What Does Scalable Mean In Cryptocurrency

What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

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.

 C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article Bitcoin scalability problem, along with other articles relating to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, is currently subject to active community-authorised general sanctions.

  • Limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Further information
  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction.

    Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

Article necessary?[edit]


Determined that this article is necessary due to continued press in this area RebirthNA (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.

Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this separate wiki article really necessary?

Seems this limited content could all be in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, the main problem I see in the article is that it cites only a few reliable sources.

What Does “Scalability” Really Mean in Blockchain? - By Zhijie Ren and Peter Zhou

On the other hand, the Bitcoin article is already too large. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: i posted this before I saw you move the content off the main article. Maybe instead of scaling problems, it can be renamed as a larger subject allowing more content to be moved off the main page.

I don't have an broader subject in mind right now, just thinking out-loud. But scaling certainly the primary subject of twitter, and reddit, so it sure deserves some treatment here (if there is RS of course)...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf taking all circumstances into account, I think that it would be best to delete this article.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I have moved the content back to the main Bitcoin page, per your remarks. Do we do an AfD here, is that even necessary? Or can someone just close it, it is just all redundant.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, please do an AfD. TIA. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that the original article as I wrote it justified a separate article, especially since the scalability problem is so critically important to the future of Bitcoin.

The abysmally ignorant editing by User:Ladislav Mecir has indeed rendered this article into trivial nonsense. I have considered trying to get an administrator involved who is not ignorant on the subject of cryptocurrencies, but I have more urgent priorities in my life at the moment than to be fighting wikiwars.

I wrote the article because the scalability problem is really a crisis for the future of Bitcoin, and I wanted the Wikipedian-reading public to have a good understanding of this crisis.--Ben Best:Talk 16:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Ben i wasn't watching this small sub-article.

Yes, the scaling article now lacks all kinds of content. Ladislav, please allow some of the scaling debate to be input into the main and sub-articles, it is both conversational and relevant. Both sides of the debate are making points, and for NPOV we should allow it. I also note that you are trying to prune the main article back in size, so maybe let the small blockers and big blockers have at it on the scaling article? Sorry I got in the middle of it.

I think a lot of users must come to wikipedia seeking coverage of this event, which is essentially current events, I will hold off on the AfD for now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with any content based on reliable independent sources. That, however, does not mean that it is reasonable to put in WP:OR or other self-published and unreliable content. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for being so insulting to you as a result of my outrage and frustration.

What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

And I give you credit for not responding nastily, as you would have deserved to. As for "original research", I did not base what I wrote entirely on the source listed, but I did think that what looks like "original research" was a very good summary of what I know from reading vast amounts of literature on the subject.

I could have cited more sources, but the summary would not have been as good. If the article is reconstructed in such a way as to clearly define the real issue of SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited, I can add more sources. --Ben Best:Talk 11:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, {U|Ben Best}}. Similarly as Jtbobwaysf, I think that it would be best to describe the situation in the Bitcoin article in a concise way.

I am not convinced that the issue deserves a standalone article at this time. In the past, there were similarly discussed issues that were not put into a separate article either. Also, seeing the shortage of reliable sources, it does not look as notable as you seem to perceive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I can supply many reliable sources, if necessary.

You really do not seem to understand SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited problem or the deadly seriousness of the scalability problem to the future of Bitcoin. You seem to be living in a cave with respect to this terrible crisis of Bitcoin. The Bicoin community is very bitterly and acrimoniusly divided over this issue, and there is a very real possiblity that the Bitcoin blockchain will hard fork within the next year, with the result being similar to the two Etherium blockchains: Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.

--Ben Best:Talk 12:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been traveling, but I have taken a moment to assemble a few news stories (I did not spend much time on this):
--Ben Best:Talk 04:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is a succinct summary that was posted several months ago:
Things have progressed well beyond that analysis by now, with major new support for SegWit2X
but technical issues like this are beyond the grasp of mainstream media, and Wikipedia readers for
that reason will not be permitted to learn about them.

--Ben Best:Talk 14:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Benbest, and thank you for the source list. However, I found out that:
  • The bitcoinchaser.com does not look reputable. Per WP:IRS, the source must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

    What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

    I do not see the reputation in this particular case.

  • The cointelegraph.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place. Thus, again, a problem with WP:IRS.
  • The newsbtc.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place. Again a problem with WP:IRS.
  • The livebitcoinnews.com source does not publish whether it does have editorial policies in place.

    Again a problem with WP:IRS.

  • The coin.dance site is a primary source of information, and per WP:IRS, "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material". Thus, again, a problem with WP:IRS.
Taking into account these findings, I have to repeat that the above-mentioned shortage of reliable sources is a real issue.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears you are doomed to be blind about the Bitcoin scalability crisis, and you are committed to keeping others as blind as you are. Bitcoin is not "mainstream" and neither are cryptocurrency news media.

But cryptocurrency news media know vastly more about cryptocurrency than mainstream media. I believe that Wikipedians would be better served by knowing the facts, even if you allow them to be published with the caveat that there are other points of view, that the sources "do not look reputable" in your point of view (I know they are reputable), or even with the information about editorial policies.

There are many other cryptocurrency media reports, that I could have cited, all corroborating the information I have presented. There will eventually be coverage of the situation in mainstream media rather than Bitcoin insider media, but that may not happen until the crisis has unfolded in disaster. I hope that too many people are not harmed by your obstruction of information. --Ben Best:Talk 00:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

'Bitcoin is not "mainstream"' - Seeing the quantity of WP:IRS cited in the Bitcoin article, it is obviously notable for a Wikipedia article.

As to your lack of WP:AGF, for which you offered apologies above - apologies accepted. Regarding your "you are committed to keeping others as blind as you are" - I am comitted to hold onto the principles behind Wikipedia. If they state "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material" then I do not think it is any kind of "keeping others blind".

I think that publishing opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material may be even more dangerous and misleading than not publishing.

I support this article.

The subject has long dominated bitcoin development and the bitcoin article is already long and detailed. The scaling issue is problematic and notable within the field of software development.

User:Benbest could easily find more reliable sources and get into the details here. Using sources without editorial policies is okay as long as there are many other more reliable sources used. Editors should be mindful of avoiding the addition of individual statements and making predictions.

What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

- Shiftchange (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

" User:Benbest could easily find more reliable sources and get into the details here." - if he does, I will support publishing the findings. "The scaling issue is ... notable" - notability is defined as "being published in independent reliable sources" and per WP:IRS "if no reliable sources can be found on topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I have added content with RS in the article today.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for some information worth adding, finally! A question: are you sure that the Nigeria Times can be considered WP:IRS?

(I know nothing about the source, but noticed that another editor deleted it as unreliable.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: no idea about Nigeria Times :-) Is bitcoin.com an RS for this subject?... I see bitcoin.com also covered it, as well as the other small crypto site like bitcoinnews.com, and some others.

Blockchain Scalability: When, Where, How?

Looks like coindesk never covered it, and I didn't see anything in mainstream press either. Maybe it should be deleted...I've also added some bullets for XT and Classic, but didn't add much content, as they have full pages already. I think we could also begin to categorize these as soft-forks and hard-forks, correct? (Rather than leaving segwit as the the one to represent softforks, as there might be other softfork proposals in the future that gain sufficient coverage in the press.

Maybe even mimblewimble qualifies? I dont know much about it, but I have heard about it. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin.com is a primary source.

What Does Bitcoin and Ethereum Scalability Mean?

It can only be used for properly attributed opinions such as "bitcoin.com claims that..." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Benbest:, we have added some content to the page.

Please feel free to comment. In general I think editors are supportive of adding content. Please look for WP:RS for what you want to add.

I think the overall concept you have to include this scaling debate has support of the editors above, we just need to abide by RS rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:, the added content is much better.

I don't have time to get more involved with this issue, to say nothing of having my content deleted because of someone's opinion about the reliability of the sources I cited.

Replicate the same processes across all nodes:

Suddenly "CoinDesk" has become a reliable source. I believe that all of the sources I cited above are reliable. Mainstream media is clueless about these issues, but the sources I cited above are from the tech-savvy Bitcoin news community.

What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

Anyway, the article is now much closer to my original intentions and is good enough to achieve what I was hoping to achieve by starting it. --Ben Best:Talk 15:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Benbest:, sources are always a debate on wikipedia. There really isn't any good logic to it, sometimes primary sources are ok, sometimes editors assert that reliable sources are blogs, we have seen it all. Please post on this page when you find sources mentioning segwit, lightning, bitcoin unlimited in teh mainstream press.

That is really what this article needs now. I have also added a lot of coindesk to this article, yes I too agree not a big difference between coindesk, cointegraph, and bitcoin magazine.

They are all industry rags, but I think that is all we have to use for now and they are far better than primary sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to change article name[edit]

RESOLVED- Article will not be moved as per survey in a section below.RebirthNA (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I propose this article be changed to something more neutral, rather than problem. Since this is by nature a debate and there are people on both sides, someone must think this is not a problem, rather they might think it is a feature.

Therefore, for NPOV, we might consider to drop problem from the name.


  • Bitcoin Scalability Proposals
  • Bitcoin Scalability Debate
  • Bitcoin scaling

Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree - The current title is unfortunate, since it may, indeed, violate WP:NPOV.

    The most neutral seems to be the "Bitcoin scaling" title. Note also the sentence case used per WP:MOS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have changed to a small s per your suggestion. I am ok with any of the above, just throwing something at the wall to see what sticks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree Scalability is a problem for the Bitcoin network because the one megabyte block size limit is leading to increased delays in transaction processing and increasing fees for processing transactions.

    If the trend continues, the network will become less and less useful, eventually even useless. There is no debate about these facts, the debate has been about which proposal can best solve the problem.--Ben Best:Talk 15:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Your answer made me think that we need to cover the debate in this article, as there for sure is one, I will try to find some RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"Scalability is a problem for the Bitcoin network because" - you seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia works.

It strives to represent all relevant opinions, not just the ones you find reasonable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen or heard of any person in the Bitcoin community say that scalability is not a problem.

If opinions of Wikipedians are to be added, they should give citations to reliable sources that claim scalability is not a problem. The latest news, however, is that scalability is a less urgent problem than has been believed.

A short dictionary of cryptocurrency jargon, explained in normal human English.

Although the problem would become more serious as the network grows. This is a matter of technology and growth, not a matter of opinion. The problem is going to be dealt-with, one way or another, within the next year, which means that a scalability problem article will be a matter of history.

--Ben Best:Talk 13:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also various opinions in the Bitcoin community about how to handle whatever scalability problem solution is implemented in the near future. --Ben Best:Talk 13:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this proposal to change the article name? The article has developed quite a bit over the past few months and seems to discuss bitcoin scaling solutions (BCC, Lightning, SegWit, SegWit2x, etc).

This article doesn't seem to be just limited to a discussion of a problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

As said, I do agree with the rename to Bitcoin scaling. Reasons: The name is short and does not contradict any of the claims in the article. The name is neutral, reflects the fact that some of the sources do not see bitcoin scaling as a problem. The name is in sentence case as required by WP:MOS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: & @Ben Best: I propose a RfC on this talkpage to rename the article, with the RfC purpose to get broader opinions and more votes.

Do you have any suggested names? I know you suggested Bitcoin Scaling above, and I am fine with that name as well. Should we only offer one new name, or should we propose a few? I think that this page is a somewhat important sub-page now as it seems that over the past year a few different events have occured that all are now their own articles, and this article tends to link them. I am talking about Bitcoin Cash, SegWit2x, Lightning Network, and SegWit, and maybe even Bitcoin Gold could be added to the list.

I just think the 'problem' in the name is an obvious WP:NPOV issue and ought to be resolved. I think we could just propose to leave the article name the same "Bitcoin scalability" and just drop the "problem" as well. Any comments? But I think I would prefer Bitcoin Scaling as it seems to be better grammer.

What does “scalability” really mean in Blockchain?

Maybe we can get a few choices here even we disagree, and then we put it to a vote. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Covering the debate[edit]

RESOLVED- Debate sections have be included under background. Additional information is included under the various proposals and is linked to relevant articles.

RebirthNA (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

To my understanding the different proposals currently listed in the article represent a few different ideologies (maybe two if we distill) about bitcoin. Seems to me they are often referred to as the small blockers (who prefer higher fees), and the big blockers who prefer more transactions on chain.

Let's see if we can find the RS to add this content.

Here is a quote: "Small blockers argue that an increase of on-chain capacity adds resource requirements on nodes, thus increases costs, which leads to a decreased number of individuals who are willing to run a node.

They then extrapolate to sometime in the next century to say that as on-chain transactions are kept forever, nodes will eventually have to be in massive data centers, thus decreasing their numbers considerably to perhaps 10 or 20.

On-chain transactions, therefore, should be kept limited, argue small blockers.

Big blockers say that technology grows exponentially with resource requirements to run a node being negligible, therefore on-chain capacity should operate above demand so that it is useful to the most amount of people." http://www.trustnodes.com/2017/05/31/ethereum-now-three-times-nodes-bitcoin

Here is a Roger Ver quote, I think we can use this given the source. 6. “The current path that the small blockers are taking has the wrong economic code and will likely end in failure if Bitcoin isn’t allowed to scale soon.” https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/roger-ver-block-size/

Is there more content we can find to cover this subject?

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure trustnodes or cryptocoinsnews qualify as WP:IRS.

What does scalable mean in cryptocurrency

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Added some content from coindesk. Is there another industry rag source you find acceptable as RS? Too much coindesk in this article, and not much mainstream media coverage, with the exception of nigeriatoday :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is an excellent non-industry rag source covering this debate.

Finding montor for forex trading

I added a little content from it, but I think more could be added. http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoins-hard-fork-bitcoin-unlimited-segregated-witness-explained-2017-3 Happy editing :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

RESOLVED Copyright violations have been removed.

Please stop adding copyright violations of the cited sources. Also note that existing violations must be deleted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have revised some article text.

If you feel something else is amiss, feel free to let me know. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


RESOLVED Source was added under appropriate section.

RebirthNA (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Excellent source today to help expand this article. http://www.coindesk.com/explainer-what-is-segwit2x-and-what-does-it-mean-for-bitcoin/Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Upper or lower case[edit]

RESOLVED Consensus was reached and article was modified accordingly (see below).

RebirthNA (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of Bitcoin (upper case) for the protocol/network, and bitcoin (lower case) for the currency has become out-dated [3], at least by Wikipedian standards.--Ben Best:Talk 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This was discussed by Wikipedians, and unanimous consensus was established.

Some sources can be found in Bitcoin#Terminology. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Weird Explanation[edit]

RESOLVED -Adjusted in the background section RebirthNA (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The actual meaning of the "Bitcoin scalability problem" is that transactions are handled too slowly due to too few and too small blocks.

That should be explained in the first few sentences.

Also the problem is not just because the blocks are too small, they are also just too infrequent. That should probably be mentioned as well.

ReneHSZ (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Segwit/Segwit2x sections & article structure problem[edit]

RESOLVED-The point of this section was to give a brief overview on the Segwit plan.

Variations between Segwit and Segwit2x were deemed not important enough for the creation of another section. RebirthNA (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the current structure of this article makes it very difficult to clearly explain the topics. Segwit & Segwit2x are very closely related to one another, their history is intertwined.

It's not possible to explain the activation of Segwit for example without mentioning the New York Agreement & Segwit2x, but edits that do this has previously been removed from this page for mentioning Segwit2x in the Segwit section.

I'm not really sure what the answer is here, but the current structure isn't working. Perhaps specific details of Segwit/2x/BCH etc. etc. could just be moved to their own pages, linked to from here?

Welcome to Blockgeeks

Thoughts?Omcnoe (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The edit you mention was not a consensual edit, and, in my opinion, it would be best to revert it, for the reasons you mention, to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
How are we then to explain the activation of Segwit?

It was activated under the terms of the NYA, I don't feel like this current seperation of Segwit/Segwit2x works well. Perhaps it's better to remove explanations of scaling solutions from this page entirely, and merely refer to the individual scaling solutions pages?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omcnoe (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think segwit was activated in "under the terms of the NYA".

It was activated by BIP 91, which is not a segwit2x thing. Since there is no proof, you cannot conflate them here. It is synthesis. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ladislav & Omcnoe that these edits are not helpful nor are they consensus based. The fact is as pointed out above that the sources all listed NYA and Segwit together, and it is part of the history.

I also suggest a revert back to earlier versions. I noted that user Ysangkok made segwit edits across a number of pages all on the same day.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

All sources mention the NYA and Segwit together? This is impossible since Segwit was authored before the NYA was conceived.

Horario mercado forex tokyo

That the article cites biased writeups does not change this. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ysangkok, clearly, segwit is about broader things that the NYA (litecoin, etc), and hence SegWit has its own article page.

This section, however, is about segwit and Bitcoin, and most (or maybe all) of the sources seem to connect it to the NYA whether you like that or not. Maybe you can find sources to improve the article, your opinions on if a source is 'biased' has no relevence here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

SegWit predated the NYA. The NYA agreed upon SegWit2x. --Ben Best:Talk 12:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


RESOLVED- Will not be included as no proposal is truly dead and still receives support from at least one developer.

In order to add this, a consensus on "dead" proposals would have to be reached and has been unsuccessful.

I think a table on this page would be useful to show successful and now ended scaling proposals.

Dead: Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Unlimited, 2x

Survived: Cash, Segwit

We could add in the dates proposed, date activated, date died. Does anyone else think this would be useful?

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The claim that Bitcoin XT is "dead" is unfounded, since the client software works, exists, and is supported.
The claim that Bitcoin Unlimited is "dead" is unfounded too.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

oh, ok. maybe we would lack the RS to show the updates on these types of projects then? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe Segwit is a scaling solution. Where is this demonstrated? What I think is more accurate to say is that the "problem" has been "solved" by Bitcoin Cash. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Segregated witness creates a larger block size.

Today the block size has increased about 10%, so thus 10% scaling as of now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:WP:IRS such as The Telegraph and others seem to disagree with your original research. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2018[edit]

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: not moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin scalability problem → ?

Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem

– This article is currently named Bitcoin scalability problem. I believe the use of the word problem is a WP:NPOV issue as there is widespread debate if bitcoin has a scaling problem, and what are solutions to it (such as already deployed scaling solutions Bitcoin Cash, SegWit, and Lightning Network which are discussed in the content of this very article). I propose the article be changed to "*Bitcoin scaling", thus dropping the word problem.

Should i invest in crypto coin

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)