Talk:Bitcoin Cash/Archive 3

Bitcoin Cash (also known as Bcash).[1]^[2][3][4][5]

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey altname

• Support Both industry and mainstream
  MOS:LEADALT conditions are met. Jtbobwaysf (talk
  ) 11:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Its a derogatory slur used against Bitcoin Cash for the purpose of propaganda. Its not a description or common name. No software developers or exchanges refer to it that way. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That source you mentioned doesn't appear to mention the altname Bcash. Did I miss something? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you often miss things. You repeatedly fail to understand the editing process, for example. Its not a source. Its a link to an article describing the disinformation campaign against BCH I have been trying to correct here. As you are probably aware the purpose is to disassociate a strong competitor to the original Bitcoin. Former President Obama gets referred to as a heap of things; we don't include them in our articles because they have no significance. Its the same with the Bcash slur or your use of the word trash. Please start using [

better source needed] if you feel a source is lacking. - Shiftchange (talk

) 15:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your reply again, and think what effect "Yes, you often miss things" has on people's assessment of your intent. You claim that "bcash" is a slur, and support that with a link to an article that doesn't mention the word "bcash" or give any hint that nicknames for Bitcoin Cash are being used in a derogatory way. Then User:Jtbobwaysf asks for clarification, and you respond condescendingly and aggressively. As someone who is not involved in the discussion, that gives me the impression that you're not very cooperative. --Slashme (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Bcash" is a derogatory name, and should not be included without being acknowledged as such per
  MOS:NICKNAME Omcnoe (talk
  ) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose
  • Per the Bitcoin Magazine[6] the poster of this RfC cites as a source, "Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding (to "Bcash") insulting or even a 'social attack'."
  • Per the same Bitcoin Magazine article,^[6] 'most companies that integrated the new coin into their service in one way or another, including Bittrex, Changelly and BTC.com, have also chosen to use the name "Bitcoin Cash"'.
  • Per CoinTelegraph,^[4] "A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally." After being criticized for the unprofessional behaviour, both the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges quickly switched to using the Bitcoin Cash name. If Wikipedia used the unprofessional and petty naming, it would consequently be criticized in the same way.
  • Per The Merkle^[7] and other sources, "there are multiple projects with the BCash name... none of which have anything to do with the alternative version of Bitcoin."
  • It is not true that the usage of the Bcash name is significant. The huge majority of articles published by reliable sources mentions Bitcoin Cash as the name of the cryptocurrency.
  • Summing up, per
    WP:NICKNAME, highlighting Bcash, which is an uncommon and disputed appellation in the lead section would give it undue weight, and would also be a more general neutrality problem. Ladislav Mecir (talk
    ) 06:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Bcash is not a derogatory term. As said by the sources, it is a failed rebranding attempt. Having failed to rebrand Bitcoin Cash to Bcash in case of the Bitstamp and Bitfinex exchanges or to convince wallet providers or significantly many journalists to push their agenda, the proponents of the rebranding are now trying to use the Wikipedia for the purpose. While it is not in their power to use the Wikipedia to rebrand Bitcoin Cash, they are at least trying to pretend that the failed Bcash rebranding has got the same notability as the original and widely used Bitcoin Cash name. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose It's not "also known as", it's a derogatory term. REDGOLPE (TALK) 14:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to only be pejorative use to me. Can any one provide primary sources that are neutral or positive about Bitcoin Cash and use the term "BCash" throughout? Bicoind3 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, i don't support the use of "Bcash" in the lead as an altname at this time but the sourcing provided is plenty to discuss this in the body of the article, and there is currently no discussion of it. It is very clear from the sources that advocates for Bitcoin Cash see it as derogatory and bad but that is no reason to make a decision in WP. It is just too soon to see if this going to be a valid altname or not. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • FYI, there was a section named "Market acceptance and naming" in the article body. Curiously, the poster of this RfC deleted it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    • mmm i think you mean this diff. The content there was not about the naming issue really but said which names which exchanges used. That did not describe the controversy.Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I just looked at the diff and I did indeed delete it. I think this content got swept out relating to some
        WP:TE on the part of another editor (discussed above, adding lots of poorly sourced content). I did previously add a small naming section in the hopes that it could address the naming disupte, however it was blanked see [3]. Thanks! I think I will give another crack at it, unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks for the feedback! Jtbobwaysf (talk
        ) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The term is only used pejoratively. David G (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here's an analogy. Some people dislike the former British prime minister Tony Blair, and refer to him as "Bliar". If you Google for "Bliar", you'll find plenty of hits, many of them to RSs such as The Economist, all referring to Blair. But it is not his name, it is an insult directed at him. The string "Bliar" does not appear in the Wikipedia article about him. ("Tony" is not his name either, his real first name is Anthony; but he is widely known as "Tony".) Maproom (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - it doesn't seem to be very widespread in reliable sources, and there is good reason to believe that it's not a neutral name. That means that it shouldn't be given in the lead sentence of the article as an alternative name, but it's an interesting development that should be discussed in the article, to the extent that it is supported by reliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Conditionally support This kitchen is a bit hot, but before departing I think that as a nonuser of ecurrency and one who had never heard of Bcash, I may observe in good faith that if the term Bcash is widely recognised (not necessarily widely or frequently used) then it is proper and reasonable to include the fact in the article, even if primarily as a redirect. Otherwise the innocent who encounters "Bcash" is left un-helped when he wishes to find out what the word might mean, and what the status of the term Bcash might be in the field. Our primary duty is to inform the reader, not observe the tender sensitivities of interested parties who would like to censor what they see as insults. In the event that we do in fact mention the usage, then it would be reasonable, if indeed true, to say something such as "Bitcoin has also been referred to, apparently in various derogatory senses, as Bcash."
  If nothing else, that information might prevent naive users from both puzzlement and the embarrassment attendant on the use of five-letter words in polite company. JonRichfield (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that the usage has criticism. It's a bit stilly to call it "derogatory", etc., since there's nothing intrinsically negative about it. It's just an informal shortening. So, we should not use labels like "derogatory" or "slur" in Wikipedia's own voice. But it also shouldn't be listed as simply an alternative name, but an abbreviation that's disfavored in some contexts. It should be included for completeness, and boldfaced as a redirected alt. term, so that people end up at this article when they look for that term and can find it quickly in the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion altname

• Comment Per the Wikipedia:Requests for comment article, statements should be neutral. The above statement is not neutral. "If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement is fine. Jytdog (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

We can see Jytdog's bias against Bitcoin Cash with this statement as they disregard neutrality. Why aren't you following our policies and guidelines. They are instructive. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Per
  MOS:NICKNAME: "Highlighting uncommon or disputed appellations in the lead section gives them undue weight, and may also be a more general neutrality problem if the phrase is laudatory or critical." Bcash is a derogatory nickname for Bitcoin Cash, and thus it's inclusion in the lead section would present a neutrality problem. Omcnoe (talk
  ) 05:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Question A few editors have claimed during this RfC that the name Bcash is a nickname and derogatory. Do you have any sources to substantiate these claims? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It is hard to find reliable secondary sources for many things cryptocurrency related. Nevertheless, here are some that describe the term "Bcash" as a pejorative or derogatory alternative name for Bitcoin Cash^[8][9][10]. There are reliable primary sources from major community members, labeling Bcash as a derogatory term^[11].Omcnoe (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Read your two sources provided. Coinsquare is not an RS, it is a bitcoin buying website, thus

WP:COI applies. About CCN looks like a poor quality source, but in the end it confirms the RfC in that people are using the Bcash term. It might also be useful to create the section you described below to go over a controversy. I looked a lot online and couldn't find sufficient sources to create a controversy section, if you can find it, please list. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough to support a 'Naming Controversy' section.Ladislav Mecir has already provided several RS above. From 'Bitcoin Magazine': "Many maintain that the name “Bitcoin Cash” simply is what the new coin is called, and claim that the name “Bcash” is mostly pushed by those who disapprove of the project. Some even go so far as to consider the rebranding insulting or even a “social attack” on the new cryptocurrency". From Coin Telegraph "Throughout the past few months, some of the most influential investors and figures within the Bitcoin Cash community including early-stage Bitcoin Investor Roger Ver and Bitmain Co-founder Jihan Wu encouraged the cryptocurrency community to not refer to Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, because the original name of the Blockchain project is Bitcoin Cash." "In response to the initial announcement of Bitstamp and the decision of the company to list Bitcoin Cash as Bcash, Cøbra wrote: 'A large exchange like Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It's funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally.'". From Coindesk^[12] "...'bcash' is a grave insult to bitcoin cash supporters.". Omcnoe (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP. Do we use the same BLP standard for open source software? Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 09:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The same principle applies. Putting aside the issue of whether or not Bcash is a a derogatory name for now and assuming that it is, it would be non-neutral to include it as such without reference to the derogatory nature. As an example, many years ago on the internet it was common to refer to Microsoft as Micro$oft or M$. It would not be suitable to include this nickname as an altname in the Microsoft article, at least without acknowledging that it is a derogatory nickname. Omcnoe (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree it should be treated neutrally. I think there are likely different standards for

WP:SOAP, which doesn't support the exclusion of well cited content. As you have pointed out, there does seem to be sufficient content to support a naming section, which I did add before by the way and Ladislav blanked it. I put the diff link above in a response to jytdog. Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 15:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the most amenable solution here would be to include the altname in the article body, perhaps in a 'Naming Controversy' section, where this controversy can be neutrally covered. Present the argument against 'Bitcoin Cash' and for 'Bcash', and the argument for 'Bitcoin Cash' and against 'Bcash'. As it is unfortunately the choices for this RFC are limited (for/against a non-neutral mention in the lead). I propose rejecting this RFC & adding mention of 'Bcash' under a naming controversy section - this would be the most neutral way to cover the naming controversy. Omcnoe (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose As the case of two exchanges - Bitfinex and Bitstamp - documents, Bcash is a failed attempt to rebrand the cryptocurrency, while Bitcoin Cash is the actual name used by the industry and the huge majority of sources. Putting them on equal footing in the article body would be a violation of NPOV, giving the failed rebranding attempt undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir:, I think you already voted strongly oppose above, what are you voting for again here? Or are you opposed to Omcnoe (talk · contribs) comments above? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I will point out the recent repeated vandalism to this page using names such as "BTrash", "Bitcoin Trash", "ChinaCoin" and "VerCoin" alongside "Bcash", as further evidence that "Bcash" is a derogative name. Alongside the secondary sources already provided that claim "Bcash" is used as a derogative, I think that the evidence is strongly in favor. Is there even a single RS with a non-negative take that uses the term, or claims that it is not derogative? Omcnoe (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the mainstream RS provided in the RfC do not mention anything of this derogatory claim. Assuming arugendo the altname is deroretory,

WP:BLP apply as some have suggested above. Next, this RfC is not about adding any of the other social media names you mention (chinacoin, vercoin, etc) and I have not seen any of those with RS. Have you? I don't see how other proposed altnames can used be evidence for or against this RfC unless you can show them related in some kind of RS. The discussion here is if the Bcash usage is significant to meet the altname test and if there is some other means for the Bitcoin Cash advocates to argue for its exlusion (covered under SOAP). Jtbobwaysf (talk

) 08:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have stated above, I am not opposed to the inclusion of the altname in the article, assuming that it is given neutral treatment. Many of the RS already provided in this rfc provide evidence of the name being derogatory as has I believe been discussed multiple times above, and this information should be included in the article. Included the name without mentioning the caveat that it is used derogatively would be extremely non-netrual. Wikipedia unsurprisingly lacks policy on derogatory nicknames for software, as I don't think that it's been a big problem before. So I think that it is reasonable to apply policies from topics where derogatory nicknames are an issue, such as

MOS:NICKNAME. Omcnoe (talk

) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is to tighten sourcing [6] for this article to only allow high quality mainstream RS and remove industry rag sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support This article suffers from a lot of promotion (obvious looking at talk page above) with JzG (talk · contribs) mentioning poor sourcing above in section Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#Review of sources and pruning out fancruft and later Smallbones (talk · contribs) making this [7] edit to remove these sources. I support this effort by uninvolved editors that tightens sourcing to clamp down on the promotion that this article suffers from. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support in general on this and all related topics. There's a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage of cryptocurrency and blockchain stuff that's all overly credulous and frequently clueless. Even when it's not, it reads like mid-1990s writing about the future of the Internet and "virtual reality", i.e. it's a bunch of a wild opinion based on fantasies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support @SMcCandlish: gets it right when he says "a sewer pipeline of industry-rag coverage", "frequently clueless", and "wild opinion based on fantasies". But he's being too gentle. All the industry sources are promotional and should be removed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• SUPPORT obviously. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Trade publications should rarely be used for anything. Would suggest applying this to all Bitcoin and Crypto related articles in Wikipedia, not just this one.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Trade pubs rarely provide sufficiently independent / in-depth coverage, so tightening the requirements to a couple of the more reputable ones is an improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - (invited randomly by a bot) WP:RS is central as always. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I never like to see promotional material used as a source. Makes me feel dirty :) StarHOG (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support and would gladly see this take place for ALL cryptocurrency-related topics. Nanophosis (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support There is a proliferation of citations of quasi-news sites with unknown or poor editorial practices. I would love to see more rigorous approach to sources in cryptocurrency-related articles. Retimuko (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, and extend to all cryptocurrency topics. Why does this even need saying? I think I can answer that question. Most unreliable/promotional sources are aimed at the general public, and WP editors have no problem recognising them as unreliable. But unreliable/promotional sources on cryptocurrencies are aimed at people smart enough at least to understand what a cryptocurrency is, and may therefore appear somewhat more credible. Maproom (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support and prune TP as well, 140Kbytes ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Someone snow close please. Darx9url (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hold Thanks for running the survey, I might be a minority voice here. It's easy to feel the sources are overwhelmingly distrustworthy, and I do agree with you too, but, can we have a whitelist of what's called reliable source? I disagree with calling al industry source as "unrelaible source". According to
  WP:RS. Please narrow down to either have a blacklist of bad sources or a whitelist of good industry source these group of participants can agree on. The reason I argue this is because, I've seen many non-industry sources with limited knowledge to the field publishing also wild exaggeration, speculations and fantasies. To begin with, Ledger claimes to be a peer-reviewed journal, which is also an industry resource. Xinbenlv (talk
  ) 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)