From ArchWiki
Revision as of 00:11, 11 January 2019 by Alad (talk | contribs) (Other Cryptocurrencies: rm closed)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Links to software packages

It would be useful to have links to software packages here. I know there is significant controversy in the bitcoin space, but I don't think that should preclude listing related software packages. My edit including links to the core & bitcoin-cash qt clients was reverted with "Bitcoin Cash is NOT bitcoin and it's better not to list it here, please go back to Discussion". Bitcoin cash is very overtly a fork of the bitcoin blockchain - with bch proponents contending it IS bitcoin & core proponents contending it is not. I'm not partial to either side, but bch is a part of bitcoin's history. That aside, I think it would be useful to at least mention main repo packages like (core's) bitcoin-qt, which was what brought me to this wiki page in the first place. Since bch client is AUR and this area is contentious tabling inclusion of fork-from-core software could make sense pending further discussion. Now ok to include bitcoin-qt link? Just trying to improve the wiki...thanks for input in this regard.--Xris (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I am adding link to repo package now.--Xris (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted due to previous consensus to avoid flame wars. Please read the previous discussions for the reasoning. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Lahwaacz: about your last edit: ‎Informational sites: this is not an informational site - it is biased towards one implementation:
I will just say that you can't be neutral about this issue, Bitcoin Core has the majority of the nodes deployment, and it is Bitcoin through the consensus of those nodes. The nodes are what determine what is Bitcoin and what isn't, so I think reverting my edit was a mistake, and you should revert back to my change -- Malcontent (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
We're not going through this whole "discussion" again. The article stays in revision [1]. Closing. -- Alad (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I understand you don't want to create another flame war, I can respect that. However, the article is about Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Core is the de facto Bitcoin client. This is fact, not bias, and I feel the article does a poor job at informing the user about this fact. -- Malcontent (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Lahwaacz for linking the prior discussion. I'm surprised and saddened by reading through some of those threads. I frankly find much of it confusing, as it refers to IRC discussions with mentions of ultimatums without clear details. What exactly is the controversy relating to linking to software packages? There are vague claims about making packages seem like "ads" or being "scary". I've been using Arch as my primary desktop for a few years in large part due to the great, task-focused, and impartial Arch wiki. This page does not fit that bill at all, and is merely confusing to those seeking to setup and configure bitcoin software on Arch (whatever the package type). Despite the verbosity regarding consensus there is no information about how to configure bitcoin on Arch. There are seemingly Arch-specific idiosyncrasies with bitcoin, as evidenced by the recent bug that makes core bitcoin-qt not start and just hang - this is what led me to this page for these edits in the first place. I appreciate the shenanigans & proposals from both the e.g. core (and related horrific r/bitcoin) and competing software camps (e.g. bch), but pretending that none of these exist just makes it more confusing for those looking to configure related software on Arch. Given the wikis and FAQs of other distributions, and even the bitcoin software developers themselves, are lacking in many ways, it seems an opportunity for clarity in software setup (in addition to Arch perhaps encountering unique errors in bitcoin code given rolling release support of newer dependent library packages). While not well updated and mainly deferring to core, other distributions have not had trouble at least providing basic information about the core packages (Fedora, Ubuntu). At minimum providing information about configuring the core reference implementation would be of great practical utility. If you are going to censor edits on how to configure bitcoin related software (as has seemingly been done many times), I would at least request a clear explicit explanation about why this is being done (as I cannot clearly infer this from prior threads that refer to off-wiki IRC chats). I appreciate the input and responses so far, and look forward to thoughts on how to better help people use bitcoin-related software on Arch through this page.--Xris (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

In order to stay impartial and high-quality, the content on the ArchWiki is reviewed (or "censored"). The topic about bitcoin is special in regard that none of the reviewers/maintainers/administrators seems to have enough time or patience or interest to gain some sensible knowledge about this mess. As a result, we concluded that the most controversial topics should not be described at all. Unfortunately, the list and implicit comparison of bitcoin software falls into this category, because their developers/protagonists were competing to get the most of the page by twisting the facts. As you have probably found, there were two options considered: either remove the software details or remove the whole page. While definitely not ideal, I think the current page is still better than nothing. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Installing and Running Bitcoin Packages

This wikipedia page discusses bitcoin *concepts* but doesn't even mention the bitcoin packages. I would like to add information on bitcoin-daemon, bitcoin-cli from repositories and instructions for building from source. Lmat (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean wiki page. Please read the last reply in #Links to software packages. --Larivact (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I see, thank you for pointing that out. It looks like my concerns have been explicitly dismissed already. Lmat (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)