Regarding this proposal: Crypto-currencies

Cryptocurrencies are NOT that generic. Yes, most of them are ridiculous clones of Bitcoin, but questions about them are completely on-topic in the Bitcoin Stack.

I would argue that there are only five cryptocurrencies with their own distinct codebase, and they should be allowed their own Stack communities:

  • Bitcoin
  • Ethereum
  • Ripple
  • NXT
  • Monero

Everything else either has a community that is too small, or is based on Bitcoin's code (or Ripple's or whatever) and isn't differentiated enough to warrant its own Stack.

The reason for this is that there are many questions that are asked generically (eg. stuff about scripts) that will have a completely different answer in each of those main categories.

That said, I do generally support a clamp-down on random scamcoins vying for relevance because they managed to click the "fork Bitcoin" button and add some idiotic, poorly thought-out "feature".

imo monero and bitcoin are more similar than C and python yet C and python share stackoverflow... – Jack Fraser Jun 3 '16 at 2:18
@jack-fraser that is an oddity in the StackExchange world, and one that they're unlikely to fix any time soon. A better comparison is Ask Ubuntu vs. the Unix & Linux Stack. Or how about this one: Windows Phone and Android have their own Stack, but iPhone users congregate in the Ask Different Stack. There are also Stacks for Web Applications, Webmasters, WordPress, Drupal, Joomla, and Craft CMS, that could probably all be shoved together. Considering other exceptions, though, is largely irrelevant to THIS situation. – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 8:15
Dash should be on the list of the distinct codebase cryptocurrencies. Look at their codebase. – Comodore Jun 3 '16 at 11:12
@fluffyponza Fair enough. I just don't think bitcoin / ethereum / monero will make it out of public beta separately because the scope is too small. Ubuntu can support a healthy Q&A site separate from Unix & Linux. If bitcoin and ethereum can't get themselves out of public beta on their own, I don't think there is any way that monero will be able to but if they were combined they might stand a chance to get out. – Jack Fraser Jun 3 '16 at 12:43
@Comodore no, the Github repo literally says "forked from bitcoin/bitcoin". A direct comparison between the Bitcoin 0.10.2 tag and Dash head is easy, for the sake of the comparison you have to rename files and directories that have Dash in the name to Bitcoin (most comparison tools can't track renames). Using Araxis Merge I ran a comparison, and uploaded the results: The bulk is unchanged (191k lines), which means it is not distinct enough from Bitcoin's codebase. – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 12:55
Just to add to that - that's not a slight against the effort that anyone has put in, but it takes a significant amount of effort to be far enough removed from a codebase so as to be considered distinct. – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 14:28
what dash branch did you choose? – Comodore Jun 3 '16 at 15:20
@Comodore master, as that is based off a known tag (0.10.2) so it was quick to do. I can repeat the process, but I can assure you the results will not be materially different. Even changes such as switching to a different EC curve (necessitating a rewrite of nearly all the cryptography) would barely make a difference in the outcome. Bitcoin Core consists of over 302k lines of code, and over 23k lines of comments, by nearly 400 contributors. You cannot possibly change a substantial portion of that unless you have a large team and 5+ years, and redo the engineering decisions (eg. scrap leveldb). – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 15:35
dash current branch 12.1. that is under developement and being tested does not at all cover all the dash developement as there were many things you can't see because they are connected toward begining of dash evolution developement cycle. Dash is definitely very different in many aspects and the way it goes is about to change even faster. team had grown in last year. How do you analyze code? – Comodore Jun 3 '16 at 20:10
@Comodore there's no analysis, this is a straight up diff. It's infeasible to imagine that a tiny group of developers has managed to iterate over 390k LoC so substantively that it no longer represents the original codebase, simple as that. Every serious piece of work in Bitcoin remains unchanged, all of the cryptography remains untouched, the p2p layer and backend database are nearly identical. It is deeply insulting to everyone who has worked on Bitcoin that you would try claim the codebase as distinct and your own, and it is bordering on contravening the MIT license if you continue to do so. – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 21:04
we simply have different definitions of distinct codebase ;) – Comodore Jun 3 '16 at 21:05
@Comodore distinct: 1. distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate. 2. different in nature or quality; dissimilar. Given that over 90% of a thing is the same it simply cannot be argued that that the thing is different. Or perhaps to use an analogy: if you have two pigs, but one has lipstick on, are they not both pigs? – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 21:23
@fluffyponyza You'd better not run into Miss Piggy. – Maarten Bodewes Aug 20 '16 at 17:08
up vote 8 down vote accepted

From a scope stand point it doesn't seem like various crypto currency stacks can exist on their own. As a result the various crypto-currency stack sites should merge under one roof as or something similar.

The currently existing crypto-currency sites (bitcoin, ethereum) contain a lot of questions that are duplicates of or would fit better in other stack sites like cryptography, stackoverflow, economics, information security etc.

Creating a stack exchange site dedicated to crypto-currencies only, leaving the more pertinent questions to their respective sites, makes for a better stack exchange experience.

I fully agree with this, and I think that smaller sub-stacks can fold into this one as and when they fail to hold their own. I'm going to mark this as answered. – fluffyponyza Jun 3 '16 at 21:05
Shouldn't that be I guess most questions are about the block chain technology rather than the currency part in particular. Something can be a crypto-currency without involving blockchain tech I suppose, but do you want to include those? Ethereum and BitCoin would then get a more narrow focus of course. Or we could rename Bitcoin to Cryptocurrency and Ethereum to Blockchain. But there will be a lot of Bitcoin questions that are particular to blockchain and vice versa. So this last idea doesn't seem to fly all to well. – Maarten Bodewes Aug 20 '16 at 17:02
I also agree seeing potential questions as carrying tags such as "Blockchain", "DogeCoin", "BTC-Exchange" etc – Andrei Freeman Jan 25 at 21:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .