Talk:Bitcoin Gold

Neutrality

Most of the article seems like an argument for Bitcoin Gold over the other forks of Bitcoin. It was clearly written by someone passionate about Bitcoin Gold, if not Bitcoin itself. Statements such as "That’s why Bitcoin Gold was born, in order to bring Bitcoin mining back to the “people”" are hardly neutral.

If you would prefer that the only individual sections be marked instead of the whole page, then remove the POV template at the top of the article Aaronburro (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The second paragraph is almost entirely opinion. "The purpose ... is to make Bitcoin mining decentralized again." Who says it's not currently decentralized?

"Satoshi's vision has been superceded..." is not neutral. "Bitcoin Gold will provide an opportunity for countless new people..." is not neutral.

"A more decentralized, democratic mining infrastructure is more resilient and more in line with..." is also not neutral.

Also, speaking of "Satoshi's vision" smacks of a personal stake in the content. Remove references to "Satoshi's vision;" it's irrelevant. At most, you could reference it once as a motivating factor behind the dev community which is pursuing this fork, but note it as their opinion, and cite it.

Remove the conclusion; essays have conclusions, articles don't.

This is a page which should legitimately exist, but it's so filled with editorial and few if any citations, that it just seems like a personal essay on why Bitcoin Gold is awesome and everything else is evil corporate greed trying to control the world. It's not information, it's an argument. Aaronburro (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Change this to just be a statement of the project's goals and motivations. Cite those motivations. Remove editorial references such as "We want..." Aaronburro (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Origins of Bitcoin Gold

This could probably be removed, and what little content that remains be moved into the Introduction. Aaronburro (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Proof-of-Work Algorithm

Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm

Discuss the technical changes. Don't say why one is better another. Don't discuss the motivations here. Aaronburro (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

The fact that there is a "conclusion" makes this more of an essay than article. This whole section is opinion, with zero citations to support it. Aaronburro (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost the entire thing was an uncited personal essay

I've cut it down to the intro, which is the only bit with a third-party source. Literally the entire rest of the text was an uncited personal essay. The only reason I didn't PROD the article is because Bitcoin Gold has had some RS coverage, but even that's skimpy - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What does "PROD" and "RS" mean? Chrisclear (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROD: proposed deletion. WP:RS: reliable sources, the thing every article is supposed to be based on. Please excuse the WP:OMGWTFBBQ - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

about Neutrality

Right now the whole article is just criticism. It is necessary to avoid subjective view to the topic. References and further information about Bitcoin Gold must be added to ensure the neutrality of the article. - Mstroehle (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mstroehle: I agree. But if there is negative content we need to keep it. Essentially we should add content to find balance, but we should not just delete content to try to make it more neutral (in cases such as this when the article is tiny and needing content). That is my opinion. I reverted par of your deletion of content in this edit [1] as we need to keep cited content on the page with good WP:IRS. This article essentially lacks good content for now. Over time the article will get more neutral. Keep up the editing, it is a challenge in the beginning! Let's look for coverage of Bitcoin Gold in the main industry rags such as Coindesk, CoinTelegraph, BitcoinMagazine, as well as the mainstream press. We should be able to find something there. I think you can relax the RS requirements when dealing with non-controversial facts and figures, wallets, etc. Note others might disagree with me (and be more strict), so just be prepared for that. But generally the sources I mentioned above will be considered IRS by most. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I agree. Negative content should be in balance with positive content. Everything has to be based on facts. But the problem of the part I deleted is that it has nothing to do with the Accusation. The deleted sentences was part of the Scam Wallet Issue. Mstroehle (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mstroehle: If it is not relevant to that section, please move it somewhere that it is relevant. Even create a new section if necessary. But to a small article that lacks content, its better to keep all content. In general other editors who went to the effort to add content will be bothered by other's deleting it, so it is better to just move it somewhere else in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Meanwhile I added a short introduction before the deleted sentence. Now it makes sense. Mstroehle (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the Bitcoin Gold project is actually working towards a particular cause... And people need to be able to disambiguate things like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Gold.

They have especially risen to prominence with the recent news of a new ASIC Miner for equihash coins, becoming leaders in the movement to resist the Asic miners.

I'll find press references to expand the article.

Propose unmerge with Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack

Hi @Ceosad, you merged the article Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack describing a security incidence with a single cryptocurrency Bitcoin Gold. I'd like to discuss with you here and try to reach a consensus that it makes sense to keep the security incidence article separate, for the following reasons: (1), it's important to see that this is arguably the first major over-51-hash-power double spending attack on an established cryptocurrency. (2) double spending attack is the nightmare of all PoW-based cryptocurrencies so with the first security incidences, we expect to see the threat increasingly become aware to communities not just Bitcoin Gold. For example, this incidence alone has involved 2 other cryptocurrencies. Merging it with Bitcoin Gold is unrepresentative of the nature of this incidence. (3)With respect to WP policy such as WP:N and WP:V, there are enough reliable sources covering this incidences to make it a valid article on WP itself. Please let me know what you think Xinbenlv (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Xinbenlv! After doing some research on the topic, I feel that it is reasonable to unmerge, or rewrite, the Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack page. At the time of merging the pages I felt that it was somewhat too early to create a spinoff article independent of Bitcoin Gold. The page about the attack gave somewhat lacking context for its importance. However, the reasons you gave for unmerging are convincing. I have unmerged the page now. Ceosad (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ceosad, thanks for your open-mindness Xinbenlv (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge I don't see how splitting one barely notable article into two even less notable articles makes sense. I'll loop in a couple of other active editors @Jytdog: and @Smallbones: to see if they have an opinion. From my understanding, Bitcoin Gold is probably only truly notable for this hack event.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf, thanks for joining the discussion. I was intended to seek a consensus, and I fully respect other people might have alternative views. Please feel free to loop in other active editors to join this discussion. I am open to follow what other thinks about it. Xinbenlv (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

These crypto articles (as much as i enjoy to edit them) suffer from a lot of promotional edits. They also have issues with sourcing quality, and some of these fringe coins dont have much sources in mainstream media. But an event like this hack is a good chance for a token to get media attention, and thus become a solid contender to develop into a decent article. I think that by splitting the coverage into two articles it tends to dilute it. Also some of these tokens have exploded, such as the The DAO (organization) and now (maybe, im not sure) this Bitcoin Gold and later they might be more known for their explosions than for their being a token. Thus maybe we should allow that explosion to stay on the article. Maybe I am also making a mountain out of molehill here, that was my logic to ping a couple of others. Pinging a third person I see around the crypto articles @Retimuko:. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jtbobwaysf. This altcoin was barely notable so far. Even now I don't see quality references in the article except, perhaps, ZDNet. Why use questionable CCN article about the attack when Fortune wrote about it?. This Bitcoin Gold article is not too long, so I don't think that a separate article makes sense. Retimuko (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jtbobwaysf and @Retimuko, thanks for comments here, I appreciate your frankness. And again, I am open to follow your consensus. Now, can I provide/reemphasize some perspective here:

• 1. I understand to some people thinks Bitcoin Gold is not/just barely notable. The fact it still remain undeleted as a wikipedia article speaks for itself, as some editors might belive it's notable. For me personally, its market cap and media coverage nature shall make it notable enough at least amongst the domain. Feel free to challenge the notability of Bitcoin Gold.
• 2. With respect to this security attack, I'd like to argue if we have to merge it with some article, it should belong to something like Security of Crytocurrencies instead of an individual coin. For example, if I created the article title instead of Bitcoin Gold Double Spend Attack, made it First 51%-Hash Attack on major Cryptocurrencies, are you still thinking of merging with one of the coin?
• 3. As your responded "why use CCN when Fortune write about it". This shows a favor preferance of one media outlet over another. This media trust preference is very subjective and I am sure each editor has their own trust rankings. (Arguably, the media-based notability mode was largely from the early desktop internet time. It has not been up to the pace with the mobile/social media days, my two cents). I am personally not a fan of Bitcoin Gold nor CCN. In fact I favor Fortune over CCN, but I'd like to be concious we might be biased with our own media preference.

Again, thanks for the discussion. Actually, I am thinking, shall we start a Telegram group for Wikipedia editors with edit interest of Crypto?

Xinbenlv (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think Bitcoin Gold is notable because of the 51% hack. Second, yes I think the content that makes Bitcoin Gold notable (the attack) should stay on the article. Third, we need to use mainstream RS where possible for these articles as I guess we will have a policy soon enough to ban the industry sources (so we might as well start preparing now). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Counter question: If you doubt Bitcoin Gold's notability and believe the attack made it notable, why shouldnt the attack stay as an independent article and merge the coin in to the attack article(the other way around?) Xinbenlv (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging it into the new 51% attack article would go counter to wikipedia naming norms. The token is called Bitcoin Cash so I would guess we will continue to use that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, are we still discussing BTG or BCH? The argument you made are based on an assumption the article is primarily about the coin (and with all due respect, it's not a token but a coin if we are both speaking the terminology in the field) not the security incidence. Assuming the coin is not notable, it should not have an article. Instead, there are many examples of security incidences standalone, please see an example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tammie_Jo_Bonnell when arguing if the pilot is notable, an alternative article to merge is a flight incidence itself. (I personally think both the coin and the security incidence deserves an individual article themselves.). Xinbenlv (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)