This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Bitcoin Gold, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
The contents of the Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack page were merged into Bitcoin Gold on 28 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Most of the article seems like an argument for Bitcoin Gold over the other forks of Bitcoin. It was clearly written by someone passionate about Bitcoin Gold, if not Bitcoin itself. Statements such as "That’s why Bitcoin Gold was born, in order to bring Bitcoin mining back to the “people”" are hardly neutral.
If you would prefer that the only individual sections be marked instead of the whole page, then remove the POV template at the top of the article Aaronburro ( talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph is almost entirely opinion. "The purpose ... is to make Bitcoin mining decentralized again." Who says it's not currently decentralized?
"Satoshi's vision has been superceded..." is not neutral. "Bitcoin Gold will provide an opportunity for countless new people..." is not neutral.
"A more decentralized, democratic mining infrastructure is more resilient and more in line with..." is also not neutral.
Also, speaking of "Satoshi's vision" smacks of a personal stake in the content. Remove references to "Satoshi's vision;" it's irrelevant. At most, you could reference it once as a motivating factor behind the dev community which is pursuing this fork, but note it as their opinion, and cite it.
Remove the conclusion; essays have conclusions, articles don't.
This is a page which should legitimately exist, but it's so filled with editorial and few if any citations, that it just seems like a personal essay on why Bitcoin Gold is awesome and everything else is evil corporate greed trying to control the world. It's not information, it's an argument. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Change this to just be a statement of the project's goals and motivations. Cite those motivations. Remove editorial references such as "We want..." Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This could probably be removed, and what little content that remains be moved into the Introduction. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that there is a "conclusion" makes this more of an essay than article. This whole section is opinion, with zero citations to support it. Aaronburro ( talk) 18:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I've cut it down to the intro, which is the only bit with a third-party source. Literally the entire rest of the text was an uncited personal essay. The only reason I didn't PROD the article is because Bitcoin Gold has had some RS coverage, but even that's skimpy - David Gerard ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Right now the whole article is just criticism. It is necessary to avoid subjective view to the topic. References and further information about Bitcoin Gold must be added to ensure the neutrality of the article. - Mstroehle ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the Bitcoin Gold project is actually working towards a particular cause... And people need to be able to disambiguate things like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold.
They have especially risen to prominence with the recent news of a new ASIC Miner for equihash coins, becoming leaders in the movement to resist the Asic miners.
I'll find press references to expand the article.
Hi @ Ceosad, you merged the article Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack describing a security incidence with a single cryptocurrency Bitcoin Gold. I'd like to discuss with you here and try to reach a consensus that it makes sense to keep the security incidence article separate, for the following reasons: (1), it's important to see that this is arguably the first major over-51-hash-power double spending attack on an established cryptocurrency. (2) double spending attack is the nightmare of all PoW-based cryptocurrencies so with the first security incidences, we expect to see the threat increasingly become aware to communities not just Bitcoin Gold. For example, this incidence alone has involved 2 other cryptocurrencies. Merging it with Bitcoin Gold is unrepresentative of the nature of this incidence. (3)With respect to WP policy such as WP:N and WP:V, there are enough reliable sources covering this incidences to make it a valid article on WP itself. Please let me know what you think Xinbenlv ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Xinbenlv ( talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Bitcoin Gold, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
The contents of the Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack page were merged into Bitcoin Gold on 28 May 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Most of the article seems like an argument for Bitcoin Gold over the other forks of Bitcoin. It was clearly written by someone passionate about Bitcoin Gold, if not Bitcoin itself. Statements such as "That’s why Bitcoin Gold was born, in order to bring Bitcoin mining back to the “people”" are hardly neutral.
If you would prefer that the only individual sections be marked instead of the whole page, then remove the POV template at the top of the article Aaronburro ( talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph is almost entirely opinion. "The purpose ... is to make Bitcoin mining decentralized again." Who says it's not currently decentralized?
"Satoshi's vision has been superceded..." is not neutral. "Bitcoin Gold will provide an opportunity for countless new people..." is not neutral.
"A more decentralized, democratic mining infrastructure is more resilient and more in line with..." is also not neutral.
Also, speaking of "Satoshi's vision" smacks of a personal stake in the content. Remove references to "Satoshi's vision;" it's irrelevant. At most, you could reference it once as a motivating factor behind the dev community which is pursuing this fork, but note it as their opinion, and cite it.
Remove the conclusion; essays have conclusions, articles don't.
This is a page which should legitimately exist, but it's so filled with editorial and few if any citations, that it just seems like a personal essay on why Bitcoin Gold is awesome and everything else is evil corporate greed trying to control the world. It's not information, it's an argument. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Change this to just be a statement of the project's goals and motivations. Cite those motivations. Remove editorial references such as "We want..." Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
This could probably be removed, and what little content that remains be moved into the Introduction. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro ( talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that there is a "conclusion" makes this more of an essay than article. This whole section is opinion, with zero citations to support it. Aaronburro ( talk) 18:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I've cut it down to the intro, which is the only bit with a third-party source. Literally the entire rest of the text was an uncited personal essay. The only reason I didn't PROD the article is because Bitcoin Gold has had some RS coverage, but even that's skimpy - David Gerard ( talk) 11:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Right now the whole article is just criticism. It is necessary to avoid subjective view to the topic. References and further information about Bitcoin Gold must be added to ensure the neutrality of the article. - Mstroehle ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the Bitcoin Gold project is actually working towards a particular cause... And people need to be able to disambiguate things like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold.
They have especially risen to prominence with the recent news of a new ASIC Miner for equihash coins, becoming leaders in the movement to resist the Asic miners.
I'll find press references to expand the article.
Hi @ Ceosad, you merged the article Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack describing a security incidence with a single cryptocurrency Bitcoin Gold. I'd like to discuss with you here and try to reach a consensus that it makes sense to keep the security incidence article separate, for the following reasons: (1), it's important to see that this is arguably the first major over-51-hash-power double spending attack on an established cryptocurrency. (2) double spending attack is the nightmare of all PoW-based cryptocurrencies so with the first security incidences, we expect to see the threat increasingly become aware to communities not just Bitcoin Gold. For example, this incidence alone has involved 2 other cryptocurrencies. Merging it with Bitcoin Gold is unrepresentative of the nature of this incidence. (3)With respect to WP policy such as WP:N and WP:V, there are enough reliable sources covering this incidences to make it a valid article on WP itself. Please let me know what you think Xinbenlv ( talk) 19:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Xinbenlv ( talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)