Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Gavin Andresen Mention

@Jtbobwaysf -- Removing the background of Gavin Andresen seems unnecessary. Having a clause giving a brief background would be important, especially for someone as notable as Gavin. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Gavin is no longer a bitcoin developer per the source you added. If you want more detail, be sure to be clear about that. He was also booted for the CSW issue, you might want to add that if you feel important to add more content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake, I did not realize I did not include the word "former." That should absolutely be included. I will just add the word "lead" to the current text, as that is accurate. (Satoshi handed off control of the project to Gavin, and subsequently, Gavin relinquished primary control to Wladimir in 2014.) ILoveFinance (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate the catch/cleanup. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Why did you cut part of the explanation for the tweet? That content is accurate per the article.
Your comment of "cleanup" is not helpful in understanding the edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Cleanup I use when I am fixing some text without changing the overall meaning. Yes, it is notable that Satoshi handed control to Gavin and then Gavin lost interest and moved on, and then supported a new project in his comments. Just need to find sources to include it. I had never heard this story, I thought he left more to do with the CSW issue, maybe he left just as much about his BCH support, no idea what came first. But worthwhile to include if we can find the sources, certainly is historical and encyclopedic and exactly the type of information these articles need. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, thx for the clarification!
I'll see if I can dig up some additional RS on that. ILoveFinance (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
For brief clarity (just need to find the RS), he handed primary control to Wladimir in 2014 to focus on bigger picture items and to broaden from just Bitcoin again. However he was still active in proposals. In early 2015, he actively pushed for a block size increase (he was always supportive of this, however, in 2015 is when fees began to rise and blockspace was beginning to fill), and went to the community to gather support (particularly from Bitcoin businesses). Later that year he introduced BIP101. When Core disagreed, Gavin and Mike Hearn released BitcoinXT, a fork of the bitcoin project implementing BIP 101. BIP 101 had an adjustable blocksize cap. However, in an effort to reach a middle ground of sorts, in January (I believe) 2016, BIP 101 was removed and repalced with a 2MB blocksize cap. These failed to gain major support (or rather, support died down, particularly in conjunction with the New York Agreement (SegWit2x) as this would implement the 2MB blocksize. Following the Bitcoin Cash fork, BitcoinXT had three subsequent releases: G, H, and I, supporting the initial Bitcoin Cash client, then the November 2017 and May 2018 upgrades. After that, Bitcoin XT received no subsequent updates.
In 2016, Gavin claimed that he believed CSW was Satoshi, after a private demonstration. If I recall correctly, shortly afterwards he admitted that he may have been too trusting/been duped, and it was a few months afterwards that he (mostly?) retracted his claim. This was around the time that Wladimir revoked Gavin's access--this was largely tied to an older Gavin comment saying something along the lines of "Satoshi can have write access whenever he wants."
I'll see what RS I can find that talk more about his history and share them.
On a tangential note, however, I think a writeup of the longer-term scaling debate would be a worthwhile inclusion at the beginning of the History section. What is supported by RS, of course. Could have a Pre-Fork header in the History section. What are your thoughts here? I can propose a new topic to discuss this. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
An addendum to the history of Gavin's contributions, he actually continued work on Bitcoin Cash (just without his own node implementation) into its later years, after CSW went off on his tangent. He co-authored a paper on Graphene for Bitcoin Cash in 2019: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3341302.3342082 ILoveFinance (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for all the comments, just an additional thought -- could such a source be used to support a line (I wouldn't add it yet) such as "Gavin continued work on Bitcoin Cash through 2019."? While additional detail such as what Graphene would be nice somewhere, the source likely could not be used to state that as it is PRIMARY. ILoveFinance (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Source supporting Gavin given control by Satoshi: https://www.ft.com/content/9b27fb72-967f-11e4-922f-00144feabdc0 Also briefly references his efforts as early as 2015 to increase the block size.
I have a few other sources lined up to discuss the history of the scaling debate, including related to Gavin, but I'll await your feedback to the wall of text I've provided above before drafting something. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Source showing Gavin wanted to focus on other projects : https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future
"Andresen eventually granted this level of access to four additional developers, for a total of five “core devs.” In April, 2014, Andresen decided to devote more of his time to other projects, and named one of the core devs, Wladimir van der Laan, to succeed him as lead developer. Even today, only van der Laan and Andresen can grant commit access to other developers of Bitcoin Core." ILoveFinance (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
FT and newyorker would be WP:RS, the other stuff would not. It would not really be due to say gaving started working on xyz (where xyz is not bitcoin cash) on this article, but it could be added over at the Gavin Andresen. Note WP:BLP has pretty much the same sourcing rules as cryptocurrency, dont add things that are not RS, and PRIMARY or these sometimes junky academic sites are not RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Just for clarity, Graphene is technology that was built for, and today exists on, Bitcoin Cash. Just like the DAA changes. Please advise. ILoveFinance (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
If you have RS to state it is built on graphene, could add that. But I think most cryptocurrencies are just blockchains and the client is what the technology is related to. We also have this issue over at ethereum, where editors want to add every possible client and it becomes excessive. I am not technical, so maybe I am confused what graphene is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
So Graphene is a technology not at the protocol level but the node level -- in short, it allows for far more efficient block propagation, particularly in conjunction with CTOR (this is a protocol level technology), as it significantly limits the amount of redundant information that needs to be sent around the network when a block is found.
It is built into the Bitcoin Unlimited node implementation.
The source, while PRIMARY, states that Graphene is built for Bitcoin Cash.
In summary to that, my assumptions are (please correct/guide me here):
  1. Likely not to be included in the Bitcoin Cash article, unless there is RS mentioning graphene.
  2. This could be an addition to the Gavin Andresen page itself, would need to ensure research from a reliable source. I imagine UMass is reliable: https://people.cs.umass.edu/~gbiss/graphene.pdf
ILoveFinance (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Would you be able to propose some neutral language to add this brief detail? ILoveFinance (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Change "Website" in Infobox to "Informational Websites"

Currently the website is unsourced with the comment that it does not appear "official."

There does not appear to be an "official" Bitcoin Cash website, as there is no singular development team.

With this said, I propose that we change the "Website" which could be misconstrued as "official" to "Informational Websites," where a couple websites could be included. I would propose including the following sites:

- https://bitcoincash.org

- https://bch.info

- https://discover.cash

ILoveFinance (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL. We will not be including all of these, just pick the one that is the official website. Please also be advised of WP:NOT. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The point is that there is no "official" website, because there is no central authority. Hence the suggestion rather than just making an edit. ILoveFinance (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the one we have now is more or less the official one. This in an infobox, so its generally not desirable to make these one-off changes. I think bitcoin and most of the other cryptos have this similar issue with official website term in the infobox. You could raise the issue on the template page and try to change it for all cryptos if you desire. I havent seen to much complaints about it though, generally finding some other wording will also be going into the wp:weasel territory. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Not to say to change it, but to have a new section for the template, then.
I would absolutely propose to include a research website section to the template, though. I think that would be quite useful.
But good idea, I will suggest to add these two new sections. Did not know that was the process for adding new sections. Was wondering why when attempting to add a research website nothing showed up! ILoveFinance (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Generally we want the infoboxes to remain consistent across articles. You could look up the infobox for cryptocurrency and see if others agree to add more. For me, it runs afoul of WP:EL so I think it is not necessary. Corporate infoboxes I am sure the PR departments would also love to have 5 links so they can link to their new products as well. This is more of a WP:NOT issue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep, just proposed it there. For clarity, proposed that there be three consistent website headers. Thx for the suggestion. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Images to support bch use as a medium of exchange

I am wondering if we are able to use images of transactions, providing they follow Wikipedia's copyright rules, within the article to depict its use as a medium of exchange. I see many articles with images alongside the written content and think it is a very good way to illustrate this capability to the reader as well as strengthening the quality of the article by providing a visible example of bch implementation. Unless there is something that I am missing, I do not really see how this can be anything but a positive addition to the article, providing the image follows the wikipedia copyright rules Artem P75 (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I dont think we even have decent RS to state this subject is even used as medium of exchange. Thus the image would be UNDUE. I am aware that this subject wants to promote itself as medium of exchange, but we follow RS to see if actually does it (not PR). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reversions of 32MB and CashTokens

@Grayfell

Could I get further clarity on these reversions?

As for 32MB, why is the American Institute for Economic Research not RS? Also the research paper citing the 32MB block size?

Why are the sources discussing CashTokens unreliable?

Thanks ILoveFinance (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The American Institute for Economic Research is a relatively fringe advocacy sites which doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, so is not a reliable source. The source for Cashtoken is republished from tokenist.com and nothing about 247wallst.com indicates that it imposed any sort of editorial oversight or fact-checking on content it publishes or republishes. A lot of this recently added content appears to have been added WP:BACKWARDS. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
How about the Bobtail research paper citing the 32MB block size? ILoveFinance (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I just realized I neglected to include this source for 32MB. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-bitcoin-cash-hard-fork-2018-11-13
Have two others that should count:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/08/24/the-1-factor-making-bitcoin-more-like-gold-than-ca/
https://www.fool.com/terms/b/bitcoin-cash/ ILoveFinance (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you understand what I am saying about working backwards? Throwing links at me on this talk page suggests that you do not understand what I'm saying.
I missed bobtail paper, but looking at it now, I'm underwhelmed by it as a source. This detail is mentioned on p.13 of a 14 page paper. It's an almost-passing mention buried in a symposium paper about something that is not directly about Bitcoin Cash. This is a very flimsy source for this.
Fool.com has a mildly negative reptuation as a source on Wikipedia, but it's far from the worst out there. For Marketwatch, and more broadly, do not add isolated facts and then look for sources for those fact, because that makes facts into factoids. Instead, look at what sources are saying and summarize that context. Use the Marketwatch source (for example) to explain why this information is significant. If a source doesn't explain this, than it isn't going to help disinterested readers undersand the topic any better, so it doesn't belong in the article.
As a reminder, restoring this content with new sources counts as a revert, and this article is under a one-revert rule. Do not edit war. Gain consensus on the talk page. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
It seems challenging to find the balance between a factoid and padding. Maybe I'm still getting a feel for what is considered proper or not. I will add the conclusions regarding the 32MB block size. ILoveFinance (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Grayfell, you are lobbing an excessive number of links seeking to understand what is going to pass, and then stating if nobody responds to you that you will assume it is kosher. You are not listening to what we are both saying in chorus. I also dont think the fool.com looks like RS, looks more like some crypto guide page and not a news article. We have discussed these cyrpto guide pages and generally they were not considered RS for most of the content in the past, certainly for nothing promotional, pushing the bitcoin cash narrative, etc. Its something akin to a Microsoft or Oracle stock quote page at fool.com, its not useful to us except maybe to establish some fact type info (what is the official website, how many coins in circulation, recent prices, etc). I would not be an RS to state that 'bitcoin cash is the coolest coin and is about to moon because of xyz'. I did remove one bit of fool sourced content, as it seemed to speculative, promotional, synth, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

DAA Content Revision

@Grayfell Per the removal of the DAA content, a couple questions/suggestions:

  1. I am assuming that the existing source, not itself being published, but being referenced in a journal-published work is not enough, correct?
  2. This source, while different, both references the original work (since removed) and is peer reviewed. It comes to similar conclusions as well. Would this source be RS? https://ledger.pitt.edu/ojs/ledger/article/view/195

Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the current source for that section, which is the only source for that entire section:
  • Aggarwal, Vipul; Tan, Yong (January 2019). "A Structural Analysis of Bitcoin Cash's Emergency Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm". ResearchGate. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3383739. S2CID 214022150.
I hadn't noticed until now, but this doesn't appear to be a WP:RS either. It doesn't appear to have been published anywhere. Without reliable sources, the section should be removed.
For the other source, what, exactly, are you proposing this source be used for? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Don't just replace sources, summarize what those sources are saying.
Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Just want to check first if it would be RS. While this paper does not talk about all claims in the current text, it could probably be used to add details either to that section, or mixed into another section. If RS, then I can propose some alternate text. ILoveFinance (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
These so-called scientific sources are often not reliable. I havent looked in detail, but sometimes these can just be some grad student. Please explain why a particular scientific source is worthy to include, mostly it isnt in this genre. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
True, but also often times they are written by professors or research fellows, too.
Could you please clarify the question? ILoveFinance (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I dont have a question, we are just telling you we dont think it is an RS on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, could've been more clear; Can you elaborate on this? "Please explain why a particular scientific source is worthy to include, mostly it isnt in this genre."
Maybe that last clause is why the first part is also unclear. ILoveFinance (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you can safely assume that academic sources are not going to be ok on crypto genre articles unless the scientific source author himself has a wikipedia page (eg Dan Boneh) . Otherwise we are just going to assume it is a random student and then not sufficient quality for this genre. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Why would you just assume? Most papers are very easy to tell if from a student, professor, research fellow, or otherwise.
Are we instituting a new rule? I thought published documents are acceptable (issue was with unpublished). Per Grayfell, if research is published, it can be RS. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not making a new rule, that is not how wikipedia works. One person doesnt make rules. We create rules through consensus. I will let Grayfell speak as to what he meant, but what I mean is if the author is not notable, the content is probably not sufficient to be considered an WP:RS. We use this across the crypto genre already. Your position about if it is published is also valid, and again WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is going to help on this. If it is peer reviewed maybe. If it is a research paper by one non-notable grad student, the answer again is going to be no mostly likely. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you if a non-notable student, likely not RS. But if peer-reviewed/published, I very well imagine that can be RS without the author having a wikipedia page.
This writeup, for instance, is peer reviewed and published in a journal: https://ledger.pitt.edu/ojs/ledger/article/view/195
This is written by a professor and published in a journal: https://stanford-jblp.pubpub.org/pub/hard-forks-bitcoin/release/2
Of course, CONTEXTMATTERS, but I haven't received clarity that these are RS or not. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
We are not using ledger journal, that is not an RS. Maybe the Stanford piece I would also say not an RS as neither of the authors appear to be notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you clarify how you state they are not "notable"? It appears there is a non-solid goalpost. Criteria are peer reviewed/published. Those meet those criteria. However, now the goalpost seems to have moved? ILoveFinance (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct, wikipedia has no firm rules. What I say here is not a rule, it is my opinion of the established consensus. You are repeatedly stating that I am making rules or changing the rules, which I am not and thus I do not appreciate this comment. I have already advised you of a previous RFC on this article to tighten sourcing, you can assume that is quite broadly construed as to content on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You are not providing any solid ground for your comments, which I do not appreciate. Tighter sourcing, yes, we've established that. The repetition is unnecessary. But you yourself must recognize the appearance of moving goalposts when it is stated that peer-reviewed/published content would meet the criteria, then saying roughly "well that's not enough, they don't appear notable to me so I'm saying these are not RS"
I don't even quite understand why Ledger is not allowed. It is a peer-reviewed journal focused on blockchains. This is not a crypto-news source. It is a peer-reviewed journal. You just stated "that is not an RS." ILoveFinance (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I will remind you that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy. It isn't enough for a source to be technically reliable in some unspecified context, that source needs to be neutrally summarized for the benefit of disinterested readers. In order to know whether or not a source is reliable, we need to not only know the source, but what it is going to be used for. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Active community sanctions

Please see the "WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS" notice at the top of this page. The reason community sanctions apply to this topic is that there has been a never-ending stream of users wanting to use Wikipedia to promote crypto technology. That will not be happening. New users need to understand that articles do not use market-speak. Also, it is not reasonable for an WP:SPA to expect other editors to spend an excessive amount of time explaining basic procedures and fixing inappropriate wording. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf can you please explain how the white paper is "nonsense" That's hardly a productive edit description. That is the exact whitepaper, and found on "the official" site, per you. ILoveFinance (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I do see someone has tagged the website for source needed. Do you dispute this is the website? If so, feel free to remove it. This type of content can only stay if it without dispute. I am not opposed to its removal. I did remove the absurd claim that Satoshi Nakamoto wrote the whitepaper for Bitcoin Cash. Did you add that content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The whitepaper was published as a document explaining important fundamentals, as summarized in the title: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". The fundamentals cover several key aspects of Bitcoin such as a system avoiding a trusted third party, using a chain of proof of work, and an incentive mechanism for securing the network. It is important to note that what is described in the whitepaper does not exist in any exact form in today's Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash or any other chain. However, both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash use the whitepaper as a basis for their fundamentals and a historical reference.
For a parallel situation, please consider, for example, Martin Luther's Theses. Can only the Lutheran church claim that as a historical root? Or is it valid for Protestantism in general to claim it as part of their historical roots? Or the Bible as a whole, there are many sects in Christianity that reference the Bible as their historical root.
It is a similar reality for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, whether or not one group acknowledges the other's use of the whitepaper.
Regarding your question: not sure. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Find many RS to show that this is the whitepaper. This is a WP:FRINGE POV to state that Nakamoto wrote a whitepaper for Bitcoin Cash. Stop pushing a promotional narrative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin, so they share history and heritage prior to the fork. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
While that might be true, do you have any RS that states this whitepaper is the whitepaper of Bitcoin Cash? We dont just WP:SYNTH things here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Correcting "Bitcoin" to "bitcoin"

@GhostOfNoMan -- I noticed your update of "Bitcoin" to "bitcoin," per the Bitcoin FAQ. Should we update all references from capital B to lowercase? If confirmed, I can take care of that unless you plan to. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself! I posted about it on the Bitcoin talk page a few hours ago, to get other people's thoughts because I was unsure (Talk:Bitcoin#Capitalisation (bitcoin vs Bitcoin)). I feel like it wouldn't make much sense for the lowercase style to apply solely to the bitcoin article, right? So I'd definitely support updating Bitcoin → bitcoin in this article, unless anyone disagrees for some reason! GhostOfNoMan 03:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
There has been a lot of discussions over the years at Bitcoin and I thought the consensus was to use large B. I suggest to post over at that talkpage as that article gets much more editor traffic than this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Consensus is apparently for lowercase bitcoin per Bitcoin/FAQ (since at least 2014) – but yes, I've opened a discussion there as well. GhostOfNoMan 04:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Alon Alush, "bitcoin" must be lowercase, per Talk:Bitcoin/FAQ. Please revert your edits relating to this. Thank you. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware of this up until now. Alon Alush (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
All good! Many of us weren't until GhostOfNoMan pointed it out! Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin_Cash/Archive_11&oldid=1262940576"