Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 3

1708:

even a “social attack” on the new cryptocurrency". From Coin Telegraph "Throughout the past few months, some of the most influential investors and figures within the Bitcoin Cash community including early-stage Bitcoin Investor Roger Ver and Bitmain Co-founder Jihan Wu encouraged the cryptocurrency community to not refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, because the original name of the Blockchain project is Bitcoin Cash." "In response to the initial announcement of Bitstamp and the decision of the company to list Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Cøbra wrote: 'A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It's funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally.'". From Coindesk "...'bcash' is a grave insult to bitcoin cash supporters.".

1536:, with the proviso that the usage has criticism. It's a bit stilly to call it "derogatory", etc., since there's nothing intrinsically negative about it. It's just an informal shortening. So, we should not use labels like "derogatory" or "slur" in Knowledge's own voice. But it also shouldn't be listed as simply an alternative name, but an abbreviation that's disfavored in some contexts. It should be included for completeness, and boldfaced as a redirected alt. term, so that people end up at this article when they look for that term and can find it quickly in the article. 1513:

article, even if primarily as a redirect. Otherwise the innocent who encounters "Bcash" is left un-helped when he wishes to find out what the word might mean, and what the status of the term Bcash might be in the field. Our primary duty is to inform the reader, not observe the tender sensitivities of interested parties who would like to censor what they see as insults. In the event that we do in fact mention the usage, then it would be reasonable, if indeed true, to say something such as "Bitcoin has also been referred to, apparently in various derogatory senses, as

2339:

here?) or perhaps if the text is important enough to go back and get the sources. In any case the article itself needs rewriting and simplifying the process will be the most effective way to do this. BTW, there are also potential problems with "self-serving", "third parties", and "authenticity". The article previously came across as something of an advert, and something of a battleground. We can do better than that, in most cases without the unreliable sources.

31: 3204:

great IMHO, "strand" is too British for my taste, Americans may be clueless on its meaning (is that the place with the theaters or the tailors?). 'Off shoot" also works well IMHO. "Hard fork" is probably too technical. But we only need one word in those sentences - it looks like a mess now. I'd also keep altcoin, digital asset, and the other overlapping sets of descriptors out of it whenever possible. They add confusion, but what else?

2433:

chain split. The whole debate gave me a headache as it took me a while to understand the difference. I think eventually I came to understand (still not sure if correct) that a hard fork sometimes causes a chain split. While I guess we could explore this hard fork causing a chain split, as it is excellent educational content. But this type of detailed content is probably not suitable for the lede as you point out. Thanks!

1935:

should be included in the article. Included the name without mentioning the caveat that it is used derogatively would be extremely non-netrual. Knowledge unsurprisingly lacks policy on derogatory nicknames for software, as I don't think that it's been a big problem before. So I think that it is reasonable to apply policies from topics where derogatory nicknames are an issue, such as

1495:- it doesn't seem to be very widespread in reliable sources, and there is good reason to believe that it's not a neutral name. That means that it shouldn't be given in the lead sentence of the article as an alternative name, but it's an interesting development that should be discussed in the article, to the extent that it is supported by reliable sources. -- 3157:"it is an altcoin" - that is also mentioned in a neutral manner as one of the terms used by the cited sources. It is listed as one of the variant characterizations, which is exactly what it is. Note that only the WSJ source you cite to use the term looks reliable. Other sources are not acceptable per recent RfC requiring to tighten article sourcing. 3593:. It says "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." It has to be demonstrated that the site is not reliable or that the linked article is wrong. Has a lack of editorial oversight been demonstrated? I will therefore be re-adding this content because its removal had no basis. 3559:- the article calls bitcoin cash a spinoff or an alt-coin, when in fact bitcoin cash was a bitcoin node that said "if the network rules change to be not-bitcoin, ignore those not-bitcoin blocks as invalid". The fork was activated by miners publishing a code base that was not the bitcoin code base, this changed code is called segwit 2866:. Please narrow down to either have a blacklist of bad sources or a whitelist of good industry source these group of participants can agree on. The reason I argue this is because, I've seen many non-industry sources with limited knowledge to the field publishing also wild exaggeration, speculations and fantasies. To begin with, 3074:: an actual industry term used again and again - not in relation to Bitcoin Cash. It is much more frequently characterized by some other of the terms in the available sources. Also, there is no widely accepted definition of the "altcoin" term, the available definitions differ in details that either cover hard forks or not. 1634:: "Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical." Bcash is a derogatory nickname for Bitcoin Cash, and thus it's inclusion in the lead section would present a neutrality problem. 3203:

I've been pinged a couple of times on this and don't have much to say. The disagreement seems to be about style, not content. Stylistically I don't think we should "characterize" bitcoin cash in the first couple of sentences. Rather we should just say what it is in plain language. "Spun-off" works

3115:

diff. It appears to me your newly proposed terms "a strand" as well as your proposed term "an offshoot" to also be roughly in this category of simple description, however you adding a total of three of them seems illogical to me. What is the purpose of that? We can also look at industry terms used to

2857:

Thanks for running the survey, I might be a minority voice here. It's easy to feel the sources are overwhelmingly distrustworthy, and I do agree with you too, but, can we have a whitelist of what's called reliable source? I disagree with calling al industry source as "unrelaible source". According to

2413:

Though I'm not married to the "new term", it is standard English and for folks who are reading about bitcoin/cryptos for the 1st time (or 20th time) it has to be much less confusing than "Hard Fork or Chain Split". I think I left "hard fork" in below. "Fork" is somewhat common in other tech areas but

1919:

apply as some have suggested above. Next, this RfC is not about adding any of the other social media names you mention (chinacoin, vercoin, etc) and I have not seen any of those with RS. Have you? I don't see how other proposed altnames can used be evidence for or against this RfC unless you can show

1892:

I will point out the recent repeated vandalism to this page using names such as "BTrash", "Bitcoin Trash", "ChinaCoin" and "VerCoin" alongside "Bcash", as further evidence that "Bcash" is a derogative name. Alongside the secondary sources already provided that claim "Bcash" is used as a derogative, I

2903:

Well, I've gone through it all and done a first pass rewrite. In bytes, the article is one-third smaller. I think it is easier to read, and it should also be easier to edit. I am somewhat disappointed in the history section rewrite however - maybe it's just worn me out, maybe I'll try again later.

2804:

I think I can answer that question. Most unreliable/promotional sources are aimed at the general public, and WP editors have no problem recognising them as unreliable. But unreliable/promotional sources on cryptocurrencies are aimed at people smart enough at least to understand what a cryptocurrency

1512:

This kitchen is a bit hot, but before departing I think that as a nonuser of ecurrency and one who had never heard of Bcash, I may observe in good faith that if the term Bcash is widely recognised (not necessarily widely or frequently used) then it is proper and reasonable to include the fact in the

1157:

Read your reply again, and think what effect "Yes, you often miss things" has on people's assessment of your intent. You claim that "bcash" is a slur, and support that with a link to an article that doesn't mention the word "bcash" or give any hint that nicknames for Bitcoin Cash are being used in a

2625:

in general on this and all related topics. There's a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage of cryptocurrency and blockchain stuff that's all overly credulous and frequently clueless. Even when it's not, it reads like mid-1990s writing about the future of the Internet and "virtual reality", i.e.

2432:

Well now that I see a citation for spin off it I tend to agree with you and support your edit. Its just the first time I have heard it here. A few months back there was a very long debate on one of these talk pages with Ladislav, myself, and maybe a couple of other cryptofolks debating hard fork or

2375:

introduces text that calls bitcoin cash a spinoff (even it probably is true), as it seems like we are creating a new term. I have heard of a TV spinoff, but never a cryptocurrency spin-off. I think we should stick with Hard Fork or Chain Split, at least somewhere in the article. I didn't revert the

686:

These people are not "celebrities" but operators in the sector and they simply express their opinion on this cryptocurrency. Being the cryptoverse as diverse as it is, it is important to understand what currencies simply appear and disappear as little more than scams and what provide values. People

185:

but were those mostly related to the split/fork. Are there even a handful that relates directly to Bitcoin Cash? Most of the current content in this article seems to be the history of the split from bitcoin, a comparison to bitcoin, a list of supported wallets and exchanges (with awful sourcing), a

2923:

Seems ok to me, I made a couple of adjustments. The article seems to get weak after "These clients implemented the following changes from Bitcoin" ... The article prior to that sentence has a good flow, and after that seems to ramble into to details. Just my thoughts. While looking for sources for

2516:

Several editors proposed extending this proposal to all cryptocurrency articles. A consensus on an article-talk page is normally normally does not extend beyond the individual article. If anyone wishes to seek a broader scope of consensus, a proposal to cover all cryptocurrency pages may be run at

1934:

As I have stated above, I am not opposed to the inclusion of the altname in the article, assuming that it is given neutral treatment. Many of the RS already provided in this rfc provide evidence of the name being derogatory as has I believe been discussed multiple times above, and this information

1805:

I think that the most amenable solution here would be to include the altname in the article body, perhaps in a 'Naming Controversy' section, where this controversy can be neutrally covered. Present the argument against 'Bitcoin Cash' and for 'Bcash', and the argument for 'Bitcoin Cash' and against

1707:

has already provided several RS above. From 'Bitcoin Magazine': "Many maintain that the name “Bitcoin Cash” simply is what the new coin is called, and claim that the name “Bcash” is mostly pushed by those who disapprove of the project. Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or

1298:

in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Knowledge for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Knowledge to rebrand Bitcoin Cash,

851:

knows that the deleted text of the section (BTW, why was the section deleted without waiting for the result of this RfC?) actually did not contain "celebrity endorsements", but investors such as Roger Ver (claimed to be a Bitcoin Cash investor by the very same editors who want to delete the claim

2338:

Much of the article is based on such sources - so I propose that first we delete those sources and then go back (give me some time) to see how many of those sources are needed to make the points, or to see whether those points need to be made at all (have you noticed a certain fog about the text

1142:

Yes, you often miss things. You repeatedly fail to understand the editing process, for example. Its not a source. Its a link to an article describing the disinformation campaign against BCH I have been trying to correct here. As you are probably aware the purpose is to disassociate a strong

1669:

It is hard to find reliable secondary sources for many things cryptocurrency related. Nevertheless, here are some that describe the term "Bcash" as a pejorative or derogatory alternative name for Bitcoin Cash. There are reliable primary sources from major community members, labeling Bcash as a

751:

Just rename it to "reception", add some less positive reactions, and it will be good. Criticism sections aren't recommended because they are biased to be overly negative, same should apply to a support section being biased to overly positive reactions. I agree with the above comment that these

1745:

The same principle applies. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Bcash is a a derogatory name for now and assuming that it is, it would be non-neutral to include it as such without reference to the derogatory nature. As an example, many years ago on the internet it was common to refer to

1688:

applies. About CCN looks like a poor quality source, but in the end it confirms the RfC in that people are using the Bcash term. It might also be useful to create the section you described below to go over a controversy. I looked a lot online and couldn't find sufficient sources to create a

1143:

competitor to the original Bitcoin. Former President Obama gets referred to as a heap of things; we don't include them in our articles because they have no significance. Its the same with the Bcash slur or your use of the word trash. Please start using if you feel a source is lacking. -

410:

has indicated his views on the legitimacy of Bitcoin Cash in a series of tweets, saying it is "a legitimate contender for the bitcoin name" and "I consider bitcoin's *failure* to raise block sizes to keep fees reasonable to be a large (non-consensual) change to the 'original plan'..."

1806:'Bcash'. As it is unfortunately the choices for this RFC are limited (for/against a non-neutral mention in the lead). I propose rejecting this RFC & adding mention of 'Bcash' under a naming controversy section - this would be the most neutral way to cover the naming controversy. 3702:

a contributor source on fortune.com that is attributed to jake smith of bitcoin.com, an employee of the bitcoin cash promotion site. Amazing how these POV sources keep showing up on this article. Here you will see Jake Smith on the bitcoin.com website as staff, thus a clear COI

3175:

Oops, you are right one of my listed sources was a forbes contributor source, I will delete that. Thanks! The MarketWatch staff writer & WSJ staff writer (as you mentioned) are RS. Zacks Investment Reasearch syndicated by Nasdaq is subscription based market research and not

3604:

did you add this comment and forget to sign it? Bitcoin.com is a well known bitcoin cash promotion site owned by Roger Ver, who is listed on this very article as a supporter, and there is lots of sources where Ver claims he is one of the largest owners of BCH, thus creating a

3151:) used 'spun off'" - indeed, he did. However, the cited source actually did not do that; it used the "spin-off" characterization and I listed it as one of the characterizations used by the sources, which is a neutral treatment of the source as opposed to your last proposal. 1776:, which doesn't support the exclusion of well cited content. As you have pointed out, there does seem to be sufficient content to support a naming section, which I did add before by the way and Ladislav blanked it. I put the diff link above in a response to jytdog. 3067:

Regarding your "product of hard fork" note - you seem to forget that there is the "in relation to bitcoin" preface, which excludes your example of Ethereum Classic, in fact. Other than that, none of the characterizations is uniquely determining Bitcoin Cash, of

3627:

Bitcoin is a Bitcoin portal. We don't know how much BCH Ver owns or how much editorial control he sways. The COI page you linked doesn't mention referencing. news.bitcoin.com is clearly reliable as a news organisation for topics related to Bitcoin. -

1478:, all referring to Blair. But it is not his name, it is an insult directed at him. The string "Bliar" does not appear in the Knowledge article about him. ("Tony" is not his name either, his real first name is Anthony; but he is widely known as "Tony".) 3004:

to introduce all kinds of concepts of how to describe Bitcoin Cash. I think if you want to examine all the descriptions of bitcoin cash, this should be done in the body of the article not in the lede. Right now it reads like a joke.

1571:. The above statement is not neutral. "If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it." 607:

from people in the cryptocurrency world. Having such a "support" section alone is blatant promotionalism; having some kind of opposing "detractors" section would be a childish effort to provide "balance". We don't do either thing.

1920:

them related in some kind of RS. The discussion here is if the Bcash usage is significant to meet the altname test and if there is some other means for the Bitcoin Cash advocates to argue for its exlusion (covered under SOAP).

2657:

gets it right when he says "a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage", "frequently clueless", and "wild opinion based on fantasies". But he's being too gentle. All the industry sources are promotional and should be removed.

1231:

screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally." After being criticized for the unprofessional behaviour, both the

125:

Does User:Jytdog have a problem with uploading photos to WikiCommons? Please stop putting your spin on things. Advocates? You mean people who want to contribute to providing knowledge about Bitcoin Cash don't you? -

3180:, but I honestly dont know the RS policy on that type of content. It appears you like the kitchen sink approach in the lede, I think I have said what I think about that, might as well wait for others to chime in... 1426:

on the part of another editor (discussed above, adding lots of poorly sourced content). I did previously add a small naming section in the hopes that it could address the naming disupte, however it was blanked see

255:

is simply a characteristic of the system, not a "promotion". There are sources confirming it and I will add the characteristic back to the article together with a citation so that the readers can be informed.

769:

I appreciate the foregoing suggestions to rename it "reception", but that still seems to me insufficient justification for conveying a trivial and tendentious point. At best not really encyclopaedic, is it?

3770:

article was unconstructive. See: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and

1831:

is the actual name used by the industry and the huge majority of sources. Putting them on equal footing in the article body would be a violation of NPOV, giving the failed rebranding attempt undue weight.

878:

I and others tried to remove it and it kept getting put back. The last person who wanted to keep it, self-reverted in the face of a block, and has now been indefinitely blocked for socking. The section

2785:

There is a proliferation of citations of quasi-news sites with unknown or poor editorial practices. I would love to see more rigorous approach to sources in cryptocurrency-related articles.

1162:

asks for clarification, and you respond condescendingly and aggressively. As someone who is not involved in the discussion, that gives me the impression that you're not very cooperative. --

1746:

Microsoft as Micro$ oft or M$ . It would not be suitable to include this nickname as an altname in the Microsoft article, at least without acknowledging that it is a derogatory nickname.

1220:

article, 'most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name "Bitcoin Cash"'.

205:?" - yes. I note that you deleted the source confirming that Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency. I revert your deletion and hope you stay constructive and do not delete the source again. 3645:

video. In this video, Ver mentions that he has sold most of his BTC and bought BCH. I am certain he does have a large amount of editorial sway, but I don't have any evidence of that.

1376:

that advocates for Bitcoin Cash see it as derogatory and bad but that is no reason to make a decision in WP. It is just too soon to see if this going to be a valid altname or not.

233:

The adjective "worldwide" isn't promotional, it is, just like for other crypto currencies, a consequence of the use over the internet. For reference, the current first line of the

3728:, as for sure it doesn't need a second wikilink in the article. I will also delete the entire repeated section and copy it here to preserve the source in case someone wants it. 2862:, any source that meet "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." in generally shall be considered 921:, as with only a "support" section, the article clearly fails NPOV. However, I would be in support of a section labelled "reception" with both supporting and dissenting views. 3032:

Maybe we should just say it is an altcoin that was spun out of bitcoin via a hardfork? Or should we say it is an altcoin that resulted from a hardfork of bitcoin? I'll ping

3134:

I do not want to repeat something you may already know. However, since you are asking, and since I am not sure what you know and what you do not know, here are my notes

3522: 1519:

If nothing else, that information might prevent naive users from both puzzlement and the embarrassment attendant on the use of five-letter words in polite company.

2717:- Trade pubs rarely provide sufficiently independent / in-depth coverage, so tightening the requirements to a couple of the more reputable ones is an improvement. 3609:. This source is clearly not an RS on this article. Second your re-adding of content that has been discussed and deleted on this talk page over and over again is 2700:- Trade publications should rarely be used for anything. Would suggest applying this to all Bitcoin and Crypto related articles in Knowledge, not just this one.-- 2129: 509: 2608:

edit to remove these sources. I support this effort by uninvolved editors that tightens sourcing to clamp down on the promotion that this article suffers from.

1352:

Seems to only be pejorative use to me. Can any one provide primary sources that are neutral or positive about Bitcoin Cash and use the term "BCash" throughout?

1607:'s bias against Bitcoin Cash with this statement as they disregard neutrality. Why aren't you following our policies and guidelines. They are instructive. - 2459:

If the "spun-off" term is so standard as claimed above, why the scare quotes? Per the manual of style, they are not really desirable in the first sentence.

624:

Though I think those opinions matter a lot, I agree that "support" is a terrible term. I suggest "reception" which might also give room to... "detractors"?

1893:

think that the evidence is strongly in favor. Is there even a single RS with a non-negative take that uses the term, or claims that it is not derogative?

1655:

A few editors have claimed during this RfC that the name Bcash is a nickname and derogatory. Do you have any sources to substantiate these claims? Thanks

852:

about his support), Calvin Ayre or Rick Falkvinge. I think that it is misleading to call these people "supporters", because, as noted, they actually are

142:

In the context of Meatpuppetry, soliciting freely licensed images to improve an article can hardly be construed as trying to unduly influence a debate.

2035: 804:

For NPOV reasons. Unless it is renamed to "receptions" and add in significant portions of neutral and negative reviews to balance the POV. See, e.g.,

1273:, which is an uncommon and disputed appellation in the lead section would give it undue weight, and would also be a more general neutrality problem. 3793:

Your deletion of the claim that bitcoin cash is a cryptocurrency was unconstructive. See "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a

3304: 1251:

and other sources, "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."

1107: 2020: 2308:

Please see the RfC above again - we need to tighten up sourcing for cryptocurrency related articles. Everybody above in the rfc agrees on that.

311: 1911:

I believe the mainstream RS provided in the RfC do not mention anything of this derogatory claim. Assuming arugendo the altname is deroretory,

1213:

the poster of this RfC cites as a source, "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding (to "Bcash") insulting or even a 'social attack'."

3381: 1372:

but the sourcing provided is plenty to discuss this in the body of the article, and there is currently no discussion of it. It is very clear

3686: 3662:

is an RS for Ver conflict of interest relating to bitcoin.com and his advocacy of bitcoin cash. This website is not an RS for this article.

3475: 2002: 1408:. The content there was not about the naming issue really but said which names which exchanges used. That did not describe the controversy. 3832: 3278: 2115: 904:. Promotional endorsements. It would only make it worse if we expanded it into a cagematch of battling celebrity endorsements-vs-bashing. 572: 484: 469: 3574: 3154:"... your newly proposed terms..." - The terms are coming from the cited sources. The citations are provided. They are not "my terms". 2637: 2404:'I like big blocks and I cannot lie.' That was the opening line from nChain CEO Jimmy Nguyen -- whose company wants to make bitcoin 1547: 949: 510:"What if new Google management decided that a search should cost $ 20, take eight hours, and be deliberately unreliable? (Bitcoin.)" 2376:

edit as I don't dislike it enough though, as I think your motivation to create something more sensible to the reader is logical.

3148: 3109: 3043: 2602: 1390:

FYI, there was a section named "Market acceptance and naming" in the article body. Curiously, the poster of this RfC deleted it.

3801:(emphasis mine). This demonstrates that the claim actually should be in the article text and be summarized in the lead section. 3252: 1987: 883:

is very much a "celebrity endorsements" section, as most people !voting here can see and have acknowledged with their comments.

281: 3704: 652:

These are opinions with mostly dubious sources. The section reads as POV pushing especially with no notable critics mentioned.

719:

is the act of promoting something. Educated persons working in the crypto field endorsing a project is something different. --

156: 3660: 1568: 999: 2542: