Talk:Vertcoin

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 26 December 2018, see discussion.
no consensus, 24 April 2014 (UTC), see discussion.
no consensus, 12 March 2014 (UTC), see discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Contested deletion[edit]

a meaningless clone coin. This page should be deleted. WinterstormRage (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --CoinFinder (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertcoin is a notable cryptocurrency because it is the first and most successful to use adaptive n-factor scrypt for its proof-of-work, which is specifically designed to adapt continually to thwart development an ASIC for it. Its community is also rapidly growing; it has the fourth largest subreddit among all cryptocurrencies, behind BTC, LTC, and DOGE. --jag426 (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is based on the same criteria as the Litecoin wiki page. Vertcoin offers a different algorithm and difficulty adjustments, and differs from Litecoin in the same way that Litecoin differs from Bitcoin. It is a valid crypto-currency, with conversion directly to GBP (Bittylicious.com) and CNY (Bter.com) as well as BTC and LTC. It has been mentioned on various news sources, and has active development userbase, as well as the four largest reddit community for any crypto-currency.

Seriously you are comparing a market cap of 3million go one with a few hundred million? Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS it may help you out a little when explaining why this product is notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - And to validate this point as consistent, Primecoin has a Wikipedia entry, with a coinmarketcap of $ 6,728,884. Zerocoin Isn't even properly released yet. CoinFinder (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing those out I will scrutinize them carefully. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't make judgement on the technology Vertcoin brings to the table by just looking at market cap. Yes at the moment, it is a smaller crypto, however the Adaptive-N Factor is an interesting parameter which moves crypto currencies forward. I request you re-consider the deletion of this page, Vertcoin is one of the few alternative crypto currencies with any potential for mainstream success, mostly due to the more highly distributed nature the Adaptive-N Factor will result in.

Justtryme90 (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)justtryme90[reply]

User:Justtryme90, This isn't a judgement on the currency or the potential thereof, the only thing I'm saying is how does this improve an encyclopedia. The problem is that "potential" means we are speculating or therfore violating WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing personal against the business I'm just not seeing how this improves an encyclopedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because it has one of the most effective cryptocurrency models for long-term currency and other blockchain purposes. Vertcoin developers are trying very hard to get new features included in the blockchain, and both the community behind the coin and its plans to stay ahead of application specific integrated circuits makes it the top coin for maintaining s decentralized structure. Please keep this here so new-comers to the Vertcoin crypto environment have a place to reference with information about the coin! -phishfi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phishfi (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

This is a unique crypto-currency among a bunch of similar clones. Also, it's community on reddit (r/vertcoin) is the 3rd largest crypto-currency community. - LIGHTBETWEEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIGHTBETWEEN (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Vertcoin page is pretty much advertising. Anything that isn't copied from the release thread on Bitcointalk is copied from the Litecoin page. There's also a bunch of marketing speak in anything that isn't directly copied. If the page is to be kept, I think it needs more than one article as a reference, plus a lot of work to keep it neutral. Maybe it can be added again in 3-6 months. 24.53.253.165 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion about whether to delete article or not see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vertcoin_(2nd_nomination)Jonpatterns (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently. It's been closed with no consensus, yet again. That really doesn't make any sense at all. --24.53.253.165 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the cryptocurrency AfD nominations I've seen that result in "no consensus" also resulted in "no consensus" in subsequent nominations. They've been cases like this, where a couple reliable sources mention a topic, which many editors feel indicates notability, and many feel indicates non-notability. The policy of keeping non-consensus articles seems designed to err on the side of article inclusion. Agyle (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate sources[edit]

User:Dyholiday, you've been spending a lot of time trying to find sources to substantiate information in this article, which is to be commended. However, you're adding links to webpages which simply are not reliable sources. I feel bad removing them because your efforts seem so well-intended, but you can't just add whatever web page you come across. WP:RS provides a good overview of reliable sources. They include newspapers like The New York Times, where writers, fact checkers, and editors try to ensure the accuracy of the information. An anonymous website like cryptoeconomy.org that you cited is probably just a one-person website that cost about $10 or $15 to set up, without the editorial oversight expected of professional publications that qualify as reliable sources. Two cryptocurrency-specific websites I would generally consider reliable sources are CoinDesk.com, and sometimes BitcoinMagazine.com; most other websites with coin in the domain name are not reliable sources in the sense that the guidelines at WP:RS use the term. Agyle (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

@Retimuko: You reverted me in this edit saying "why rumors and bitcoinist?"

That article was mentioned at the AfD and it's not really a rumor because it's based on "Vertcoin (VTC) was successfully 51% attacked" written by a Coinbase engineer.

I could only find cryptocurrency news covering it so take your pick of which one you think is best. I think this is a sign of not being notable but if it is kept there should be something on the 51% attack. Џ 07:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why there should be something if we don't see any coverage in reliable sources? Some engineer revealed in a blog that something non-notable happened to a non-notable cryptocurrency according to a very poor source. Retimuko (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]