Talk:Bitcoin Gold: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:39, 25 November 2017

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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"Satoshi's vision has been superceded..."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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 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 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 11:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 : What does "PROD" and "RS" mean? [[User:Chrisclear|Chrisclear]] ([[User talk: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:WTFOMGBBQ]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:38, 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:OMBWTFBBQ]] - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 10:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)