Talk:List of Bitcoin splits

Titling this page

In reply to the edit log on creation: “Temporary title used - anyone have a better idea?”

The word “splits” may confuse users who are familiar with the stock markets. It is a neutral, or even positive word; moreover, this makes it sound as if Bitcoin itself has split, with each holder of Bitcoin receiving a multiplier of bitcoins upon their previous balance. In the event of a stock split, the value held does not change; and the split stocks are fully equal and interchangeable with each other. Of course, these concepts are all wholly incorrect in application to these Bitcoin forks. Holders of Bitcoin may receive fork coins commensurate to their bitcoin balances.

”List of Bitcoin clones” might be better. Or “contentious hardforks”. Or “scams”, though that’s too general for a page title. “Fork” seeks to be the word in most common use, thus most likely the title which would be found by those seeking information; though this word is also overloaded, and has its own problems.

I think it is most important that the title must convey that the split/cloned/forked coins are not Bitcoin, and not interchangeable with bitcoins. (Try sending Bitcoin to a BCH address for proof.)

Nullius (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to be calling them forks right now, leading to confusion with code forks, chain forks, soft forks, hard forks, and dinner forks, what if we just make something up and hope it catches on? Like, branch-offs, or disbursements, or something. I do think that these "splits" should be classified separately from hard forks/chain forks, given both them and the original chain have, since the split, created spendable coinbases. Taras (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

For the name I suggest "list of bitcoin airdrops". "Splits" implies that bitcoin itself was somehow harmed. Belcher (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin itself is harmed by these “splits”. Whereas “airdrop” is a positive, promotional word, which plays to people’s greed for free money. That’s probably the second-worst possible way to present the matter—other than outright fraudulently implying that Bitcoin Plutonium XT With Ponies be somehow The New Bitcoin. — Nullius (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

History of contentious hardforks

If there is to be such a page, it needs a reasonably complete history of all significant forks and attempted forks since circa 2015: XT, Unlimited, Classic, etc. Those new to Bitcoin usually have no knowledge of the history here. Whereas even a modicum thereof inevitably produces a sense of déjà vu, for example when reading: “Adam Back Says the Bitcoin Fork Is a Coup”, Morgan Peck, IEEE Spectrum, 19 August 2015. Or any other myriad news articles, blog entries, or ml/forum flamewars from so recently as 2–3 years ago.

I may work on this sometime; but at present, it would be low on my priorities list. — Nullius (talk | contribs) 20:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)