Taproot (fork) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of bitcoin forks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Bitcoin XT was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of bitcoin forks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article List of bitcoin forks, 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.
|
I think it's important to clarify which ones are just forks of the client software still compatible with the original chain, and which ones are forks of the blockchain itself. AFAIK, only Cash and Gold are actual chain forks (and many of the clients got versions for both the Cash and the Core chains). -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 08:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot of entries that only refer to their own self-published sites. I propose to clean up the list and only keep entries with Wikipedia pages or reputable secondary sources. Retimuko ( talk) 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why the unsourced content is getting restored with a comment that no reason was given for removal? @ Fresheneesz: could you please explain your revert? The reasons were stated here and in the edit comments. The content is based on self-published web sites of the forks only. Could you give any independent reliable sources that mention these forks? Wikipedia is not a collection of random links. Retimuko ( talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This was a very useful article with relevant information, please revert to the full list and if you consider that references are neded, put a tag and do not delete information Lupa18 ( talk) 15:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait what? @ Retimuko: see WP:ABOUTSELF, self published source can be used for information about themselves C933103 ( talk) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We are arguing in circles. What you propose is so far from the basic rules of Wikipedia that I don't see how you don't see it. You trust CoinMarketCap because you trust their self-published FAQ. If some coin is called XYZ on some exchange, and there is another self-published site about some coin, which also mentions XYZ and gives some details, you are prepared to trust that they are talking about the same thing, the exchange provides notability and the site provides accurate details. Sorry, this is against the policy. Retimuko ( talk) 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a number of split coins with sources that were very easy to find. This whole argument above ^ is pretty absurd in my opinion because no one even tried to add good sources.
I couldn't find good sources for these:
Didn't get to looking for these:
Fresheneesz ( talk) 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Given that, 1. It is hard to have a widely accepted criteria determine what sort of coin should be included into the page other than the general notability guideline, 2. currently the page have more info about bitcoin fork than list of fork, and 3. no matter what would be the inclusion criteria, such a list would be never ending, I suggest changing this page from a list-class page to a proper article, and renaming the page as bitcoin fork.
As such, this page will become mainly an introduction to different kind of forks, as well as mechanism and history behind them. A few bitcoin forks can be named as part of the introduction, but that would be it. Listing of bitcoin fork can be done by creating a navigation template or category, so that only forks that have their own wiki article or have a prospect to have a wiki article would be included, and as such users would be less likely to add less significant bitcoin forks to the article.
The proposed moved article can also add a few external link to other sites that have more complete list of bitcoin forks, so that users wishing to fins information about them can also be redirected toward those sites instead of trying to add them into Wikipedia.
What do others think about this? C933103 ( talk) 06:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, this was the only comprehensive list of the forks on the greater internet until Retimuko ruined it with his pedantry... As a software engineer and a logical thinker I grasp the points, but if followed, would result in NO information ever being published, because who wrote what first, eh? No sources for the source. Wrap your heads around that one. What's wrong with just a list? That IS the title of the article after all. Retimuko appears to have gone on a little bit of a freakish power and control trip here, and I can't fathom it. What I see here is information that someone took time to aggregate and present, which I and others found useful, and brought us here, has been removed 'on general principle' but the information WAS serving it's intended purpose. Retimuko - lighten up, man. SessionTerminated ( talk) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This page is useless as a list of Bitcoin forks since the deletion spree. Maybe the article should just be deleted. 107.190.70.138 ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Bitcore was previously listed under 'Hybrid Forks'. 'Hybrid Forks' is not descriptive and is not in common usage in the cryptocurrency space. I added the title 'UTXO Forks' as it seemed the most descriptive way to explain what has occurred: essentially, the UTXO at a given point in time (block) is forked. Moved 'Clam' from 'Not Forks'(also poorly named) to the same section as it also utilized a copy of the UTXO. Creativecuriosity 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I renamed the section back to UTXO Forks. These are forks. They hold the exact amount of coins at the same adresses as the source. I checked the bitcore site and they just state that they are not a classical fork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSAlter ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't say that at all. I quote "own Blockchain (NOT a fork!)". Also "The low blockchain size is a result of Bitcore not beeing a fork of Bitcoin like Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Gold. Instead it uses a new blockchain which makes use of the genuine hybrid fork method.", and "Instead of forking Bitcoin at a specific block and copying the blockchain, Bitcore created a new coin with an empty blockchain.", and "Are you a Bitcoin fork? No". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.252.243 ( talk) 12:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
They also say: No, Bitcore is completely new cryptocurrency with a new blockchain but it uses a technique called hybrid fork Which more technically means UTXO fork. So I don' understand why you are removing that every time. They hold the exact amount (multiplied by 0.5) of coins at the same adresses as the source Bitcoin from the 2nd November. And you can get this by using the same keys as in the BTC Chain, sounds familiar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSAlter ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What about Jimmy Song as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-diamond-super-bitcoin-bitcore-what-you-need-to-know-f49c35688a39 These mentioned coins should be in this list as well.
@ Benbest: do you find the CoinStalker a reliable source? Reliable sources should be widely known and should have reputation for quality editorial control and fact checking. There is no Wikipedia page for CoinStalker. I don't believe it should be considered as a reputable news source. Retimuko ( talk) 19:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of Bitcoin forks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please undo the deletion of the UTXO forks, because its relevant to the article Bitcoin forks. This is a technical relevant information regarding the page"List of Bitcoin forks" MSAlter ( talk) 16:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)I was directed to this page by google search engine when searching for info on bitcoin fork but the format of this list/article seems rather confusing, Could someone with more knowledge on the subject help rewrite the list/article? C933103 ( talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
List of Bitcoin forks → Bitcoin fork – See #Alternative suggestion section above. The current "list" seems more like an introduction to bitcoin forks, which is why I think it would be more apporipate to move the article to a name that does not say "list of". It can also prevent editors from using the article as a directory. C933103 ( talk) 06:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment The article Bitcoin scalability problem goes over bitcoin forks in greater detail, and I think it might be redundant to create a second page that also covered forks. I think this article the purpose was supposed to be in fact a directory. @ Ladislav Mecir: do you have a comment? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This is a list, let's not try to change it to something else. Over time there might be more forks as well. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Its a list. The removal of the word "list" would suggest it is an article, of which is not. Artix Kreiger ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@ User:Primefac What in god's name are you doing? You first added a bunch of redlinks to my edit, and then you delete my entire edit for the reason of "rmv redlinks per convention". What are you trying to pull? Please replace my edit and simply remove the external links (rather than replacing them with redlinks). Fresheneesz ( talk) 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
For sure we don't do this external links for reasons of anti-seo policy. However if these forks are slightly notable, then maybe it doesnt hurt to include them on this article. I say slightly as certainly, the article as a list of forks is notable, and these forks themselves might lack notability to have their own articles, thus if they have mention, might be useful to list them here. But for sure no external links, and no RED links. I recognize that others may be against my suggestion to include 'slightly notable' as well... Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
<ref>fork's website</ref>
".
Primefac (
talk) 19:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fresheneesz
References
@ Fresheneesz: I noted that you did an ANI here [3] about this thread and another editor closed it as ANI is not a venue for content disputes. My suggestion would be put the proposed content in your sandbox and link to it here on this talk page so we can discuss it. I am of the general opinion that a listing of the various bitcoin forks is the purpose of this article and would be encyclopedic. That said we do also have to follow sourcing guidelines. My hypothesis is this:
As a path forward please put it in your sandbox, we can discuss it, and if we can't come to consensus here, then you can always do an RfC (and this sandbox approach will be useful towards that end). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Copied from my personal talk page at the request of Fresheneesz. Retimuko ( talk) 04:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are reverting my edits, I would like you to please discuss why on the talk page. Its rather rude to revert my work and not discuss it with me, especially when I've started a talk page discussion specifically about this content. So please respond on the talk page. Fresheneesz ( talk) 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
What is this section List_of_bitcoin_forks#Intended_hard_forks_(no_split). Does anyone know if this is real? @ Ladislav Mecir: thoughts? Or just promotional edits? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Moving here per WP:PRESERVE Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
any objections to be creating an article on Bitcoin 2 which is a fork of both the Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin Core software initiated in 2018?
For those unfamilair with it Bitcoin 2 replaced the proof of work mining algorithm with proof of stake to speed up transaction processing and scalability and added support for private transactions. Development is ongoing, currently the privacy features are being overheauled to make it easier to use and there is an active user community on Discord. Supported on several exchanges and masternode hosting platforms
Bluedalmatian ( talk) 17:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Depends what classes as acceptable sources?, I can reference these: LiveCoinWatch Masternodes.online live details of BTC2 nodes BTC2 data and block / transaction explorer on Tokenview.com
Together with the offical GitHub and website: github.com/bitc2 and www.bitc2.org
Bluedalmatian ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new fork Bitcoin ABC 15th November 2020 109.228.186.112 ( talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Arguably not the best sources, but putting this here as a starting point for any verified user who wants to pick it up. Beanow ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Forked from Bitcoin Cash.
Last shared block #661647, 15 November 2020. Source:
https://twitter.com/Bitcoin_ABC/status/1328010483581005824
Currently pending a branding & "official coin name". Source:
https://www.bitcoinabc.org/bcha/
Taproot (fork) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of bitcoin forks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Bitcoin XT was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of bitcoin forks. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article List of bitcoin forks, 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.
|
I think it's important to clarify which ones are just forks of the client software still compatible with the original chain, and which ones are forks of the blockchain itself. AFAIK, only Cash and Gold are actual chain forks (and many of the clients got versions for both the Cash and the Core chains). -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 08:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot of entries that only refer to their own self-published sites. I propose to clean up the list and only keep entries with Wikipedia pages or reputable secondary sources. Retimuko ( talk) 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Why the unsourced content is getting restored with a comment that no reason was given for removal? @ Fresheneesz: could you please explain your revert? The reasons were stated here and in the edit comments. The content is based on self-published web sites of the forks only. Could you give any independent reliable sources that mention these forks? Wikipedia is not a collection of random links. Retimuko ( talk) 21:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This was a very useful article with relevant information, please revert to the full list and if you consider that references are neded, put a tag and do not delete information Lupa18 ( talk) 15:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wait what? @ Retimuko: see WP:ABOUTSELF, self published source can be used for information about themselves C933103 ( talk) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
We are arguing in circles. What you propose is so far from the basic rules of Wikipedia that I don't see how you don't see it. You trust CoinMarketCap because you trust their self-published FAQ. If some coin is called XYZ on some exchange, and there is another self-published site about some coin, which also mentions XYZ and gives some details, you are prepared to trust that they are talking about the same thing, the exchange provides notability and the site provides accurate details. Sorry, this is against the policy. Retimuko ( talk) 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a number of split coins with sources that were very easy to find. This whole argument above ^ is pretty absurd in my opinion because no one even tried to add good sources.
I couldn't find good sources for these:
Didn't get to looking for these:
Fresheneesz ( talk) 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Given that, 1. It is hard to have a widely accepted criteria determine what sort of coin should be included into the page other than the general notability guideline, 2. currently the page have more info about bitcoin fork than list of fork, and 3. no matter what would be the inclusion criteria, such a list would be never ending, I suggest changing this page from a list-class page to a proper article, and renaming the page as bitcoin fork.
As such, this page will become mainly an introduction to different kind of forks, as well as mechanism and history behind them. A few bitcoin forks can be named as part of the introduction, but that would be it. Listing of bitcoin fork can be done by creating a navigation template or category, so that only forks that have their own wiki article or have a prospect to have a wiki article would be included, and as such users would be less likely to add less significant bitcoin forks to the article.
The proposed moved article can also add a few external link to other sites that have more complete list of bitcoin forks, so that users wishing to fins information about them can also be redirected toward those sites instead of trying to add them into Wikipedia.
What do others think about this? C933103 ( talk) 06:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, this was the only comprehensive list of the forks on the greater internet until Retimuko ruined it with his pedantry... As a software engineer and a logical thinker I grasp the points, but if followed, would result in NO information ever being published, because who wrote what first, eh? No sources for the source. Wrap your heads around that one. What's wrong with just a list? That IS the title of the article after all. Retimuko appears to have gone on a little bit of a freakish power and control trip here, and I can't fathom it. What I see here is information that someone took time to aggregate and present, which I and others found useful, and brought us here, has been removed 'on general principle' but the information WAS serving it's intended purpose. Retimuko - lighten up, man. SessionTerminated ( talk) 14:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This page is useless as a list of Bitcoin forks since the deletion spree. Maybe the article should just be deleted. 107.190.70.138 ( talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Bitcore was previously listed under 'Hybrid Forks'. 'Hybrid Forks' is not descriptive and is not in common usage in the cryptocurrency space. I added the title 'UTXO Forks' as it seemed the most descriptive way to explain what has occurred: essentially, the UTXO at a given point in time (block) is forked. Moved 'Clam' from 'Not Forks'(also poorly named) to the same section as it also utilized a copy of the UTXO. Creativecuriosity 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I renamed the section back to UTXO Forks. These are forks. They hold the exact amount of coins at the same adresses as the source. I checked the bitcore site and they just state that they are not a classical fork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSAlter ( talk • contribs) 08:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't say that at all. I quote "own Blockchain (NOT a fork!)". Also "The low blockchain size is a result of Bitcore not beeing a fork of Bitcoin like Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Gold. Instead it uses a new blockchain which makes use of the genuine hybrid fork method.", and "Instead of forking Bitcoin at a specific block and copying the blockchain, Bitcore created a new coin with an empty blockchain.", and "Are you a Bitcoin fork? No". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.252.243 ( talk) 12:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
They also say: No, Bitcore is completely new cryptocurrency with a new blockchain but it uses a technique called hybrid fork Which more technically means UTXO fork. So I don' understand why you are removing that every time. They hold the exact amount (multiplied by 0.5) of coins at the same adresses as the source Bitcoin from the 2nd November. And you can get this by using the same keys as in the BTC Chain, sounds familiar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSAlter ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
What about Jimmy Song as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-diamond-super-bitcoin-bitcore-what-you-need-to-know-f49c35688a39 These mentioned coins should be in this list as well.
@ Benbest: do you find the CoinStalker a reliable source? Reliable sources should be widely known and should have reputation for quality editorial control and fact checking. There is no Wikipedia page for CoinStalker. I don't believe it should be considered as a reputable news source. Retimuko ( talk) 19:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of Bitcoin forks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please undo the deletion of the UTXO forks, because its relevant to the article Bitcoin forks. This is a technical relevant information regarding the page"List of Bitcoin forks" MSAlter ( talk) 16:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)I was directed to this page by google search engine when searching for info on bitcoin fork but the format of this list/article seems rather confusing, Could someone with more knowledge on the subject help rewrite the list/article? C933103 ( talk) 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
List of Bitcoin forks → Bitcoin fork – See #Alternative suggestion section above. The current "list" seems more like an introduction to bitcoin forks, which is why I think it would be more apporipate to move the article to a name that does not say "list of". It can also prevent editors from using the article as a directory. C933103 ( talk) 06:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Comment The article Bitcoin scalability problem goes over bitcoin forks in greater detail, and I think it might be redundant to create a second page that also covered forks. I think this article the purpose was supposed to be in fact a directory. @ Ladislav Mecir: do you have a comment? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This is a list, let's not try to change it to something else. Over time there might be more forks as well. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 15:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Its a list. The removal of the word "list" would suggest it is an article, of which is not. Artix Kreiger ( talk) 23:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@ User:Primefac What in god's name are you doing? You first added a bunch of redlinks to my edit, and then you delete my entire edit for the reason of "rmv redlinks per convention". What are you trying to pull? Please replace my edit and simply remove the external links (rather than replacing them with redlinks). Fresheneesz ( talk) 05:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
For sure we don't do this external links for reasons of anti-seo policy. However if these forks are slightly notable, then maybe it doesnt hurt to include them on this article. I say slightly as certainly, the article as a list of forks is notable, and these forks themselves might lack notability to have their own articles, thus if they have mention, might be useful to list them here. But for sure no external links, and no RED links. I recognize that others may be against my suggestion to include 'slightly notable' as well... Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
<ref>fork's website</ref>
".
Primefac (
talk) 19:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Fresheneesz
References
@ Fresheneesz: I noted that you did an ANI here [3] about this thread and another editor closed it as ANI is not a venue for content disputes. My suggestion would be put the proposed content in your sandbox and link to it here on this talk page so we can discuss it. I am of the general opinion that a listing of the various bitcoin forks is the purpose of this article and would be encyclopedic. That said we do also have to follow sourcing guidelines. My hypothesis is this:
As a path forward please put it in your sandbox, we can discuss it, and if we can't come to consensus here, then you can always do an RfC (and this sandbox approach will be useful towards that end). Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Copied from my personal talk page at the request of Fresheneesz. Retimuko ( talk) 04:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
If you are reverting my edits, I would like you to please discuss why on the talk page. Its rather rude to revert my work and not discuss it with me, especially when I've started a talk page discussion specifically about this content. So please respond on the talk page. Fresheneesz ( talk) 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
What is this section List_of_bitcoin_forks#Intended_hard_forks_(no_split). Does anyone know if this is real? @ Ladislav Mecir: thoughts? Or just promotional edits? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Moving here per WP:PRESERVE Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
References
any objections to be creating an article on Bitcoin 2 which is a fork of both the Bitcoin blockchain and Bitcoin Core software initiated in 2018?
For those unfamilair with it Bitcoin 2 replaced the proof of work mining algorithm with proof of stake to speed up transaction processing and scalability and added support for private transactions. Development is ongoing, currently the privacy features are being overheauled to make it easier to use and there is an active user community on Discord. Supported on several exchanges and masternode hosting platforms
Bluedalmatian ( talk) 17:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Depends what classes as acceptable sources?, I can reference these: LiveCoinWatch Masternodes.online live details of BTC2 nodes BTC2 data and block / transaction explorer on Tokenview.com
Together with the offical GitHub and website: github.com/bitc2 and www.bitc2.org
Bluedalmatian ( talk) 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new fork Bitcoin ABC 15th November 2020 109.228.186.112 ( talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Arguably not the best sources, but putting this here as a starting point for any verified user who wants to pick it up. Beanow ( talk) 15:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Forked from Bitcoin Cash.
Last shared block #661647, 15 November 2020. Source:
https://twitter.com/Bitcoin_ABC/status/1328010483581005824
Currently pending a branding & "official coin name". Source:
https://www.bitcoinabc.org/bcha/