![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I am proposing that the incorrect and highly biased statement in the "History" section, "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash.", should be amended to something like the following:
"Although detractors of Bitcoin Cash continuously attempt to disparage the cryptocurrency by foisting the name-calling term "Bcash" upon it, its proponents universally dispute that the term "Bcash" refers to BCH. In point of fact, the name "Bcash" only officially refers to: 1) a fullnode Bitcoin Cash implementation built with JavaScript/NodeJS (the Bitcoin Cash version of bcoin), 2) a Brazilian payment solutions company (that may now be in the process of re-branding), 3) a gaming token ICO, 4) A Greek Bitcoin ATM company, and 5) a currently stalled Zcash-based cryptocurrency project. No users of the term "Bcash" to refer to Bitcoin Cash can point to any official sources from the BCH project/community as an origination of the appellation."
As references, I'd submit the following:
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-wiki-article-suffers-from-edit-warring-and-vandalism/
https://bitsonline.com/hamel-bitcoin-cash-scam/
https://www.coinbureau.com/news/bitcoin-cash-vs-bcash-war-names-continues-crypto-community/
https://ambcrypto.com/antpool-burning-bitcoin-cash-bch-community-calls-it-propaganda/
https://blog.purse.io/from-one-to-two-bitcoin-cash-bad5ec8539f4
https://news.bitcoin.com/purse-io-adds-native-bch-support-and-launches-bcash/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180110183028/http://bcash.games:80/
https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb
Krellkraver ( talk)
WP:LISTEN, the above sources you have provided are garbage and have no place on this article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The term "BCash" has often been used as pejorative and much of the Bitcoin Cash community sees it this way. This deserves at least a fleeting mention. It's not just one person, as the Roger Ver memes insinuate, that just out of nowhere explodes when they hear this name. Not sure what a viable source for this would be, but the it's pretty clear if you talk to the actual Bitcoin Cash community that this is considered a smear.
78.69.42.11 ( talk) 07:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It is stated as a fact that the fees of Bitcoin Cash are smaller than those of Bitcoin, but that may well be misleading. The transaction fees of both coins are incredibly hard to calculate, as it changes from moment to moment depending on many factors. It is thust not something you can easily compare. Fees remain an expression of both the fiat price of the coin and the volume of transactions that are being made with them. However, Bitcoin (BTC) both have a much higher dollar price (in fact it's currently over 10 times the price of BCH), and it has a higher volume of transactions. Thus, considering that they have very similar ways of calculating the transaction fees, it stands to reason that Bitcoin (BTC) should have a higher transaction fee out of completely natural causes both in terms of fiat and on technical terms. Thus, if BCH saw a similar usage and price increase, it stands to reason that it would indeed reach similar price levels for their transaction fees, but instead proponents use this difference as a way to claim that BCH is "better" than BTC. There should thus be something documenting the purportedly higher fees of Bitcoin in a better way, for instance in a way that does not use fiat currency as the measuring stick. In fact a far better way to calculate the difference in fees would be as a percentage of the amount being transacted. That would shed more light on which coin is actually cheaper to make a transaction with, instead of using a dollar price completely subject to supply and demand, instead of the technical limitations of the coins. Until that documentation is found, this Wikipedia article remains woefully subjective. -- Kebman ( talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the subject of this article has split into two tokens, now referred to as BCHABC and BCHSV. I have looked online and i dont see much about ABC. I guess we should cover both in this same article. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I readded the content here [1] that you deleted. According to my reading of the source, Bloomberg stated this almost word for word. This text is interesting as it sheds light on the motivations behind the fork, an interesting subject. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
@ Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the disputed genesis block content here [3]. This same content has been discussed [4] and [5]. The POV you are pushing is not supported by the source. First, find a source that supports your claim, then if debate it on this talk page (not the other way around). The source you are using here says 'the two bitcoins share the same history', it doesn't say that they share the same genesis block, that should be obvious. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash.[13]"
suggested change:
"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes pejoratively referred to as Bcash.[13]"
This provides additional context and accuracy to unbiased individuals reading this article. Those who see Bitcoin Cash adhering more to the original bitcoin white paper more than Bitcoin Core, might refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin (Cash). Should that be noted in the article too to give even more context? Just some suggestions. Cheers and Limitless Peace. Michael Ten ( talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Dr-Bracket: in this edit [6] you add the POV that only detractors use the term bcash (which you have not supported by sources, other than the verge source). @ Ladislav Mecir: in this series of edits [7] you again push the POV relating to the use of the bcash name. The source you have cited don't substantiate the claims you have made. Where does it say how Antonopolus or Ver refer the article's subject (as bcash or bitcoin cash, or whatever else)? Jtbobwaysf ( talk)
To preserve the text deleted by Jtbobwaysf, the proposed version of the text is:
The "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates such as Roger Ver, [2] investors, entrepreneurs, developers, users, miners [3] [4] or people trying to remain neutral such as Andreas Antonopoulos. [1] Its detractors refer to it as "Bcash", "Btrash" or simply "a scam". [1]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, there is an RfC above Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_about_Bcash_altname where it seems the RfC was removed by the legobot here [10]. Maybe the RfC should be extended (or closed by an uninvolved editor) first? Please also feel free to let me know if the admin help tag was wrong as well, dont know the procedure here. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the genesis block content here [11]. This content you have added many times before and we have discussed on talk here [12] and [13] and [14]. The newest source that you have provided says: "The process, known as a hard fork, meant both versions of bitcoin shared the same blockchain history up until that date but from that point on would be two entirely separate entities." There is no source that I have seen that says that bitcoin cash has a ledger start date prior to the creation of the article's subject. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Bitcoin SV was submitted recently, but I believe it should be discussed here first whether to split this off of this article.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Please also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is for B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not ( diff).
Cunard ( talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ladislav Mecir ( talk · contribs) asked me here to review my close. DannyS712 ( talk · contribs) previously closed the RfC and then self-reverted his close after discussion with Ladislav Mecir here. Here is a revised RfC close:
Cunard ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus is that "[Bitcoin Cash] is sometimes referred to as Bcash" should be used instead of "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates ... [and] detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'."
Editors found that option A's formulation is not neutral in saying the "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by its advocates and neutral people while the "Bcash" name is used by detractors. That is because editors found that aside from The Verge article, the sources say that Bcash is another name used to refer to Bitcoin Cash and do not say that it is largely detractors who refer to the cryptocurrency as Bcash.
Editors found Option B to be preferable because it takes a neutral position.
Markbassett ( talk · contribs)'s nuanced position is worth considering:
There is no prejudice against a new RfC that incorporates Markbassett's suggestion in noting that (1) the "Bcash" name is used without any negative meaning to refer to Bitcoin Cash and (2) detractors refer to the cryptocurrency as "Bcash".Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ladislav Mecir noted both here and on DannyS712's talk page that Option B's wording "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" is not sufficiently sourced. I did not find sourcing presented in this RfC verifying this assertion. There was little discussion of whether the naming is contentious. Jtbobwaysf ( talk · contribs) wrote, "This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it)." There is no consensus to retain or remove the "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" wording owing to the lack of discussion.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations notes: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The "contentious" wording is unsupported by a reliable source, so I am therefore removing "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" as a normal editorial action not based on this RfC close. Any editor can restore the sentence if the statement is sourced with "an inline citation to a reliable source".
Bitcoin Cash has an WP:ALTNAME "Bcash." A new source exists from The Verge [15] that asserts the term Bcash is pejorative. This vote is if we:
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the description of the issue should be neutral. Here is my attempt to describe the issue neutrally:
There are two versions of the text discussing the cryptocurrency naming.
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B This single source is not sufficient to change a neutral position on this article that has stood for some time now. The 'bcash name is bad' is part of the bitcoin cash advocate POV and does not belong on this article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option A As this is the truthful version, which happens to be supported by WP:RS (and not contradicted in any WP:RS). Ladislav Mecir's version does a great job at achieving neutrality and objective truth. 84percent ( talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option A. The sources cited by option B do not confirm the text option B uses. For example, the BizJournals article [3] does not confirm the claims in the option B text, it just advertises the Riot Blockchain's business. Similarly, the Reuters article [4] does not confirm the option B text, mentioning just Riot Blockchain's services. Option B characterizes the 'Bcash' word as a 'nickname', which is also not confirmed by any of the cited sources. Note also that the 'Staff Writer' last name of the author of the Reuters article is not confirmed by Reuters in the current version of the article. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B for being both neutral and factual.
Also, 'Bcash' is not pejorative while 'Btrash' and 'a scam' obviously are. Option A fails in making this distinction. 'Bcash' is used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident. That is not being pejorative. Oska ( talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B (invited by a bot) A is POV, especially in including 'a scam' as one of the "names." (Please keep discussions out of the !vote section.) Jojalozzo ( talk) 15:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B As per Oska's remarks Dryfee ( talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that this bcash altname is the subject of prior RfC's here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash and Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not the first time Jtbobwaysf described the issue nonneutrally (see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash). That is why I attempted to make the formulation more neutral. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: I did another RfC on this bcash altname subject on this article. Want to ask your some procedural questions and seek some advice. First, Ladislav Mecir ( talk · contribs) has re-worked the RfC description claiming it was not neutral here [20] and Ladislav then removed a source here [21]. Also 84percent ( talk · contribs) carries on to edit the disputed content that is subject of the RfC here [22]. Maybe you could take a look, and let me know what you suggest. FYI, you have my permission to edit the RfC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 03:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Oska:, You say that "Bcash" is "used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident", however this is not supported by any of the sources; it's blatant original research. Can you produce a reliable source agreeing with that view? You also write that "Bcash" is not pejorative, however there is a reliable source which explicitly states that the term "Bcash" (or "Btrash") is used by Bitcoin Cash detractors. [5] 84percent ( talk) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment I think that some of the contributors overlooked that the problem with option B is that its wording is not confirmed by the cited sources and that the other sources they suggest are not acceptable per this RfC. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
References
This discussion about a previous close of this RfC is copied from User talk:DannyS712 for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. Cunard ( talk) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I want to discuss your close at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. What I am missing in your close is a reflection of the problem that the "option B" you chose as having consensus is not confirmed by the cited sources. Can you explain it to me, please? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
I am proposing that the incorrect and highly biased statement in the "History" section, "Bitcoin Cash is also referred to as Bcash.", should be amended to something like the following:
"Although detractors of Bitcoin Cash continuously attempt to disparage the cryptocurrency by foisting the name-calling term "Bcash" upon it, its proponents universally dispute that the term "Bcash" refers to BCH. In point of fact, the name "Bcash" only officially refers to: 1) a fullnode Bitcoin Cash implementation built with JavaScript/NodeJS (the Bitcoin Cash version of bcoin), 2) a Brazilian payment solutions company (that may now be in the process of re-branding), 3) a gaming token ICO, 4) A Greek Bitcoin ATM company, and 5) a currently stalled Zcash-based cryptocurrency project. No users of the term "Bcash" to refer to Bitcoin Cash can point to any official sources from the BCH project/community as an origination of the appellation."
As references, I'd submit the following:
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-wiki-article-suffers-from-edit-warring-and-vandalism/
https://bitsonline.com/hamel-bitcoin-cash-scam/
https://www.coinbureau.com/news/bitcoin-cash-vs-bcash-war-names-continues-crypto-community/
https://ambcrypto.com/antpool-burning-bitcoin-cash-bch-community-calls-it-propaganda/
https://blog.purse.io/from-one-to-two-bitcoin-cash-bad5ec8539f4
https://news.bitcoin.com/purse-io-adds-native-bch-support-and-launches-bcash/
https://web.archive.org/web/20180110183028/http://bcash.games:80/
https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb
Krellkraver ( talk)
WP:LISTEN, the above sources you have provided are garbage and have no place on this article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The term "BCash" has often been used as pejorative and much of the Bitcoin Cash community sees it this way. This deserves at least a fleeting mention. It's not just one person, as the Roger Ver memes insinuate, that just out of nowhere explodes when they hear this name. Not sure what a viable source for this would be, but the it's pretty clear if you talk to the actual Bitcoin Cash community that this is considered a smear.
78.69.42.11 ( talk) 07:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It is stated as a fact that the fees of Bitcoin Cash are smaller than those of Bitcoin, but that may well be misleading. The transaction fees of both coins are incredibly hard to calculate, as it changes from moment to moment depending on many factors. It is thust not something you can easily compare. Fees remain an expression of both the fiat price of the coin and the volume of transactions that are being made with them. However, Bitcoin (BTC) both have a much higher dollar price (in fact it's currently over 10 times the price of BCH), and it has a higher volume of transactions. Thus, considering that they have very similar ways of calculating the transaction fees, it stands to reason that Bitcoin (BTC) should have a higher transaction fee out of completely natural causes both in terms of fiat and on technical terms. Thus, if BCH saw a similar usage and price increase, it stands to reason that it would indeed reach similar price levels for their transaction fees, but instead proponents use this difference as a way to claim that BCH is "better" than BTC. There should thus be something documenting the purportedly higher fees of Bitcoin in a better way, for instance in a way that does not use fiat currency as the measuring stick. In fact a far better way to calculate the difference in fees would be as a percentage of the amount being transacted. That would shed more light on which coin is actually cheaper to make a transaction with, instead of using a dollar price completely subject to supply and demand, instead of the technical limitations of the coins. Until that documentation is found, this Wikipedia article remains woefully subjective. -- Kebman ( talk) 17:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that the subject of this article has split into two tokens, now referred to as BCHABC and BCHSV. I have looked online and i dont see much about ABC. I guess we should cover both in this same article. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I readded the content here [1] that you deleted. According to my reading of the source, Bloomberg stated this almost word for word. This text is interesting as it sheds light on the motivations behind the fork, an interesting subject. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
@ Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the disputed genesis block content here [3]. This same content has been discussed [4] and [5]. The POV you are pushing is not supported by the source. First, find a source that supports your claim, then if debate it on this talk page (not the other way around). The source you are using here says 'the two bitcoins share the same history', it doesn't say that they share the same genesis block, that should be obvious. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes referred to as Bcash.[13]"
suggested change:
"The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious; it is sometimes pejoratively referred to as Bcash.[13]"
This provides additional context and accuracy to unbiased individuals reading this article. Those who see Bitcoin Cash adhering more to the original bitcoin white paper more than Bitcoin Core, might refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bitcoin (Cash). Should that be noted in the article too to give even more context? Just some suggestions. Cheers and Limitless Peace. Michael Ten ( talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Dr-Bracket: in this edit [6] you add the POV that only detractors use the term bcash (which you have not supported by sources, other than the verge source). @ Ladislav Mecir: in this series of edits [7] you again push the POV relating to the use of the bcash name. The source you have cited don't substantiate the claims you have made. Where does it say how Antonopolus or Ver refer the article's subject (as bcash or bitcoin cash, or whatever else)? Jtbobwaysf ( talk)
To preserve the text deleted by Jtbobwaysf, the proposed version of the text is:
The "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates such as Roger Ver, [2] investors, entrepreneurs, developers, users, miners [3] [4] or people trying to remain neutral such as Andreas Antonopoulos. [1] Its detractors refer to it as "Bcash", "Btrash" or simply "a scam". [1]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, there is an RfC above Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_about_Bcash_altname where it seems the RfC was removed by the legobot here [10]. Maybe the RfC should be extended (or closed by an uninvolved editor) first? Please also feel free to let me know if the admin help tag was wrong as well, dont know the procedure here. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: you have again added the genesis block content here [11]. This content you have added many times before and we have discussed on talk here [12] and [13] and [14]. The newest source that you have provided says: "The process, known as a hard fork, meant both versions of bitcoin shared the same blockchain history up until that date but from that point on would be two entirely separate entities." There is no source that I have seen that says that bitcoin cash has a ledger start date prior to the creation of the article's subject. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Bitcoin SV was submitted recently, but I believe it should be discussed here first whether to split this off of this article.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
22:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Please also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin SV AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is for B: Use the version in which we take no position if the term is pejorative or not ( diff).
Cunard ( talk) 23:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Ladislav Mecir ( talk · contribs) asked me here to review my close. DannyS712 ( talk · contribs) previously closed the RfC and then self-reverted his close after discussion with Ladislav Mecir here. Here is a revised RfC close:
Cunard ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus is that "[Bitcoin Cash] is sometimes referred to as Bcash" should be used instead of "The 'Bitcoin Cash' name is used by the cryptocurrency advocates ... [and] detractors refer to it as 'Bcash', 'Btrash' or simply 'a scam'."
Editors found that option A's formulation is not neutral in saying the "Bitcoin Cash" name is used by its advocates and neutral people while the "Bcash" name is used by detractors. That is because editors found that aside from The Verge article, the sources say that Bcash is another name used to refer to Bitcoin Cash and do not say that it is largely detractors who refer to the cryptocurrency as Bcash.
Editors found Option B to be preferable because it takes a neutral position.
Markbassett ( talk · contribs)'s nuanced position is worth considering:
There is no prejudice against a new RfC that incorporates Markbassett's suggestion in noting that (1) the "Bcash" name is used without any negative meaning to refer to Bitcoin Cash and (2) detractors refer to the cryptocurrency as "Bcash".Option B - Bcash is not pejorative, not used as a LABEL on someone or something. It’s just a reference to itself, though some people may have negative attitudes to it. (And others have positive ones.). Article could mention in WP:DUE weight both. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 05:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ladislav Mecir noted both here and on DannyS712's talk page that Option B's wording "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" is not sufficiently sourced. I did not find sourcing presented in this RfC verifying this assertion. There was little discussion of whether the naming is contentious. Jtbobwaysf ( talk · contribs) wrote, "This 'controversial' text addition is not the subject of this RfC, so let's not get off into the weeds (we have discussed the 'controversial' claim but we have not yet found an RS for it)." There is no consensus to retain or remove the "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" wording owing to the lack of discussion.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations notes: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." The "contentious" wording is unsupported by a reliable source, so I am therefore removing "The naming of Bitcoin Cash is contentious" as a normal editorial action not based on this RfC close. Any editor can restore the sentence if the statement is sourced with "an inline citation to a reliable source".
Bitcoin Cash has an WP:ALTNAME "Bcash." A new source exists from The Verge [15] that asserts the term Bcash is pejorative. This vote is if we:
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:RFCBRIEF, the description of the issue should be neutral. Here is my attempt to describe the issue neutrally:
There are two versions of the text discussing the cryptocurrency naming.
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B This single source is not sufficient to change a neutral position on this article that has stood for some time now. The 'bcash name is bad' is part of the bitcoin cash advocate POV and does not belong on this article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option A As this is the truthful version, which happens to be supported by WP:RS (and not contradicted in any WP:RS). Ladislav Mecir's version does a great job at achieving neutrality and objective truth. 84percent ( talk) 10:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option A. The sources cited by option B do not confirm the text option B uses. For example, the BizJournals article [3] does not confirm the claims in the option B text, it just advertises the Riot Blockchain's business. Similarly, the Reuters article [4] does not confirm the option B text, mentioning just Riot Blockchain's services. Option B characterizes the 'Bcash' word as a 'nickname', which is also not confirmed by any of the cited sources. Note also that the 'Staff Writer' last name of the author of the Reuters article is not confirmed by Reuters in the current version of the article. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B for being both neutral and factual.
Also, 'Bcash' is not pejorative while 'Btrash' and 'a scam' obviously are. Option A fails in making this distinction. 'Bcash' is used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident. That is not being pejorative. Oska ( talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B (invited by a bot) A is POV, especially in including 'a scam' as one of the "names." (Please keep discussions out of the !vote section.) Jojalozzo ( talk) 15:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Option B As per Oska's remarks Dryfee ( talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Note that this bcash altname is the subject of prior RfC's here Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash and Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_3#Revised_RfC_on_altname_Bcash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not the first time Jtbobwaysf described the issue nonneutrally (see Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_1#RfC_on_altname_Bcash). That is why I attempted to make the formulation more neutral. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Jytdog: I did another RfC on this bcash altname subject on this article. Want to ask your some procedural questions and seek some advice. First, Ladislav Mecir ( talk · contribs) has re-worked the RfC description claiming it was not neutral here [20] and Ladislav then removed a source here [21]. Also 84percent ( talk · contribs) carries on to edit the disputed content that is subject of the RfC here [22]. Maybe you could take a look, and let me know what you suggest. FYI, you have my permission to edit the RfC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 03:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Oska:, You say that "Bcash" is "used by people who feel the name 'Bitcoin Cash' is too similar to Bitcoin and want to make the difference more evident", however this is not supported by any of the sources; it's blatant original research. Can you produce a reliable source agreeing with that view? You also write that "Bcash" is not pejorative, however there is a reliable source which explicitly states that the term "Bcash" (or "Btrash") is used by Bitcoin Cash detractors. [5] 84percent ( talk) 02:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment I think that some of the contributors overlooked that the problem with option B is that its wording is not confirmed by the cited sources and that the other sources they suggest are not acceptable per this RfC. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
References
This discussion about a previous close of this RfC is copied from User talk:DannyS712 for recordkeeping purposes since I consulted it in my revised RfC close. Cunard ( talk) 00:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I want to discuss your close at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. What I am missing in your close is a reflection of the problem that the "option B" you chose as having consensus is not confirmed by the cited sources. Can you explain it to me, please? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)