![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.
One of the sources, actually the first one cited to confirm the claim is [1]. Does the source directly confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Modified question per the suggestion of User:MJL:
Since User:MJL, the editor closing the RfC: Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? suggested me to modify the above question, and since several editors discuss the modified question below anyway, I replace the original question by the question modified as follows:
In the article, there is a claim thatBitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.
In support of the claim, these sources are cited:
Do the sources support the claim that "Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic", i.e. do the sources confirm that the requirement specified in MOS:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES is satisfied? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin.The term also should never be used in the article text, since it's a neologism. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Expanded comment – It appears that the author of this RfC decided to raise the goalpost by modifying the question shortly after the above !vote and comment. The original question regarding the actual claim made in the article that, Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash,
has been changed in order to promote discussion of the non-claim that Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic
. Having been surprised to discover that such a trivial shorthand name draws such a (seemingly forced) outrage by presumed
WP:Advocates of the subject, I looked through the past talk page archives on this term. The author of this RfC clearly appears unable to maintain a
WP:Neutral stance here as evidenced by the years of promotional rehashing of this exact contention. That said, the dispute here is that the term "Bcash" is sometimes used to refer to Bitcoin Cash, as that line in the article states. The validity of the claim is quite easily verifiable as others have provided RS to show.
Beyond that, given that there exists this continuous and excessive push by other editors to assert that the term is somehow derogatory, offensive, and vehemently opposed to, it would be common sense to assume that all editors agree that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash.
Claiming that it's not would contradict the argument that the term has a negative connotation, or any connotation at all associated with it. Yet, editors disagreeing with the claim are consistently making both arguments simultaneously. This repeated conflict creation appears to be tantamount to WP:Tendentious editing or at best, WP:Civil POV pushing.
If there are some administrative methods to make a final resolution through some sort of arbitration and/or other similar formats, I'd think it could have been tried long ago. Surely this issue should not need to be re-debated for sport every so often... especially not when the issue seems to be a resilient platform for WP:Activists to engage in promotion of insignificant wordplay akin to WP:Propaganda thats primarily built on Strawman and WP:Specialized-style fallacy arguments. Is this term even worthy to give it due weight in the article, regardless of its context and presentation? Its hard to even tell by having to go through all the WP:USTHEM nonsense.
HiddenLemon // talk 21:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)It seems like the crypto journalist Leigh Cuen is using bcash to disassociate the Bitcoin Cash fork and its supporters from Blockstream's Bitcoin Core fork.
Here's an article from coindesk in the same time frame of the fork ( https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-supports-fork-doesnt) which doesn't use the bcash moniker.
And another article from NYtimes ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/business/dealbook/bitcoin-cash-split.html) dated July 25, 2017, where the professional journalist is able to write out the whole name of Bitcoin Cash throughout the article.
Sources 2, 4, and 8 (Jeffries, Adrianne) are the same author, in a compressed date range (9-Apr-18 to 1-May-18) on the same platform (The Verge). This is possibly unreliable. Please remove 2 sources.
Source 3: Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin, is obviously biased against the Bitcoin Cash fork, as his coin thrives on Bitcoin Core's inabilty to process blockchain transactions. https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/1004420298496569345 In this twitter message, he calls bitcoin cash a ----coin. Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.
Source 9: The article involving Evans Jon uses the bcash epithet in the title of the article, and proceeds to call it bitcoin cash in the body. Please remove.
Source 10: Aurelian Menant's exchange- Gatecoin - is shut down. https://www.coindesk.com/gatecoin-crypto-exchange-to-shut-down-on-courts-orders (mentioned in the tech transformers article). Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.
This article
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/14/litecoin-bitcoin-cash-lee-ver/ shows that the author (Charlie Lee) cited in the article (Source 3) is engaged in some kind of naming attack on Bitcoin Cash due to his personal position in his cryptocurrency Litecoin. From the talk pages I looked through, it seems multiple people have stated that the Bcash moniker is used again to bring about negative connotations about Bitcoin Cash, although it is a viable software fork of the Bitcoin open-source software.
Here's another article from the Wall Street Journal where the author is able to also spell out the whole name Bitcoin Cash
https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-was-meant-to-be-the-better-bitcoin-its-down-nearly-90-1535115600.
I think a more accurate statement on the Bitcoin Cash summary page would be: Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash by its detractors [10]. as mentioned in this article where the author groups the terms Bcash, Btrash, scam together. (
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/17229796/bitcoin-cash-conflict-transactions-fight) This has already been referenced under Section 2 Controversy; why is it popping up again in the summary subsection? Bcash nickname sources [10] should be inserted after [21] under Section 2.
Another article by the Wall Street Journal detailing tax implications of the Bitcoin Cash fork from the Bitcoin Core software where the journalist is able to type out the whole name 'Bitcoin Cash';
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-one-knows-how-much-to-pay-in-bitcoin-cash-taxes-1503658800 .
(
Mazdamiata200
talk)
20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry
References
I concur that Ladislav's repetitious RFCs on basically the same question - whether "bcash" needs mention in the intro as an alternate name used in RSes for Bitcoin Cash - have reached the stage of being querulous - David Gerard ( talk) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Wugapodes: you closed the above RFC and noted in your closing comments that Redgolpe ( talk · contribs) commented that financial markets weren't using the term Bcash. I was curious if that was true, googled it, and see that most financial markets have used the term at some point in time, and some continue to use the term. I have added sources today that demonstrate that major market operators continue to use the term, including Bitfinex, LocalBitcoins, Paxful, BitMEX, Gemini, and Gatecoin (in the CNBC source). In the past these type of sources are removed from crypto articles, as we have not been using corporate sources on cryptocurrency articles. However, in this case the matter if financial markets have or continue to use the term has been raised and highlighted in the close summary. I added the sources today as it would be impossible to discuss this claim if we don't at least look at these type sources, with both bitfinex and paxful using the term within the last year. I thought I would ping you and ask the degree to which this factor affected your close decision. I added the sources one by one but you can see the summary of the diffs [1]. If I have made an error by adding another section to a closed RFC (I did do it outside of the dont edit box), please forgive me and feel free to move my question down to a new section at the bottom of this talk page. Maybe you could comment here on the weight you gave in your close to this industry use of the term matter. Please note it is my recollection that these corporate sources have been removed in the past from the article by the nominator Ladislav Mecir and he has again removed those new sources in the past couple hours. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
References
The sidebar lists inaccurate / outdated information for items like 'Implementation'. The ABC client is listed but if you look at their website you can easily confirm that they are not a BCH client. Looking at bch.info you can find 6 actual implementations.
The sidebar lists 'Latest release', which is not relevant since this is a crypto-currency, this is not a software. 6 implementations have different 'latest releases'.
The sidebar lists 'Website' which is similarly outdated. More explanation and plenty of references can be found on this special page on bch.info.
The Bitcoin Cash page needs to be updated as new facts become available, the wikipedia page looks like it got stuck in 2018. Thats like the Android page can't refer to facts of the last 10 years for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZander ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the BitcoinABC split which was reverted by @ Jtbobwaysf:. I think we all can agree that this split occurred. BitcoinABC was, for a while, the most popular node in Bitcoin Cash. Many existing sources in the article refer to ABC. It no longer is. I’m not at all interested in writing about the politics and opinions of either side of the split, but it certainly seems, to me at least, important to note that there was a split, and the consensus chain is not the ABC chain. If this news was not noteworthy enough for the Washington Post or New York Times to report, what can we do about this? Can we use the BitcoinABC website where they now state that they follow the BCHA chain instead of BCH?
I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream sources need to be used for anything with an editorial take on a subject, but I would think that there would be a lower bar for things that are plain facts. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would fit this IMO. Beakerboy ( talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the split in November 2018 the two chains Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV have diverged significantly.
Bitcoin Cash is going forward with its goal to be electronic cash while Bitcoin SV has made big changes by reactivating most of the original protocol and removing most of the limits that still exists in the other Bitcoin variants.
In addition there are published articles from reliable sources:
The decision to delete and redirect Bitcoin SV to Bitcoin Cash was based on the lack of reliable sources and significant coverage.
Both arguments are not valid anymore and hence Bitcoin SV has become notable and should receive its own page. torusJKL ( talk) 12:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The article should state what Bitcoin Cash is and why it was created (which it does). It could state, briefly, that there is controversy around the need to create Bitcoin - with a link to online sources that discuss the controversy, perhaps. A brief section titled "History", stating what actually happened and about a quarter of the length of the current blow-by-blow he-said/she-said history section would be reasonable.
All the rest is junk. Details of who said what about Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning the current price of any cryptocurrency is pointless because prices change daily. Maybe there could be links to a couple of the (many) websites that track cryptocurrency exchange rates, but even that is redundant because any search engine will find them. As for volatility of cryptocurrencies, again it is ephemeral information, anybody who wants to know what it is right now can look at the exchange-traded options or at one of the volatility indexes like BVOL24H or one of the indexes calculated by T3Index.
Does anyone seriously disagree that most of this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and should be deleted? Longitude2 ( talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bitcoin Cash open Official Twitter Handle ( @BTCTCH ) . Zoyahssn ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
All I know is that the date says august 1st 2017 is 3 years ago and now it’s 4 years 47.24.128.68 ( talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Gal Buki ( talk · contribs · logs) proposed at the AfC Help Desk that the Bitcoin SV section be split into a separate page called Bitcoin SV, which is currently a redirect leading to this page. The user has already created a draft: Draft:Bitcoin SV. They didn't know how to create this split discussion, so they asked me to start it for them. There is an old AfD regarding this. Seeking consensus for this split. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The article actually does not even support the blatantly biased claim that Bitcoin Cash was created with "the goal of creating money out of thin air".
In fact, the article says:
"When it split off a year ago, Bitcoin Cash jump-started the forking craze in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names (hello, Bitcoin Diamond)."
It seems very clear this article is saying that other projects saw Bitcoin Cash's fork as an excuse to make forks with that goal - forks with no meaningful support whatsoever. There's absolutely no evidence this is the case for Bitcoin Cash itself though. Unlike later forks, Bitcoin Cash is accepted for payment alongside Bitcoin. It has a substantial following and I believe this claim should be struck from the page unless actual evidence can be produced for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapbox ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that came in to existence when numerous involved parties within the bitcoin community disagreed on software implementations, namely increasing the blocksize vs. Segwit [is a fork of Bitcoin]. [Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017.[5][6]]
[] to be removed.
In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash split further into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.[7]'] this entire sentence has no bearing on the existence Bitcoin Cash and is an event that happened long after it's inception.
The original formulation does no justice to why Bitcoin Cash has been created in the first place. Similarly statements such as "spin off" "forked off" and "alt coin" is a complete misuse and misunderstanding of blockchain technology.
92.64.157.100 ( talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)I also believe those changes should be made because Bitcoin SV is not relevant to Bitcoin Cash, especially not enough to be in the first sentence ChaseF ( talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Considering one of the biggest challenges facing Proof of Work blockchains today is the difficulty to scale on chain in number of transactions per second and BSVs has managed to achieve this with 50k tx/s on the mainnet and up to 100k tx/s on testnet. Why is this not mentioned? In comparison BTC only allows around 6 and ETH 10-20 at astronomical costs. This seems to be extremely important information. 109.232.69.73 ( talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article needs a Notes section and {{ notelist}} added in order to fix the cite/note error. - Galactic-Radiance ( Talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk)
22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the fact that BSV is Turing complete and allows equivalents of Smart Contracts? This is a huge feat considering that the original limitation of BTC that lead to the development of Ethereum and a myriad of other altcoins was the inability to e execute code on chain. With this solved on the BSV blockchain, how can we neglect to mention it? 109.232.69.73 ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Remarkable a new CNBCTV18 source for the BSV chain. Doesnt address the claim it being the largest blockchain (if true) which would be interesting. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:04, 2 February 2023 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.
One of the sources, actually the first one cited to confirm the claim is [1]. Does the source directly confirm the claim? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 15:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Modified question per the suggestion of User:MJL:
Since User:MJL, the editor closing the RfC: Does the TechCrunch article dated 10 August 2018 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? suggested me to modify the above question, and since several editors discuss the modified question below anyway, I replace the original question by the question modified as follows:
In the article, there is a claim thatBitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash.
In support of the claim, these sources are cited:
Do the sources support the claim that "Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic", i.e. do the sources confirm that the requirement specified in MOS:ALTNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES is satisfied? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Bitcoin Cash detractors like to call the cryptocurrency “Bcash,” “Btrash,” or simply, a scam, while Bitcoin Cash advocates insist that their implementation is a more pure form of Bitcoin.The term also should never be used in the article text, since it's a neologism. -- Aquillion ( talk) 17:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Expanded comment – It appears that the author of this RfC decided to raise the goalpost by modifying the question shortly after the above !vote and comment. The original question regarding the actual claim made in the article that, Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash,
has been changed in order to promote discussion of the non-claim that Bcash is a significant alternative name to the topic
. Having been surprised to discover that such a trivial shorthand name draws such a (seemingly forced) outrage by presumed
WP:Advocates of the subject, I looked through the past talk page archives on this term. The author of this RfC clearly appears unable to maintain a
WP:Neutral stance here as evidenced by the years of promotional rehashing of this exact contention. That said, the dispute here is that the term "Bcash" is sometimes used to refer to Bitcoin Cash, as that line in the article states. The validity of the claim is quite easily verifiable as others have provided RS to show.
Beyond that, given that there exists this continuous and excessive push by other editors to assert that the term is somehow derogatory, offensive, and vehemently opposed to, it would be common sense to assume that all editors agree that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes referred to as Bcash.
Claiming that it's not would contradict the argument that the term has a negative connotation, or any connotation at all associated with it. Yet, editors disagreeing with the claim are consistently making both arguments simultaneously. This repeated conflict creation appears to be tantamount to WP:Tendentious editing or at best, WP:Civil POV pushing.
If there are some administrative methods to make a final resolution through some sort of arbitration and/or other similar formats, I'd think it could have been tried long ago. Surely this issue should not need to be re-debated for sport every so often... especially not when the issue seems to be a resilient platform for WP:Activists to engage in promotion of insignificant wordplay akin to WP:Propaganda thats primarily built on Strawman and WP:Specialized-style fallacy arguments. Is this term even worthy to give it due weight in the article, regardless of its context and presentation? Its hard to even tell by having to go through all the WP:USTHEM nonsense.
HiddenLemon // talk 21:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)It seems like the crypto journalist Leigh Cuen is using bcash to disassociate the Bitcoin Cash fork and its supporters from Blockstream's Bitcoin Core fork.
Here's an article from coindesk in the same time frame of the fork ( https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-cash-supports-fork-doesnt) which doesn't use the bcash moniker.
And another article from NYtimes ( https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/business/dealbook/bitcoin-cash-split.html) dated July 25, 2017, where the professional journalist is able to write out the whole name of Bitcoin Cash throughout the article.
Sources 2, 4, and 8 (Jeffries, Adrianne) are the same author, in a compressed date range (9-Apr-18 to 1-May-18) on the same platform (The Verge). This is possibly unreliable. Please remove 2 sources.
Source 3: Charlie Lee, the founder of Litecoin, is obviously biased against the Bitcoin Cash fork, as his coin thrives on Bitcoin Core's inabilty to process blockchain transactions. https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/1004420298496569345 In this twitter message, he calls bitcoin cash a ----coin. Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.
Source 9: The article involving Evans Jon uses the bcash epithet in the title of the article, and proceeds to call it bitcoin cash in the body. Please remove.
Source 10: Aurelian Menant's exchange- Gatecoin - is shut down. https://www.coindesk.com/gatecoin-crypto-exchange-to-shut-down-on-courts-orders (mentioned in the tech transformers article). Unreliable and biased source. Please remove.
This article
https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/02/14/litecoin-bitcoin-cash-lee-ver/ shows that the author (Charlie Lee) cited in the article (Source 3) is engaged in some kind of naming attack on Bitcoin Cash due to his personal position in his cryptocurrency Litecoin. From the talk pages I looked through, it seems multiple people have stated that the Bcash moniker is used again to bring about negative connotations about Bitcoin Cash, although it is a viable software fork of the Bitcoin open-source software.
Here's another article from the Wall Street Journal where the author is able to also spell out the whole name Bitcoin Cash
https://www.wsj.com/articles/it-was-meant-to-be-the-better-bitcoin-its-down-nearly-90-1535115600.
I think a more accurate statement on the Bitcoin Cash summary page would be: Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash by its detractors [10]. as mentioned in this article where the author groups the terms Bcash, Btrash, scam together. (
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/12/17229796/bitcoin-cash-conflict-transactions-fight) This has already been referenced under Section 2 Controversy; why is it popping up again in the summary subsection? Bcash nickname sources [10] should be inserted after [21] under Section 2.
Another article by the Wall Street Journal detailing tax implications of the Bitcoin Cash fork from the Bitcoin Core software where the journalist is able to type out the whole name 'Bitcoin Cash';
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-one-knows-how-much-to-pay-in-bitcoin-cash-taxes-1503658800 .
(
Mazdamiata200
talk)
20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) sockpuppetry
References
I concur that Ladislav's repetitious RFCs on basically the same question - whether "bcash" needs mention in the intro as an alternate name used in RSes for Bitcoin Cash - have reached the stage of being querulous - David Gerard ( talk) 22:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Wugapodes: you closed the above RFC and noted in your closing comments that Redgolpe ( talk · contribs) commented that financial markets weren't using the term Bcash. I was curious if that was true, googled it, and see that most financial markets have used the term at some point in time, and some continue to use the term. I have added sources today that demonstrate that major market operators continue to use the term, including Bitfinex, LocalBitcoins, Paxful, BitMEX, Gemini, and Gatecoin (in the CNBC source). In the past these type of sources are removed from crypto articles, as we have not been using corporate sources on cryptocurrency articles. However, in this case the matter if financial markets have or continue to use the term has been raised and highlighted in the close summary. I added the sources today as it would be impossible to discuss this claim if we don't at least look at these type sources, with both bitfinex and paxful using the term within the last year. I thought I would ping you and ask the degree to which this factor affected your close decision. I added the sources one by one but you can see the summary of the diffs [1]. If I have made an error by adding another section to a closed RFC (I did do it outside of the dont edit box), please forgive me and feel free to move my question down to a new section at the bottom of this talk page. Maybe you could comment here on the weight you gave in your close to this industry use of the term matter. Please note it is my recollection that these corporate sources have been removed in the past from the article by the nominator Ladislav Mecir and he has again removed those new sources in the past couple hours. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
References
The sidebar lists inaccurate / outdated information for items like 'Implementation'. The ABC client is listed but if you look at their website you can easily confirm that they are not a BCH client. Looking at bch.info you can find 6 actual implementations.
The sidebar lists 'Latest release', which is not relevant since this is a crypto-currency, this is not a software. 6 implementations have different 'latest releases'.
The sidebar lists 'Website' which is similarly outdated. More explanation and plenty of references can be found on this special page on bch.info.
The Bitcoin Cash page needs to be updated as new facts become available, the wikipedia page looks like it got stuck in 2018. Thats like the Android page can't refer to facts of the last 10 years for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZander ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the BitcoinABC split which was reverted by @ Jtbobwaysf:. I think we all can agree that this split occurred. BitcoinABC was, for a while, the most popular node in Bitcoin Cash. Many existing sources in the article refer to ABC. It no longer is. I’m not at all interested in writing about the politics and opinions of either side of the split, but it certainly seems, to me at least, important to note that there was a split, and the consensus chain is not the ABC chain. If this news was not noteworthy enough for the Washington Post or New York Times to report, what can we do about this? Can we use the BitcoinABC website where they now state that they follow the BCHA chain instead of BCH?
I wholeheartedly agree that mainstream sources need to be used for anything with an editorial take on a subject, but I would think that there would be a lower bar for things that are plain facts. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves would fit this IMO. Beakerboy ( talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the split in November 2018 the two chains Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV have diverged significantly.
Bitcoin Cash is going forward with its goal to be electronic cash while Bitcoin SV has made big changes by reactivating most of the original protocol and removing most of the limits that still exists in the other Bitcoin variants.
In addition there are published articles from reliable sources:
The decision to delete and redirect Bitcoin SV to Bitcoin Cash was based on the lack of reliable sources and significant coverage.
Both arguments are not valid anymore and hence Bitcoin SV has become notable and should receive its own page. torusJKL ( talk) 12:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The article should state what Bitcoin Cash is and why it was created (which it does). It could state, briefly, that there is controversy around the need to create Bitcoin - with a link to online sources that discuss the controversy, perhaps. A brief section titled "History", stating what actually happened and about a quarter of the length of the current blow-by-blow he-said/she-said history section would be reasonable.
All the rest is junk. Details of who said what about Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning the current price of any cryptocurrency is pointless because prices change daily. Maybe there could be links to a couple of the (many) websites that track cryptocurrency exchange rates, but even that is redundant because any search engine will find them. As for volatility of cryptocurrencies, again it is ephemeral information, anybody who wants to know what it is right now can look at the exchange-traded options or at one of the volatility indexes like BVOL24H or one of the indexes calculated by T3Index.
Does anyone seriously disagree that most of this article is inappropriate to an encyclopedia and should be deleted? Longitude2 ( talk) 15:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bitcoin Cash open Official Twitter Handle ( @BTCTCH ) . Zoyahssn ( talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
All I know is that the date says august 1st 2017 is 3 years ago and now it’s 4 years 47.24.128.68 ( talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Gal Buki ( talk · contribs · logs) proposed at the AfC Help Desk that the Bitcoin SV section be split into a separate page called Bitcoin SV, which is currently a redirect leading to this page. The user has already created a draft: Draft:Bitcoin SV. They didn't know how to create this split discussion, so they asked me to start it for them. There is an old AfD regarding this. Seeking consensus for this split. Curbon7 ( talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The article actually does not even support the blatantly biased claim that Bitcoin Cash was created with "the goal of creating money out of thin air".
In fact, the article says:
"When it split off a year ago, Bitcoin Cash jump-started the forking craze in which dozens of software-development teams sought to create money out of thin air by tweaking the original computer code and releasing coins with “Bitcoin” in their names (hello, Bitcoin Diamond)."
It seems very clear this article is saying that other projects saw Bitcoin Cash's fork as an excuse to make forks with that goal - forks with no meaningful support whatsoever. There's absolutely no evidence this is the case for Bitcoin Cash itself though. Unlike later forks, Bitcoin Cash is accepted for payment alongside Bitcoin. It has a substantial following and I believe this claim should be struck from the page unless actual evidence can be produced for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slapbox ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that came in to existence when numerous involved parties within the bitcoin community disagreed on software implementations, namely increasing the blocksize vs. Segwit [is a fork of Bitcoin]. [Bitcoin Cash is a spin-off or altcoin that was created in 2017.[5][6]]
[] to be removed.
In November 2018, Bitcoin Cash split further into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV.[7]'] this entire sentence has no bearing on the existence Bitcoin Cash and is an event that happened long after it's inception.
The original formulation does no justice to why Bitcoin Cash has been created in the first place. Similarly statements such as "spin off" "forked off" and "alt coin" is a complete misuse and misunderstanding of blockchain technology.
92.64.157.100 ( talk) 14:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)I also believe those changes should be made because Bitcoin SV is not relevant to Bitcoin Cash, especially not enough to be in the first sentence ChaseF ( talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Considering one of the biggest challenges facing Proof of Work blockchains today is the difficulty to scale on chain in number of transactions per second and BSVs has managed to achieve this with 50k tx/s on the mainnet and up to 100k tx/s on testnet. Why is this not mentioned? In comparison BTC only allows around 6 and ETH 10-20 at astronomical costs. This seems to be extremely important information. 109.232.69.73 ( talk) 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin Cash has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article needs a Notes section and {{ notelist}} added in order to fix the cite/note error. - Galactic-Radiance ( Talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Done
PianoDan (
talk)
22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the fact that BSV is Turing complete and allows equivalents of Smart Contracts? This is a huge feat considering that the original limitation of BTC that lead to the development of Ethereum and a myriad of other altcoins was the inability to e execute code on chain. With this solved on the BSV blockchain, how can we neglect to mention it? 109.232.69.73 ( talk) 16:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Remarkable a new CNBCTV18 source for the BSV chain. Doesnt address the claim it being the largest blockchain (if true) which would be interesting. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 07:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)