disruptive to any kind of reference standard. On the other hand, it could be that any of those that disrupt the reference standard would be demonstrating exactly the kind of notability or innovation that would make it interesting. Perhaps that's the point? I am quite certain that we will see even more initially confusing technologies evolve in cryptocurrencies. RenegadeMinds (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. By reference standard I wasn't talking about citations.  It would be a guideline specific for cryptocurrencies, to define a standard for inclusion to wikipedia.  It would most likely mention the type of citations that are likely for this technology.  At the moment many cryptocurrencies are added then nominated for deletion.  The standard would speed up the this process and give authors of new articles something to work to. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if making some sort of cryptocurrency WikiProject will be able to regulate articles and keep them to standards. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - It's definitely an interesting concept, but that doesn't establish notability, complete failure of WP:GNG. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence whatsoever that it comes close to meeting WP:GNG. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to meet General Notability Guidelines guidelines due to lack of multiple independantly published Reliable Sources with reputations for fact checking. Agree with Lewis, looks interesting, hats off to the developers for such a wild deviation from run-of-the-mill alt coins.
 * Note to User:RenegadeMinds: "notable" in these discussions refers to a very specific definition of notable that Wikipedia uses as the basis to include articles about a subject. When someone says it's not notable here, they don't mean it in the generic sense (i.e. that people aren't talking about it or that it's not a novel concept), just that it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion (which I've linked in the prior paragraph). It all boils down to third-party coverage by reputable sources. If Huntercoin really catches on, coverage in mainstream media will follow, and Wikipedia coverage will follow that. A tip on hastening that is for a promoter to issue a well-written press release that's easy to turn into an article. It also helps to write to specific journalists who have covered somewhat offbeat alt coin topics with a link to the press release. It's one of a thousand cryptocurrencies, but probably in the top 25 most interesting I've heard of, and it seems newsworthy on a slow news day. ––Agyle (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.