Talk:List of bitcoin forks

Differentiate software forks from blockchain forks?

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)

Proliferation of unsourced and probably not notable content

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)

A closer look showed that only two(!) have Wikipedia pages (Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold), and the rest are completely unsourced. The whole list must go! Dear colleagues, we must do something about it. I would suggest that whose editors who are busy adding entries should try to urgently add reliable secondary sources. Otherwise we will have to get rid of almost the whole thing. Retimuko (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New user here, what specifically is a 'reliable secondary source' in the crypto space? Historically, the crypto community has relied on bitcointalk.org for announcements. bitcointalk.org seems to be banned on Wikipedia. At this point, is there such a thing as an unbiased source of information in the space - period(sadly)? Creativecuriosity 04:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

We should consider sources according to WP:RS, which also discusses bias (reliable doesn't mean unbiased). Simply speaking, some major news outlets with editorial control and reputation for fact checking. Currently the whole list lacks any kind of sources except self-published primary sources. We should only add entries to the list when, say, CoinDesk writes about some fork. Retimuko (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bloomberg would be a reliable source according to the linked guidance? For example: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativecuriosity (talk • contribs) 07:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

congratulations, you have cleaned up the article so much it is practically useless. sure glad I read it a few days ago so I could learn about the other forks... nobody's going to know about them now. John Comeau (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have independent reliable sources? If not, then, perhaps, the article is useless indeed, and maybe even should be removed. This is not a place to collect rumors and speculations. Retimuko (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2018 (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)

How about you try to find sources for things before deleting content? I re-added a bunch of that content with easily found sources. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This was a useful article until the list was slashed. I propose a new section for the forks that have been announced but are not yet active. BillyMiles (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to revert Retimukos changes, because the page is locked. But the list helped me! I already claimed many of these coins and here are even more of them Masr (talk) 18:23, 14 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)

"Useful" is subjective judgement and poor argument for adding or keeping content. Please see WP:USEFUL. The tag was on top of the page for a while (we should remove it now I suppose), and it clearly says: "Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." First, all future speculation was removed, then, after a while, all other unsourced content was removed. The content must be notable and verifiable. If you cannot produce an independent reliable source mentioning some fork, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This is the most fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is not for promotion of your favorite hype. Promote your fork by having some major reputable news outlet publishing an article about it first, so it can be cited here. Retimuko (talk) 19:12, 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)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists. In short: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." Anyone can create a fork and a web site about it. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. A fork must be notable and the information must be based on independent reliable sources. These are basics of Wikipedia. Retimuko (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Even when you mention notability, WP:N also mentioned that notability guidelines only "outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.". In the "Common selection criteria" sub-section in WP:LSC page, it have also mentioned that, for list articles, " While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list.". Of course anyone can create a fork and a website about the fork and thus it is rather open-ended and as such in long term it would need to find a way to filter out what sort of fork are to be notable to be included in the article, however, it wouldn't make sense that only like 5 different forks are to be included in the list and the description for each type of forks are even longer than the list of fork themselves. This type of approach can probably work on an article that talk about bitcoin forks but probably not for a list that list out bitcoin forks. C933103 (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You seem to agree that we need to filter out junk somehow, but I don't quite follow what sort of method you are proposing. I suggest using basic Wikipedia principle: there has to be an independent reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Retimuko Some of these forked coins are now live, claimable, actively being traded on various exchanges, and listed on CoinMarketCap.com. What more can you ask? BillyMiles (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

For such popular forks there should be no shortage of independent reliable sources mentioning them, right? Is it too much to ask for? This is a basic requirement of Wikipedia. Retimuko (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is CoinMarketCap an independent reliable source? BillyMiles (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. What do we know about them? How do we know the information is accurate? Also there is no static text there to refer to, but dynamic numbers and charts. How can one cite that? The reader will go there and see something different from what the editor has seen. Retimuko (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They are merely of aggregator of information from the various exchanges. If a coin is listed there, it is because it is being traded somewhere. The citation would just be to the page of that coin to show that it exists and is being traded. It doesn't matter that the numbers and charts are dynamic. BillyMiles (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

An unknown group of people in undisclosed location use non-transparent process of aggregating some data from unknown exchanges. Sounds like a reliable source, doesn't it? I would think that reliable sources must have Wikipedia articles at least. There is no article about CoinMarketCap. Retimuko (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable enough to establish that these coins exist? Yes. Or look directly on the exchanges if you don't believe CoinMarketCap. Existence of a wikipedia article is not necessary for something to be a reliable source. BillyMiles (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In context of Wikipedia I don't believe neither CoinMarketCap, nor the exchanges. Retimuko (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There is something wrong here. A week or so ago, I googled "list of bitcoin forks" and this article was the top hit. I clicked it and found exactly what I was looking for: a complete list of all the forks that have occurred, with the dates they happened. Perfect. This I used to work out which coins I might be able to claim. A couple of days later, I come back and you've deleted almost the whole list. It is now useless to me. I have even bookmarked a historical version of the article for my future reference. I created this wikipedia account to inform editors here that that deletion has made wikipedia less useful for me. You have made wikipedia less useful to me. And my case is surely typical: anyone that googles "list of bitcoin forks" is going to want and expect to find a complete list of bitcoin forks. Several other users above have said the same thing. I did not expect to get into a debate like this about what constitutes a reliable source. Your edits have made wikipedia worse, not better. If you are applying the sourcing rules correctly and it has led to this outcome, then there is something wrong with those rules or the rules should be ignored in this case. I don't know. I just know that something is wrong when an edit that makes wikipedia less useful is allowed to stand. BillyMiles (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is never going to be an information collection site, and that's why it is not going to list anything that can be created by anyone comprehensively. users interested in doing so are more than welcomed to create entry in other websites instead. C933103 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion on notability criteria: as long as one of those coin have been traded on at least one of the notable exchange/large exchange then it would be right for them to be included in this list. What kind of exchanges should be counted can be left for discussion. Edit: for simplicity, coimarketcap could be a good place to reference to too. C933103 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. On the one hand, exchanges are not independent sources. They have conflict of interest. CoinMarketCap seems to be just an aggregator of information from exchanges. On the other hand, the claims we are making in the list must be supported by the sources. We claim things like: time of a fork, block number, who is behind it, reasons for forking and some properties distinguishing from the original chain. None of this can be verified by exchanges or CoinMarketCap. Retimuko (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:IRS. No exchange or coinmarketcap is a suitable source. An article in mainstream press, or maybe Bitcoin Magazine or CoinDesk is just about it. You cant be listed on this article or any other article for that matter if you sources amount to WP:PRIMARY. This is all very clear by wikipedia policy, and we dont make special exceptions for 'cryptocurrencies that are about to save the world.' Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Retimuko: Please note the difference between reliable source and establishment of notability. It is possible to use primary source as reliable source for information about each specific fork, primary sources cannot signify notability but they can be used as reliable source. Also, While in some cases exchanges could have relations with particular forks, the problem can be purged by excluding these sources on a fork-by-fork basis, and also by including only notable or large exchanges as a measure for forks' notability although how to determine which exchanges should be included are remains to be determined. Also, please note that Coinmarketcap is not a nondiscriminatory information collection site, it requires a non zero trading volume on supported exchange for a price to be determined and then an accurate circulating supply figures for market cap ranking. @Jtbobwaysf: I believe exchanges are not considered primary sources when there are no relationship between the exchange and people who imitated forks. Also, you can see #Vendor and e-commerce sources section in WP:IRS that these trading sites are indeed considered a source, although not preferable.C933103 (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How would we know it is a bitcoin fork from looking at coinmarketcap? They have thousands of tokens listed btw Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

C933103 > "While in some cases exchanges could have relations with particular forks, the problem can be purged by excluding these sources on a fork-by-fork basis"

Exchanges have financial interests involved, so they are not independent sources. There is no practical way to "purge the problem". Besides, how do you know looking at a particular chart on an exchange that it has to do with a particular fork of bitcoin?

C933103 > "Coinmarketcap is not a nondiscriminatory information collection site, it requires a non zero trading volume on supported exchange for a price to be determined and then an accurate circulating supply figures for market cap ranking"

How do you know all this? What are the "accurate circulating supply figures"? Who determines the accuracy? You are making bold claims about how CoinMarketCap works, but there is no way to verify that. Retimuko (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The info on whether a coin is bitcoin fork can come from primary source after the verification that the fork meet certain inclusion criteria via third party source
2. Exchanges have financial interest involved, but so are any other e-commerce site. Not perfect to signify notability of an article, but I personally believe that should be enough for an entry in a list class article.
3. Info for the coinmarketcap site that I cited come from the site's FAQ which is linked on the bottom of each page in the respective site.

C933103 (talk) 06:12, 23 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 never said I trust Coinmarketcap based on what their FAQ said. I was simply stating that the FAQ described their criteria of inclusion.As for coinmarketcap itself, a quick google search in the "news search" section would review hundreds of news article by renounced news organization citing the site in different reports, and then if you head to Google scholar search and perform the search, you can also see hundreds of academic journal cited coinmarketcap in their researches. C933103 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For what its worth, C933103 is correct that It is possible to use primary source as reliable source for information about each specific fork, primary sources cannot signify notability but they can be used as reliable source. Wikipedia:Verifiability says: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field Fresheneesz (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Added sourced split coins

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:

• Bitcoin Hot: Forked at Block 498848, 12 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 100 BTH
• BitcoinX: Forked at Block 498888, 12 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 10,000 BCX
• Oil Bitcoin: Forked at Block 498888, 12 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 OBTC
• Bitcoin World: Forked at Block 499777, 17 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 10000 BTW
• Lightning Bitcoin: Forked at Block 499999, 19 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 LBTC
• Bitcoin Stake: Forked at Block 499999, 19 December 2017, For each 1 BTC, you get 100 BTCS
• Bitcoin Faith: Forked at Block 500000, 19 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BTF

Didn't get to looking for these:

• Bitcoin Top: Forked at Block 501118, 26 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BTT
• Bitcoin God: Forked at Block 501225, forked on 27 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 GOD
• Bitcoin FILE: Forked at Block 501225, forked on 27 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1000 BIFI
• Bitcoin SegWit2X X11 Not to be confused with a previous fork SegWit2X with the same name. Forked at Block 501451, 28 December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 B2X
• Bitcoin Uranium: Forked on 31st December 2017, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BUM
• Bitcoin Pizza: Forked at Block 501888, 1st January 2018, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BPA
• Bitcoin All: Forked on 1st January 2018, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BTA
• Bitcoin Atom: Expected January 2018, For each 1 BTC you get 1 BCA

Fresheneesz (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Alternative suggestion

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)

I agree. I'd say that this page either be deleted in favor of the Fork_(blockchain) page or as above changing the page to bitcoin fork to explain the specifics of forks for bitcoin. This isn't a valuable list page for any reader and given that this is the top page on Google for 'bitcoin forks' & 'bitcoin forks list' displaying three forks when there are articles and websites listing and pointing to more than seventy bitcoin forks [2] --Vveaselpop (talk) 17:54, 18 June 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)

Moved 'Clam' and 'Bitcore' into a new section titled 'UTXO Forks'

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)

It looks like the Hybrid fork section was created a few hours before your edit, moving the content from the Not forks section. I thought i'd rename the section to "Not Bitcoin forks". The UTXO ones are confusing because surely either they are forks, or they aren't? And the latter appears to be the case from what it says. Also on Bitcore's website they say "Not a fork!". I just moved them back into the other section now, so the first line of text about UTXO forks will need to be amended slightly at least, because it now may read like the ones mentioned above it are UTXO, although i wasn't sure how to word it, and will have a stab at it if there are no other edits or replies here. 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.252.243 (talk)

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.

This is a self-published blog. Of course, it is not an independent reliable source. See WP:IRS. Retimuko (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not correct dude. WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Jimmy Song has had work published by third-party publications. So using his blog is perfectly acceptable on wikipedia. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

CoinStalker

@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)

I gave two sources, which both support each other in their content, which gives credence to both. COINTELEGRAPH is a widely-quoted source in Wikipedia, although it does not yet have a Wikipedia page (see Bitcoin scalability problem and Initial coin offering. Thanks for asking before reverting. --Ben Best:Talk 19:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I see it was reverted. So much for future contributions by me to this page. --Ben Best:Talk 19:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please look closer at your edit. Both links were to CoinStalker. I didn't revert it, but I agree with the revert. It seems to me that Chrissymad meant to say that an article about a coin must exist to be added in this list. I had a less strict approach in mind that at least there should be a reliable source, but I would support this more strict approach as well. @Chrissymad: could you clarify your position please? Retimuko (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 January 2018

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)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Article/List need full rewrite?

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)

Also, is this page a list or an article, both the template on this talk page and the page name indicate it is a list and the content of the page do list out different forks, however content of the page is written like article. Would it be better to split an article for Bitcoin fork to describe different type of forks and notable forks that have occured, and then make this page become purely a list for different forks?C933103 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

• I think Bitcoin forks is a better title, since it's about different forks. I'm uncertain that a merge to Bitcoin scalability problem works better. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think Bitcoin Forks is a better name too as it will encompass multiple forks (which there are already) instead of just one. - Davidswiki (talk) 20:35, 7 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)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contentious revert by Primefac

@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)

I'm not sure what God has to do with my edits, but to answer your queries: first, I removed the elinks per WP:ELNO (and the subsequent section ELLIST), converting them to Wikilinks. After I saved the page, I realized that they were all nonexistent, so I removed them per WP:REDLINK and WP:WTAF. I'm not trying to "pull" anything, just following Wikipedia's long-standing guidelines and conventions. Primefac (talk) 11:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Courtesy ping to Praxidicae whose original edit kicked this all off.

Neither WP:REDLINK nor WP:WTAF advocate removing sourced content from articles. So why did you remove all the content I added? Please justify your edit, with specifics from WP:REDLINK and WP:WTAF if there are any. Fresheneesz (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And none of the removed stuff was "sourced" in the way it should be - it was all a WP:LINKFARM and the same standard that applies to other crypto/block chain articles applies here. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If you removed the content because you think the sources aren't sufficient, you should have said as much in your edit summary, rather than simply mentioning removing redlinks (that you created). I included citations from numerous sources. Are you trying to tell me that Business Insider is link spam, for example? Simply pasting links to wikipedia policy and essays is not justification for removal of content. Justify yourself by pointing to particular lines in the policy that you think particular links violate. I'm happy to adhere to wikipedia policy, but I won't be pushed around. You've passed up one opportunity to identify specifics about why your removed my content. Please take this second opportunity to be cooperative. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Fresheneesz. I do agree with Primefac and Praxidicae that the content you were trying to insert into article contained inadequate external links and was largely unnotable. Therefore, I do agree with its deletion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but for your opinion to hold much weight it needs to be backed by reasoning. Maybe you could give an example or explain why you think the sources I gave were inadequate and didn't demonstrate notability. Fresheneesz (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. It is you who's turn it is now to achieve consensus with your edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes, if you'd like to be part of consensus, you need to offer reasons. Wikipedia:Consensus requires that people voice and discuss specific concerns so they can be addressed. People who want to be part of building consensus through discussion, as we are doing, are required to give reasons for their opinions. So I'd like some specifics. I can't improve my edits if you just say "its all bad". For example, what's wrong with this addition:

• Bitcoin Clashic: Forked at Block 478558, 1 August 2017. For each 1 BTC you get 1 BCHC / BCL.

Fresheneesz (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What about this edit:

• Bitcoin Diamond: Forked at Block 495866, 24 November 2017. Holders of BTC received 10 BCD/BTC.

Is this something you consider not notable or sourced well enough? Fresheneesz (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So, one by one

• Sources like or or are not independent reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards.
• Sources like or or or or or were refused by consensus in discussions concerning use of industry rag sources.

Hope this helps a bit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to take this one step at a time. Regarding the reliability and independence of those sources,

1. is self-published and WP:V says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field". is being used solely to source the block height the currency was forked at, and so is a perfectly valid source for this according to wikipedia policy.
2. is a news source that claims to adhere to the "highest quality standards". Do you have any reason to believe they don't uphold news standards? Have they published anything with questionable accuracy? What makes you say they're not a reliable source? Why do you think this isn't an independent. Are they strongly influenced by the people that run the currency in question? I see no evidence that they are.
3. is self-published, but its published by an expert in the field. WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Jimmy Song has had work published by third-party publications. So using his blog is perfectly acceptable as a source on wikipedia. Again, Jimmy Song is independent of the people that run the currency in question, so I'm a little confused why you would claim this isn't an independent source.

"were refused by consensus in discussions" - Can you please give links to those discussions?

Fresheneesz (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Re " is self-published and WP:V says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field". is being used solely to source the block height the currency was forked at, and so is a perfectly valid source for this according to wikipedia policy." - According to the policy you cite, the source would be acceptable as a source of information about itself, e.g. an information that the www.bitcoindiamond.org/#faq page contains the text: "With lower transaction fees than any credit card, better exchange rates than any government backed currency, and faster transaction confirmations than other digital payments, Bitcoin Diamond is the internet’s native currency." The problem with the example claim is, that the article is not about the www.bitcoindiamond.org/#faq page, and therefore, the example claim simply does not belong to the article. Moreover, the page you cite does not even contain any text related to "the block height the currency was forked at". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"the article is not about the www.bitcoindiamond.org/#faq page"

Surely you're not trying to tell me that self-published sources can only be used for articles talking about the actual page of the website being sourced, right? That would be an absurd constraint. Self-published writings of any kind can be used as one of the sources verifying information about that person or entity doing the self-publishing.

But I'm glad we agree that this source can be used for this case, despite being self-published.

Also, the FAQ page at one point did indeed contain information about the block height the currency was forked from. FYI, to eliminate that objection, I've updated the source (in the above) to the page on their website that currently contains that information. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

"Self-published writings of any kind can be used as one of the sources verifying information about that person or entity doing the self-publishing." - well, there are two problems with that in this specific case:

• We do not know who did publish the information in this case. (it looks pretty much anonymous)
• If the person publishing the information was known, and if the person stated something like "I am the best writer in the world", we could surely use such a text as confirming that the author made such a claim, but not to confirm that the author is the best writer in the world. Similarly, in our case, we can easily use the page to confirm that the www.bitcoindiamond.or/#faq web published some claim, but not that the published claim is a fact.

"I'm glad we agree that this source can be used for this case, despite being self-published." - I made the effort to explain to you why it actually cannot be used. Consult WP:ICANTHEARYOU, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"not to confirm that the author is the best writer in the world"

There's a problem with your objection - its a straw man. You're absolutely right that you can't use a self-published source to verify that that source is the best writer, because it violates point 1 of the points in the Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves section of WP:V. The block height is not a self-serving or exceptional claim, so your objection via example simply isn't valid. Please don't try to explain to me what can and can't be used. I'm not ignorant of wikipedia policy. I don't need schooling about it. I'd like you to cite specific policy that you think these sources violate, just like I'm citing policy to argue against your objections.

"We do not know who did publish the information in this case."

Its either self published or it isn't. If its self published, we can use it for this information about themselves. If its not self-published, we can still use it. So in this case, it doesn't matter if we know who published it or not. Also, it isn't the only source used for that block height.

Also, I do hear you, but what I meant was that I'm glad we both agree that simply being self-published doesn't prevent us from using it as a source. I like to find common ground in contentious arguments like this.

Fresheneesz (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"Its either self published or it isn't. If its self published, we can use it for this information about themselves." - The problem is, that your claim about the block height is not a claim about the source (the author or the web page). That is why you cannot use the web page to confirm such a claim, even less you can use such a web to confirm the notability of such a claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

is absolutely a claim about the source's author - which is the developers of bitcoin diamond. The claim is that their code split the chain at that height. Just like if Jeff Goldblum was sourced saying "Yes I starred in Independence Day", you wouldn't be complaining that its not "about him" because its about the movie (which isn't him) because its about something HE DID. Just like this is about something bitcoin diamond's developers did. And as for notability, there is the other source, which you've ignored completely in your last few comments. Let's ignore the self-published source for now, even tho I honestly haven't been at all convinced there's any problem with using it here. I have a ton of other sources. You claim that many of the sources I listed were "rejected" by some discussion, but didn't respond to my question about where I could read that discussion. Why aren't those other sources sufficient? I don't care about the self-published source. Out of all the sources I have, we only need 2 to cover notability and verifiability. What are the two best sources there? How bout we talk about those instead of arguing about the worst source in the list? Ok? Fresheneesz (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok well given that no one (including you) has brought up even a single line of policy that any of these sources violate, I'm going to add one or two to the page. If you think some of the sources aren't good, give concrete reasons why with citation of actual lines of policy. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I already mentioned the policy: it is the requirement to use reliable sources. Also note that the reliability must be provable, it does not suffice if the source claims it is reliable. I also see that many editors mentioned the policy to you. This is an obvious case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I did not revert any of your insertions of unreliable sources into the article yet. Note also that this article is under community sanctions, and you already did not comply, reverting the deletion of the unreliable sources twice in a row in less than two hours. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make two reverts. I made one edit and one revert. You're being incredibly unreasonable. I hear that you disagree that these sources are reliable. What I don't see is any substantiation to your opinion.

"note that the reliability must be provable, it does not suffice if the source claims it is reliable"

Please point me to the line of wikipedia policy that says that the reliability must be provable, and how it needs to be proven. Substantiate your claim for once. Unless you actually start substantiating your claims, this is going to end up in arbitration. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Re "I didn't make two reverts. I made one edit and one revert. You're being incredibly unreasonable." - that is false. Your edit #869506031 reverted the deletion of Bitcoin Diamond text made by Primefac in his edit #869506031. In less than two hours from that, in your edit #871572651, you reverted the edit #871569514 by Retimuko again.

As to the requirement that the reliability of the text must be provable - consult WP:IRS#Definition of a source. The main problem you have now, though, is with the community sanctions described above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ladislav, please dont add unecessary redlinks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf, please read the thread before commenting. I did not add any redlinks. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure about notability of individual entries (haven't get time to check each individual links), however, if those links are removed based on wikipeia convention about links, then one should only remove those link themselves and leave the original black text in place. C933103 (talk) 22:50, 25 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)

You're right, there's nothing wrong with including non-linked articles in lists. However, the references to show that they are notable should be independent RS that actually discuss the company in detail (i.e. references that would be used if there was an article). We can't just say "this fork exists<ref>fork's website</ref>". Primefac (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. I've suggested two specific items with numerous sources. Could you comment on whether you think any of those sources are reliable and give credence to reliability? Fresheneesz (talk) 03:48, 28 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:

• The article overall List of bitcoin forks notability is not in dispute
• There are more and less notable forks of bitcoin
• We are discussing here which forks to include and what sourcing rules to apply given above.

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)

Sure thing. Here's what I proposed above in sandbox form. I know there are too many sources. What needs to be done ideally is to decide on 3 or 4 solid sources (of the ones there, or new ones). Fresheneesz (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your reversions of my edits on "List of bitcoin forks"

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)

Fresheneesz, others explained it to you at great length there. Please use independent reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:RS. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Others have failed to support the idea that these aren't independent reliable sources. The fact that you're reverting my work and refusing to discuss it is not appropriate behavior. You should be discussing this with me if you're going to take part in reversions of work I've made a solid case for being well-sourced. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Fresheneesz: No, they did not fail. You failed to listen. The sources you are trying to use are not acceptable. Namely, in this edit:

bitcoindiamond.org - primary source

coinsutra.com, coinstaker.com, ethereumworldnews.com, hacked.com, cointelegraph.com - crypto rags

medium.com - blog

not a single independent reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please put this comment on the talk page for the article so other people will see our discussion? Fresheneesz (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Can you elaborate on what a "crypto rag" is and why those sites fall under that category? I assume a "rag" implies that the source isn't usable but I don't know what it means. Also, I described why the medium post is usable despite being self-published in my comment in the "Moved 'Clam' and 'Bitcore' into a new section titled 'UTXO Forks'" thread. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you don't see the reasons why coinsutra.com and the like are not independent reliable sources. Often it is not clear if they are fan clubs or blogs or emerging news outlets with no reputation at all and unknown editorial practices. They, probably, depend on success of particular coins or projects, often publish press releases or anything else for a fee, and praise nearly all new coins that come out. We have to treat them as self-published sources.

Regarding the blog by Jimmy Song on Medium, the rules don't say such sources are fine, but "largely not acceptable", "may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert" and suggest to "exercise caution when using such sources". In my view it may be half-decent to verify facts, but I am not so sure about establishing notability. I would strongly suggest to "exercise caution" as advised by the policy, especially given the situation with general sanctions on the topic of cryptocurrencies. I would suggest reading the discussion that resulted in the sanctions. The community was and still is greatly concerned about proliferation of low-quality content, promotion and spam. Retimuko (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the medium article by Jimmy Song: the cited policy states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - one publication by Jimmy Song surely does not qualify for this, note the plural in the characterization. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I too am opposed to including blogs (medium is a blog platform). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

huh

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)

Indeed, there may be a problem. I am not sure it is notable enough to be kept. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

preserve

Moving here per WP:PRESERVE Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Intended hard forks (no split)

• BIP 90 is claimed by libbitcoin contributor Eric Voskuil to be a hard fork.
• BIPs 68, 112, 113 (CSV), 141, 143, and 147 (segwit) buried in 2019 likewise were claimed to be hard forks by Voskuil.

References

New article on Bitcoin 2 (fork of Bitcoin)

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)

Any independent reliable souces? Retimuko (talk) 21:01, 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

Please add new fork Bitcoin ABC 15th November 2020 109.228.186.112 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash ABC fork

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/

We are not able to use either of these sources as far as I know. We need some sort of mainstream press to cover this fork. Any language would be fine for the source. But it needs to be something mainstream, can't be a crypto site,WP:UGC, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)