Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be
aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cryptography 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.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
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.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Finance and
Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd make the suggestions in the talk page rather than on the SegWit page. It dawned on me the other day that CloakCoin was refactored using Litecoin's recent codebase which included segregated witness support. I'll post this on the Segregated Witness Wikipedia page as well.
It seems there will need to be a place where there is a table of cryptocurrencies with Segwit and Lightning support. I'll be checking my facts, but you can see from the cloakcoin announcement (
https://www.cloakcoin.com/en/news/update-2_1_0_0.html) that they have brought Litecoin's Segregated witness support.
Hi @
Joebitcoinorg:, it would be useful to create a table here with that content. We would need to find
WP:RS for each item on the list, meaning that we could not use the cloakcoin website (as it is like a press release and not a 'reliable source' under wikipedia rules. Click on
WP:RS to read more about that. But good idea, let's work on the list. Thank you!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Present tense?
SegWit's live on BTC, even if it's not universal yet; a lot of the statements in this article should be shifted from conditional to present tense. Is there someone who knows precisely which bits can reasonably be called a current thing, who could go over it? -
David Gerard (
talk)
13:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I went through to change the tense a little. Some pretty appalling sources in there as well, mostly left them alone except for one weird bitcoin core ra-ra statement with a dubious source that seemed to be useless now that segwit 2x was dead anyhow.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Controversy
I am curious why there is no 'SegWit Controversy' part in the article. Let's put aside conspiracy theories here. It was known since the SegWit introduction that there are some drawbacks. In particular: it brings a technical debt where the whole Bitcoin infrastructure needs to be upgraded to take the advantage, and the transaction throughput increase is negligible in comparison to what was the goal of the original design described by its author in the first ever
public reply three days after Bitcoin introduction in 2008. I believe an encyclopedia article should describe things impartially. I call on both opponents and proponents of this particular technology who are Wikipedia enthusiasts to bring balance to this article.
Igenno (
talk)
14:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
For sure segwit is at the center of some controversy. Encourage you to find some sources and put in the content, this article is small and the subject you discussed is interesting.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Bitcoin Cash
Why did you remove the paragraph about Bitcoin Cash? @Jtbobwaysf
This fork was created because some people did want a chain without SegWit enabled.
This is important information that should not be left out.
--
Drgross317 (
talk)
21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I am just stating facts worth to mention. In the Bitcoin Cash article it says "unhappy with bitcoin's proposed SegWit improvement plans meant to increase capacity and pushed forward alternative plans for a split which created Bitcoin Cash". --
Drgross317 (
talk)
11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, I see your point. I have added it here
[1]. Thanks for suggestions, nice to wikilink to the Bitcoin Cash article from this article. Happy Editing!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)reply