Open main menu

RfC: Shall Bitcoin Cash be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section?Edit

The consensus is that Bitcoin Cash should be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

Shall Bitcoin Cash be characterized as a software fork of bitcoin in the first sentence of the lead section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • No Per WP:LEAD, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". In relation to this, note that
    • The information that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork of bitcoin" is not covered in the remainder of the article.
    • The remainder of the article cites several independent reliable sources that state that "Bitcoin Cash is a product of a hard fork of bitcoin", or simply that "Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork of bitcoin",[1][2][3] which is a different notion than the notion of a software fork, a notion that contradicts the characterization as a software fork.
    • Other sources cited in the article use various other characterizations of Bitcoin Cash incompatible with the "software fork" characterization.[4][5][6][7]
    • Per Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain,[8] "Hard fork, also known as Hard-Forking Change, is a permanent divergence in the blockchain, commonly occurs when non-upgraded nodes can't validate blocks created by upgraded nodes that follow newer consensus rules. Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork.", i.e. this source confirms that the text stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork..." or the text stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a fork..." is confusing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Therefore, the characterization of Bitcoin Cash as a software fork contained in the first sentence of the article is all of WP:OR, violating WP:LEAD and violating WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, because it is, and it's a stupendously important fact about it. Sources support this. If it's absent from the body of the article, then it needs to be added - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • And now it turns out that someone did try to add it, with extensive citation, and Ladislav removed it claiming this RFC as his excuse. RFCs are not weapons to be used in an edit war - David Gerard (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per David above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes (bot-summon), because it is one, and the only opposition to that wording comes from a (not very plausible IMO) confusion with a domain-specific jargon term. We should not be importing WP:JARGON, but instead use the most common term, especially if it can be wikilinked (as is the case here). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes (invited by a bot) It's important information that belongs in the lead. If it's not also elsewhere in the article now then it should be added. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes (the bot sent me) per David Gerard who is an internationally recognized subject matter expert and also right about the impropriety of trying to use this RFC as an excuse not to include the fact. Shame! EllenCT (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes obviously critical information about Bitcoin Cash.Adoring nanny (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes it is basically what the subject of the article is. However, even if that info is placed somewhere else in the lede it is not a big mistake. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I added a little content with quotations to the article main-space (not the subject of this RfC) that explores some of the software fork concepts as it relates to this article's subject. There is plenty more to this, and in fact the notoriety of this subject of this article is relates to software forks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - your misrepresentations of the sources already cited in the article are not what you should do. Discuss here, if you have got anything to discuss. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You just tried to directly block edits that showed your querulous RFC was in error. The RFC process is not meant to call a pause on well-cited information you don't want in an article: "Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling." - David Gerard (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
No, I just tried to do all of these:
  • revert the changes since their author claimed that he did not intend to make changes related to the RfC, and since the RfC has not been resolved yet
  • revert the changes since the majority of them were mirepresentations of the statements made by the sources already cited in the article
  • revert the changes since it does not appear that the source they added, the South China Morning Post is a provably reliable source
  • revert the changes since even the citation of the South China Morning Post was used to confirm something it does not confirm. I do not think that if Bitcoin Cash is compared to a word processing program, the lead section of the article should state that "Bitcoin Cash is word processing program...", and according the the source,[8] such a claim would be as confusing as a formulation stating that "Bitcoin Cash is a software fork...".
  • Last but not least. you suggest (for the second time already) that a RfC is "querulous". Would you be so kind to point me to a Wikipedia rule defining the notion of a querulous RfC for me to be able to not make the same mistake again? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Ladslav, the South China Morning Post is a top shelf RS. You reverted [1] a sources in addition to SCMP and your edit summary was STATUSQUO. David already responded that your reasoning relating to statusquo was incorrect. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Re "the South China Morning Post is a top shelf RS." - well, no. Since 2016, significant questions about the independence of the newspaper were raised. They are listed in the linked article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Does SCMP have anything at WP:RSN relating to finance or crypto? Hong Kong is the subject of current events relating to its relationship with China, but I dont think that is the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I was bot-summonned to that discussion. Even though I am moderately familiar with software development, I have no idea what is meant by [hard fork] is a different notion than [that] of a software fork (Ladislav Mecir), even after reading the refs in the RfC's first "no". My best guess is that it means crypto blocks computed under code A cannot be used to generate currency or validate transactions according to code B and vice versa, but I do not see how that is a meaningful distinction over a software fork (forks are rarely cross-compatible). Barring a (sourced) explanation of that distinction, I strongly lean towards "yes, BC is a (software or whatever) fork of Bitcoin". TigraanClick here to contact me 07:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Tigraan. Thank you for your question. A definition of a hard fork can be found, e.g. in Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain,[8] where it is stated: "Hard fork, also known as Hard-Forking Change, is a permanent divergence in the blockchain, commonly occurs when non-upgraded nodes can't validate blocks created by upgraded nodes that follow newer consensus rules. Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork." Perhaps it can help. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. That definition seems to be domain-specific jargon for "backwards-incompatible fork". Would that phrasing ease your opposition to "soft fork"? (I would oppose "hard fork" because we should not use domain-specific jargon whenever avoidable.) TigraanClick here to contact me 08:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi again. I will try to add information. You stated that you are moderately familiar with software development. The main problem is, that the hard fork or soft fork are terms used in relation to blockchains, i.e. they are not software development terms. Note that the source[8] defines also the notion of a soft fork, stating "Soft fork or Soft-Forking Change is a temporary fork in the blockchain which commonly occurs when miners using non-upgraded nodes don't follow a new consensus rule their nodes don't know about. Not to be confused with fork, hard fork, software fork or Git fork." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It does seem to be domain specific jargon. As far as I can tell a hard fork occurs on the blockchain is when the miners or nodes or users run a fork (software). There is also this fork (blockchain) which seems it might be a subset of software fork, and includes both a soft fork and hard fork. There is another concept called a chain split (discussed in the past on this talk page), thus we are dealing with three different terms and they seem to be very sensitive terms to the Bitcoin Cash community.
Some earlier discussions:
Its all very esoteric. I read news on this crypto space and I cannot say for sure what is the difference or if there is a difference between a chain split or hard fork, and for sure the two terms seem to be interchanged in the press. JonRichfield (talk · contribs) added the fork (software) wikilink in the lede (which seemed fine to me), then Ladislav didn't agree and started a discussion above this on this talk page, then Ladislav started this RfC. From my understanding it seems to be 'a software fork resulted in a hard fork which caused a chain split,' but I am not sure even on that and I dont see how this much jargon will help the reader... at least until a few of us editors understand it and have sources for it and the sources have consensus on what this all means. David Gerard (talk · contribs) writes on this space, he might have some light to share on this as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Re "at least until a few of us editors understand it and have sources for it" - You say that you do not understand it, and do not know the sources. Why, then, you are trying to fabricate the WP:OR claiming that "Bitcoin Cash is a software upgrade" as you did in this edit? Do you struggle at understanding the Wikipedia policies and goals that require you to not represent your own research or opinions in the article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I have provided RS relating the software fork/upgrade (CNBC, Bloomberg, SCMP). I don't understand your point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"I have provided RS relating the software fork" - well, no. You cited a SMCP source which does not claim that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, a CNBC source which does not claim that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, and stated as a fact an opinion by Olga Kharif writing for Bloomberg - it does not state that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork either. In addition to that, you distorted the statements by several other sources saying that Bitcoin Cash is a hard fork as if they said that Bitcoin Cash is a (software) fork. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a wikiwarrior game and I wish you would stop it. It might feed your personal sense of self-importance, but some folks, saving your grace, would like to get constructive work done, and feeding your personal ego won't cut it. JonRichfield (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The bloomberg source [2] is not an opinion piece. CNBC and and SCMP content are displayed largely in quotes, thus the reader can make their own decision. Your statements dont make any sense and fly in the face of both the sources and the evidence that bitcoin cash is an open source software fork with its primary client (Bitcoin ABC) having its own github [3], etc. I just added this sw version of the bitcoin ABC client (with this diff [4]), sw version was missing from the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The reliable sources call it a fork, and it is one. You appear to be trying to find ambiguity in particular senses of definitions which exists neither in reality nor - and this is the key point - in the sources about it. Please stop doing this, it just comes across as querulous - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Tigraan wrote: "Yes because it is one" - without a supporting source, this is just a WP:OR. Another argument: "We should not be importing WP:JARGON, but instead use the most common term". This is another problem: both the notion of a software fork as well as the notion of a hard fork are technical terms that can be linked. However, Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency, not a word processing program. As The Independent or other sources cited in the article explain it, "On 1 August 2017, the blockchain of bitcoin – an online ledger that documents every transaction – was split in two, spawning a brand new rival to the original cryptocurrency called bitcoin cash."[9] Note also that the editor opinion directly contradicts the cited reliable sources stating "Not to be confused with fork, soft fork, software fork or Git fork." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
The Independent source you cite also seems to support the notion of software fork (ie split). The project split, or maybe the married couple split up. In this case we are talking about a software project. It seems the nuance you are proposing is if we shall consider bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (such Bitcoin Cash) to be software or if instead we shall consider them as to be something else such as blockchains. However, according to my understanding blockchain is a subset of software. Regardless this nuance is not the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Your point that "software fork" opposes in-domain terminology has been well-made already. I disagree that we should follow in-domain jargon in WP, and so does everyone else who participated so far. If you want to keep writing in support of your position, consider using new arguments.
As for the sources, I did not think I had to re-cite them, but see Jtbobwaysf's post above with mainstream media sources. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Tigraan, nobody could rightly ask you to recite any source at all. Nevertheless, Jtbobwaysf did not cite any source stating that Bitcoin Cash is a software fork, as opposed to many sources stating the opposite. Also David Gerard just repeats himself in stating that this RfC is "querulous", as if that was an argument supporting anything at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It is starting to appear you are pushing a POV that Bitcoin Cash is this accidental fork of bitcoin. The article and the sources shows that Bitcoin Cash is an entirely new software project, with its own github, and its own blockchain. Maybe the blockchain that the Bitcoin Cash software produces is a "blockchain fork" in that it shares some of the same common data as bitcoin (the data prior to the split is shared). However, the software project that is producing that blockchain today are software project(s), with a version(s), github contributors, etc. The sources above support that. As David points out above you are attempting to lawyer in some ambiguity to this. Is bitcoin cash a software project or a blockchain project? That's the question I think you are addressing and it is not the subject of this RfC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Selena Larson (1 August 2017). "Bitcoin split in two, here's what that means". CNN Tech. Cable News Network. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  2. ^ Titcomb, James (2 August 2017). "Bitcoin Cash: Price of new currency rises after bitcoin's 'hard fork'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  3. ^ Orcutt, Mike (14 November 2017). "Bitcoin Cash Had a Big Day, Hinting at a Deep Conflict in the Cryptocurrency Community". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  4. ^ Kelly, Jemima (15 May 2018). "Bitcoin cash is expanding into the void". Financial Times. Retrieved 3 June 2018.
  5. ^ Lee, Timothy B. (20 December 2017). "Bitcoin rival Bitcoin Cash soars as Coinbase adds support". Ars Technica. Retrieved 19 June 2018.
  6. ^ Titcomb, James (2 August 2017). "Bitcoin Cash: Price of new currency rises after bitcoin's 'hard fork'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  7. ^ Chen, Lulu Yilun; Lam, Eric. "Bitcoin Is Likely to Split Again in November, Say Major Players". Bloomberg. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
  8. ^ a b c d Antonopoulos, Andreas (2017). Mastering Bitcoin: Programming the Open Blockchain (2 ed.). USA: O' Reilly media, inc. p. Glossary. ISBN 978-1491954386.
  9. ^ Cuthbertson, Anthony (21 May 2018). "The Battle over Bitcoin: Scandal and Infighting as 'Bitcoin Cash' Threatens to Overthrow the Most Famous Cryptocurrency". Independent. Retrieved 23 July 2018.

The discussion above 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.

Consolidate and update historyEdit

I believe 2018 split to create Bitcoin SV should be a part of history section as it is now a part of Bitcoin Cash history. Two projects have diverged a lot and communities are now separate. Also, there are no information about may 2019 hard fork upgrade of the BCH network. There are a lot of historical information all around the article that are not up-to-date. Most of the statistics like trading volume and usage are ephemeric and change violently almost daily. Is there a point in having them here? Maybe instead let's put a link to some live charts and statiscics in the section External links. It will be much more informative and it will require less effort with maintaining the article. --MayaDancer (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems logical Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jtbobwaysf. I don't have permissions necessary to edit this article, but my proposition of the part about May19 upgrade is the following:
On 15 May 2019 Bitcoin Cash network went through successful hard fork protocol upgrade. Upgrade enabled signing transactions with Schnorr signatures and allowed recovery of funds mistakenly sent to segwit addresses. [1] [2]
If it meets standards of Wikipedia, I ask anyone with editing permissions to add it along with other changes I proposed. --MayaDancer (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi @MayaDancer: these sources are not considered to be WP:RS on these cryptocurrency articles (not only this article). We will need a mainstream source, such as WSJ, NYT, bloomberg, etc. Note we also need to find I would think at least 5 mainstream sources to justify splitting this Bitcoin Cash article to carve off Bitcoin SV from it. Do we have 5 mainstream sources for SV? Note that contributor sources are not usable. Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, About the upgrade - I don't think I will find such sources. This approach is of course correct although this specific topic is interesting for specialist. Pity it won't be covered by wikipedia. About creation of a separate article about BSV, I'll ask someone of BSV community. Who would think I'll have trouble proving it merely exists with articles that are not behind paywall? Restructuring article will have to wait for BSV article, I presume. Are you still positive to replace ephemeric data with a single link to external charts? Thanks for help and for keeping everything reliable. --MayaDancer (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
MayaDancer If you have a new software version I think there will be little opposition to updating the software version with a link to github. But adding anything about features, etc I think that will not be allowed. As for using paywall articles from good WP:RS that might be allowed to define notability. Someone with a paid account can take a look. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi, MayaDancer. While Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are separate cryptocurrencies as you correctly note, a discussion decided to redirect the contents of the previously existing separate Bitcoin SV article to the Bitcoin Cash#2018 split to create Bitcoin SV section. A move of the section content would interfere with this decision. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That really doesn't bind this article in perpetuity. Anchors are movable, and redirects are repointable - David Gerard (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kelso, Edward (15 May 2019). "Bitcoin Cash May 2019 Upgrade Complete, Schnorr Signatures Implemented". Coinspice. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
  2. ^ Zegers, Antony; Lundeberg, Mark B. "2019-MAY-15 Network Upgrade Specification". github.com. bitcoincash.org. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
Return to "Bitcoin Cash" page.