Talk:Blockchain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Hashcash, Adam Back and what else to include

Wondering out loud if a blockchain is based on Adam Back innovation of Hashcash? If yes, should we add this to the article? I noted the Bitcoin article also doesn't mention it either... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Its a good idea to think out loud on such a topic. From this page I understand the hashcash function is implemented in bitcoin but it could be another algorithm. What about Ripple? We need to discuss significant blockchain variances implemented in the cryptocurrencies linked in the navbox but that would go against the preference to steer away from currencies. I'm trying to stay away from altcoins to avoid information overload. Its a bit tricky to know where the technical definition of a blockchain is bounded when there is so much going on. However if we are to get to B class we need to adequately cover the topic. I plan on exploring attack surface, no central point of failure, notary, conveyancing, risk management, orphaned blocks and title rights if I can find some good sources and its relevant. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

CoinDesk as a source

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.

---

Earl King (former editor name: Earl King Jr.) has asserted several times on this page that CoinDesk should not be a valid source for this Blockchain (database) Wikipedia article. Other editors have appeared to disagree, but as the material is spread all over multiple Talk page sections, it has been difficult to drive the issue to closure, and it keeps coming up.

I'm starting this section to allow a formal discussion to occur with wiki-policy rationale provided, and see if we cannot clear up the matter.

I'll let Earl make the affirmative case directly so I don't do it badly. But the gist of his repeated argument is that:

CoinDesk is not a valid reliable source for the Blockchain article. — N2e (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• OPPOSE — my rationale is that no source in Wikipedia starts out, prima facie as unreliable simply because it is asserted to be so by an editor. Moreover, when Earl provided the link to a discussion he said was a "noticeboard result" (above in previous section) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEthereum#Fringe_theory_board, it was not a link to a result (that discussion was never closed), nor was it a link to a consensus (there were rather obviously editors who took the opposite position of Earl in that discussion), and it was not to any discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Now such a "noticeboard" discussion may yet exist somewhere in the vast Wikipedia archives, but I've not seen it, and Earl has not shown that. From what I can tell, CoinDesk is merely some sort of a web-published trade magazine, like many in recent years, that seems to cover the digital currency industry. It would seem to me to be a source that meets WP:V. While it would of course not be a good source for all claims about every aspect of this topic, it is a perfectly fine source for other statements or news items about blockchain-related topics. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious that CrytoCoinNew, CoinDesk, CryptoCoinNewsletters etc. are content generator sites or press release sites for bitcoin or just poor sources because they are not news or news worthy or actual sites that have value beyond blog value. They are ax grinders with a point of view. They ALL are promoting advert sites that are promoting their wares. There are lots of good sources around so it seems particularly nonsensical to use those forum blog content generator crap sites that are mostly in the game of advert promo. This source gives a bunch [1] The Age of Cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin and Digital Money Are Challenging the Global Economic Order, from the Wall Street Journal’s Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey, is perhaps the most helpful, moving quickly and succinctly through the ins and outs of this burgeoning industry, handling even arcane technical details with aplomb. Nathaniel Popper’s Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money offers a more character-driven, blow-by-blow account of the rise of bitcoin and the personalities behind it. And Kabir Sehgal’s Coined: The Rich Life of Money and How Its History Has Shaped Us offers a brief, clear discussion of digital currency in a broader context; Sehgal takes the more philosophically inclined reader from the Galápagos Islands to the hidden world of numismatists. I don't understand the issue of wanting CoinDesk also because the Fringe board totally poo pooed it and the other attendant types of sites saying basically they were bad sources for Wikipedia. That was closed long ago and overwhelmingly rejected Coindesk as a Wikipedia source. The same 3 or 4 people that promoted CoinDesk as a source just do not want to pay attention that Coindesk was rejected by the Fringe theory notice board and continue on which is very boring to rehash again and again. Earl King (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• OPPOSE per N2e comments. By the way Earl, you are prohibited from editing other user's comments on this talk page to support your arguments. Quite a flagrant violation of wikipedia conduct and I have thus reverted the edit. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockchain_(database)&oldid=746560117 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Apparently the above user forgot about the last time they took CoinDesk to have it examined and it was rejected by a drama board? CoinDesk really lacks as a good reasonable source. Why do three editors on this page love it so much???. Haha. I don't get it. You think you can vote and that is going to change things? No. That is not a consensus that a few editors like bad sources. The board specifically rejected Coindesk. Reopen the thread on the Fringe theory board if you like. Bring it to the reliable sourcces board again if you like. This is ridiculous. Earl King (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of this discussion Earl. It is not to decide that CoinDesk is lovely or great or always-wonderful source; and I know no editors who have asserted that it is. It is to discuss whether it is, as you have frequently asserted, that it is an unacceptable source to use on this page. I don't think it is the latter. It is your case to make to support that you think it is an unacceptable source. N2e (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The exact same people are doing exactly the same as they did in regard to sources on several of the Cryto coin articles. No regard seems to have been given to the very strong dismissal of those sources back at the Fringe theory board. I'll let Earl make the affirmative case directly so I don't do it badly. But the gist of his repeated argument is that: end quote from N2e. No. I don't think so. Roles are not assigned here. This is a volunteer group so please do not enlist me in this boring enterprise of redundant nonsense to these ridiculous junk promo sources. Earl King (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

CASE BY CASE: CoinDesk is a source to be approached with extreme caution. It has a habit of printing "stories" on highly aspirational press releases and products that don't exist yet. (This is because its market is primarily interested in promoting cryptocurrency, and wants to read things that make the future look bright.) If you're looking for a blanket black-and-white 100% endorsement or 100% rejection, you aren't thinking clearly enough to apply Wikipedia sourcing rules. No rule lets you throw away your judgement.

If you're looking to support use cases for blockchains, CoinDesk - and the bitcoin blog network in general - is IME very aspirational and promotional - it will write about things as if they already exist when they don't, it's an actively misleading source.

If you're looking for technical detail concerning blockchain implementations, I would look to the actual technical sources as authoritative. I'm pretty sure it would not count for notability - it prints nearly everything it can, barely discriminating.

If you're looking to it to support claims of past fact, IME it's ... okayish. (It did okay documenting the Ethereum ETH/ETC fork for example.)

(I'm busy actually writing a book on Bitcoin and blockchains. CoinDesk is one of the sources I have to dredge, I'm as deeply unimpressed with it as I am with most of the bitcoin blog network. There are sites that are actually worse, of course.)

The deeper problem is this talk page is not the venue. Take it to the WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I must add that this was one of my early exposures to CoinDesk. Awesome, as well as being a prime example of their advocacy focus - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We have been around and around on this subject of coindesk and use of cyrptocurrency news sites as sources. We even previously did a RSN on this source relating to Ethereum, and to my recollection there was again no consensus. Some feel it is a generally ok source, and some feel it is a generally poor source, yet I can't remember anywhere near to a consensus that this is always a bad source. The problem here is editors using their allegation that coindesk is a bad source to unilaterally delete content without seeking any consensus among the group. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. CoinDesk has editorial board and editorial policies in place, and has been cited by other sources such as The Guardian, Forbes, The Economist, and others. The discussions in any of noticeboards mentioned by Earl King above were not closed, and what Earl King presents here are just his own contributions. As to the David Gerard's request to take this issue to WP:RSN - this is not necessary. The WP:STATUSQUO is that this source was used here, and if you, David Gerard want to change it in any specific case you have got in mind, it is you who needs to obtain a consensus to delete it either here, or at WP:RSN. I expressly refuse to discuss any other issues not related to CoinDesk used as a source, because that is not what is discussed here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume Mecir comment is not a Halloween prank comedy post and that his dismissive attitude is just a temporary lapse of judgement and that he will actually, along with the other CoinDesk aficionados, take this issue to RSNoticeboard or reopen the fringe theory board. As to who uses Coindesk outside of Wikipedia, that has no bearing. Although Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything, it does have some critical criteria for sourcing, perhaps it is more stringent than many publications. Since these blog, fake news, press release, promo sites, are content generator sites ax grinding for their subjects for commercial reasons, it seems that if they have any value it is super limited like to nearly 0, regarding any of their content. So, vote away, Wikipedia is not a democracy and status quo does not reign either as a concept. Do not expect to maintain poor quality refs like Coindesk in the article. Most have been removed to good effect. National Enquirer no doubt has an editorial board and review staff also but we should not use it to source the article either so that bit of rhetoric fails. Coindesk and National Enquirer are just about the same in quality. Bitcoin articles in National Enquirer are suspect unless it turns out bitcoin came from another planet or there is a libertarian plot to dethrone illuminis beings. Earl King (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The comment by the Fringe Theory board should have rightfully put a stake in the heart of CoinDesk as a source that is notable or well regarded. One person on the Wiki board looking at those sites described them thus: The issue with these sites is pretty clear: their agenda is not to neutrally document facts, but to promote an ideology. They may indeed be "mostly OK" for clearly factual claims, but a clearly factual claim that is actually notable will also be covered in mainstream sources, whereas a factual claim that is considered notable only by a site like CoinDesk is probably not significant for inclusion in Wikipedia. end quote. I do not know how to express just how poor Coindesk is as a source beyond that. Earl King (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability applies to the article in general, not each bit of content in it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you rephrase the above statement? I don't understand your point. Editors smitten with CoinDesk, CryptoCoinNews and the other industry promotion sites have forgotten most of the prior conversations on the Drama board Fringe Theory board about that [2] and [3]. Not sure then what this means? Guy made the comments about it not really being a useful source. He seems a bit knowledgeable on things in general. Shall we dismiss him and the board? No. Did Jtbobwaysf go there to insistently plead for CoinDesk? Yes. Was it rejected? Yes. Other Admins have said the same thing on this page. Others on the Fringe theory board said iffy. No one endorsed it nor said kind things about it. It is not really good sourcing in an article to use industry promotion type of sourcing. Earl King (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Earl, See WP:NNC which plainly states that notability is about creating articles, and not about content within them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl King wrote: "I assume Mecir comment is not a Halloween prank comedy post" - indeed. However, this discussion is about the contents of the article, and discussion of Halloween pranks is out of scope and unconstructive. Stop doing that, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2016 (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.

New Section: Disadvantages and Obstacles

Over the past few week's I've constructed a disadvantages and obstacles section for this article in hopes of providing a more well-rounded view of the technology. It's currently in my sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amraphenson/sandbox ; scroll down to -Blockchain Additions) and I would like some feedback before I include it.Amraphenson (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

My notes:

• Some points you mention are disadvantages, other points are obstacles.
• You seem to be quite selective, mentioning only disadvantages and obstacles from the sources you cite even if the sources are listing both advantages and disadvantages. That does not look as a neutral approach. Wikipedia texts should be balanced, see WP:NPOV.
• "Because every transaction has to be confirmed by every other block in the system" - this claim looks strange, where did you get it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

First Angela, go bears! :-) Second, I agree with Ladislav in general relating to NPOV. There are some disadvantages sections in permission-less and permission-ed blockchains sections. It might be good to integrate these sources and content into those sections. But I think a wholesale "Disadvantages" section without a wholesale advantages section would not be good in terms of NPOV. But in reading through some things, I see you have advantages. For example: "Blockchain can reduce many costs for banks, providing a boost to productivity... and then later you later cover disadvantages "Blockchain also radically lowers barriers for new entrants to create alternatives to the conventional banking industry, challenging incumbents in virtually every market where they operate..."

Next, i see you cover the human element, which is something this article really needs. This article is so focused on bitcoin, and other coins, which in my opinion it should be broader. I love "Replacing existing architectures in banking or voting would require a massive bureaucratic undertaking at all stages. Every level of every organization would have to approve..." I think if you come at this as an impact on HR and organizations, we can cover the human element here. It for sure isn't all negative, everything has pluses and minuses, and as for me, I am happy to see both covered equally here. You later get into governance "Blockchain also lacks any sort of governing body as result of its nature; while the Internet on a whole has entities like the Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Internet Governance Forum..." I also find this great.

Next, "In addition, Blockchains are currently dominated by the wealthiest miners. ..." this to my knowledge really isn't factually correct. There are mining pools, but the pools dont control the miners. Also the big miners in China are not largely capitalized in any comparison to banks, etc...

All in all, i really think your work is great, and encourage you to incorporate it. Roll on you bears! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I felt like the rest of the article already touched heavily on the benefits of Blockchain; all the benefits in my sources are spoken of already in the Bitcoin or this article. I'll tweak it a little before introducing it to the article; do you have any other suggestions as to what I should label this section or where I should integrate my content? Amraphenson (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the rest of the article does touch on some benefits. If you also need to add a sentence here and there on the disadvantages to preserve WP:NPOV, then I suggest doing that. @N2e: was working earlier on at this page to try to do pluses and minuses equally. I think adding a whole section on disadvantages will be a little off base. Imagine having a disadvantages section on the linux page, or the SQL database page. My meaning it will just become a list, and it would be better if we discuss each issue in the prose and each issues +/- to keep NPOV.

But I think there is one entire new section that you could create. That section is Sociological Impact. This new section will also help steer the article away from its over-focus on cryptocurrency at the moment. In that section we can then go over the pluses and minues. This is where blockchain technology has some theorized advantages and disadvantages. For example it increases resistance to payment censorship, but at the same time it enables ISIS to make payments (as their bank accounts can be tracked). It might also create transparency in land registration documents but at the same time it might also make it obvious to everyone who owns a particular piece of land. It might make banking settlements easier, but those settlements might also put some people out of jobs. (This is all similar I guess to the PC revolution, it made some + changes and also some - ones. Some of these issues will get into WP:Crystalball prohibitions, but you have already found some coverage discussing this and there will be increased coverage over time.

Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply again. I updated my sandbox with some of your suggestions to reflect a more balanced NPOV approach. I intend to fiddle with it more as a general Sociological Impact slash Blockchain Properties section, but hopefully it's looking better already. Amraphenson (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Angela, I have edited your sandbox to create sections (at least how I read the different areas in my mind). Please confirm it was ok for me to edit your sandbox, and if it wasn't please feel free to revert. My thinking is that if we start talking on this Blockchain page about Blockchain's applications in the world (such as banking, society, and research) then we can add more content and other editors will also come in and add more to these areas. Maybe we can create a new section here on Blockchain called uses in banking, or impact to banking/society, etc. We might also be able to add sections on government (if we can find governments testing blockchain for real estate titles, etc or we can add blockchain impact to enterprise (if we can find uses), etc. Then we can easily add +/- in each section as to the impact in those parts of the world to keep NPOV. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Re Jtbobwaysf comment above about the pros/cons of permissioned and permissionless chains. Yeah, I agree. I think that section was stronger and better represented both sides of that a few months ago, maybe a week or three of edits after I introduced the prose, all quite decently sourced. A lot of it was later removed; not sure how or why, but then the whole article took a downturn for some months due to the heavy spurious deletion problem (discussed ad nauseum in previous Talk page sections) and general uncivil behavior of some wiki editors. Unfortunate; but it's sometimes the reality we must live in.

Eventually, I got tired of the WP:DRAMA and began to contribute to improving this article much less. Pleased to see some other editors come in now, and hope it gets the article to be better. This database technology seems quite important in my reading and experience, and many firms (large and small) as well as many people on multiple fronts in multiple industries seem to be advancing it. Unfortunately, at a personal level, I've now become much more busy with life, and have had, and expect to continue to have, less time to volunteer to contribute to improving this article in the coming months. N2e (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@N2e: Thank you for your feedback. Yes, the drama was a real drag with lots of time wasted. I wish you the best with your personal life and welcome your return when you have more time. @Amraphenson:, let's carry on when you are ready. You might also look back at N2e's contributions to this article, I think we started to focus on it a few months ago, around the end of August or early September. I am guessing but this article content was probably much stronger by the end of September due to N2e's added content. You may find some expanded content in permissioned and permissionless sections that we can add back (with good citations). I think we can address how this technology is important to people and firms (that some may describe as in both positive and negative ways, I personally don't see it that way, I just see it as content to add to the article that might be informative to readers). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf and N2e, thanks for helping out. The sandbox edits are more than welcome, and I'll keep working with the content over the next few days. Thanks so much for the help. (Side Note: Angela is actually my student instructor who's responsible for monitoring this assignment. Feel free to just call me Amra.)Amraphenson (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amra, glad to help. I will be travelling for a week, but will try to find some time to work on this during the next week. If not, I will be back at it middle of next week.

Here is an older version of the article, I think it might be good for you to take a look here. We might as well add some of this content back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blockchain_(database)&oldid=737160147 There was on particular editor who deleted huge swaths of content, but it appears he is taking a break from editing. WP:Be bold and have fun :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Currency Centric

This article is far too currency centric. That blockchain technology is used for Bitcoin is anecdotal and is of course worth mentioning, it is however, not the only use of this technology, nor is it an inherently decentralized system - it lends itself well to decentralization perhaps, but this article reads like it was written by a *Coin fanboi rather than a computer science expert. A great starting point would be to remove all references to "Alternative Blockchains", in its usage, Blockchain is being used as a noun rather than an adjective (eg. the blockchain, my blockchain). Perhaps we need two articles, one about Blockchain (Computer Science) another Blockchain (Currency). Thoughts? Flames? 174.200.12.48 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that it is too currency specific. I dont agree that we need to two articles, I think we need to direct this article to cover both usages. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think its only a little currency-centric. Its obviously the killer application, like text initially was for the printing press. I agree with User:Jtbobwaysf. We can structure this page to include both. Correcting its grammatical use and focusing on the properties of a blockchain in the description section will help. We need to point out what distinguishes a blockchain from the rest. Maybe monetary and accounting uses should be pushed towards cryptocurrency and distributed ledger. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• agree with OP. This article is about blockchain databases. While they are used for (and the first use case was digital currency, there are many other uses today (pure ledgers, without the exchange part [as in interbank private blockchains like hyperledger], tracking products like diamonds or natural resources, etc.). The article should not be so currency centric as it is at present. N2e (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree with "nor is it an inherently decentralized system" - this is not a neutral point of view. Some sources claim that the blockchain must be decentralized, while other sources claim that it need not be. Wikipedia must be neutral and not stand for one side of the dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the question. The question was if the article discussed currency too much. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not. I point out that we should not reflect just one side of the ongoing dispute. There may be more problems than OP's claim "nor is it an inherently decentralized system", which is controversial taking into account that the definition of blockchain may or may not comprise decentralization according to the sources. Other than that, when speaking about uses, bitcoin is an actual use of blockchain; it may not be neutral to refer to tests, trials, projects to implement, and other vapourware as "uses". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you did misunderstand. If my argument is that it is too currency centric, than I am clearly speaking of the block chain concept as a whole not of bitcoin. There is nothing that says a program cannot create a private blockchain on a single machine for purposes of making something tamper evident. Bitcoin controversies about structured blockchain belong on the bitcoin page or a page on cryptocurrency, not blockchain databases, they are not inherently decentralized, they are just a database. 2600:1002:B10E:9193:C81C:55F7:79C4:8436 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a blockchain without decentralization is just a database. Just because some people describe something as such doesn't mean its true or that we must assume that description is valid. We need not be like User Earl King who seemed too eager to determine these things when they are still being played out. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The technology is not mature and has a low readiness level.

There's no reference for this and nothing in the body. It is also very WP:POV. If there is some point to this then add referenced quotes in the article. 69.86.6.150 (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

See the above section, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How about "The technology lack mature applications and is often compared to the early years of the World Wide Web's development in terms of technical challenges that are yet to overcome." As I said in my summary when I re-added it, the article mentions pilots, testing, things in development, experimenting, etc. Other editors have raised concerns about too much speculation and hype. Having a sentence about technical maturity after mentioning two specific items in development is appropriate. We need to be expanding a start class article, building it up into something more comprehensive. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it has to have a reference. And if it is in the lead it should be in the article. (the ref can be in the article). The blockchain has a mature and old application- bitcoin. Most software is dead and buried in less time than eight years. NASA/DOD jargon "readiness level" is way out of place too. Basically all that can be said is "There is currently a lot of research into new applications for blockchains". 69.86.6.150 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot help but think that the discussion whether sidechains and smart contracts have any maturity or readiness is missing the point that the whole part about sidechains and smart contracts should not be in the lead section at all as discussed above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely don't need to introduce the USAF/NASA locution of Technology Readiness Levels, which have a very specific meaning in aerospace and spaceflight systems, without it having been used in a source.

Moreover, there is no clear and unambiguous source for this broad claim. Many sources indicate otherwise. Expecially mega banks and software companies that are using blockchains today, and multi-million dollar implementations under development and deployment. Sheesh. N2e (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Gartner thinks the technology is immature. I've seen at least two other sources saying it lack mature applications. I was mistaken on Technology Readiness Level. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with N2e. Technology readiness level sounds like we are preparing for lift off. It is just open source software (maybe there is some closed source blockchain too?), so there will always be someone willing to call it immature (microsoft sure had a lot negative to say over the years about linux). Agree with 69.86.6.150, by the time this technology is mature we editors will have moved on to something else, maybe called called 'block-rope' :-) ... But joking aside, maybe in the enterprise applications section it might be helpful for NPOV to put a line in saying that as of 2016 gartner refers to the technology as immature... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

SWIFT does blockchain PoC

The large interbank organization SWIFT has done a blockchain proof-of-concept. SOFE Berlin: Swift unveils blockchain proof-of-concept.

2016 seems to have been the year for PoCs and MVPs for these financial institutions and large companies rolling out blockchain. Like 1994 in the internet space. N2e (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

List of blockchains

I propose the creation of List of blockchains. This would leave the application section to just general statements regarding the use of blockchains. The criteria for inclusion should include all major blockchains that are not cryptocurrency. If no article exists a blockchain should only be included if it is sourced and somehow justified. I don't know exactly how to qualify this. Suggested fields would be Name, Year of genesis block, Permissionless/Permissioned, License, Developer, Primary use, etc. We could then merge the two separate application sections in this article. Is this supported or not?- Shiftchange (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NPR's articles on Blockchain

http://www.npr.org/tags/476599782/blockchain --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

What about it? I thought it was one of the worst things I had read about blockchains. I do not recommend it. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jerome Charles Potts: Thanks for the source and interesting to see blockchain getting more press these days. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Smart contract section of article

If this section can not be sourced properly it should probably be removed. Sourcing to the Tapscot book is not a good idea. That book is used too much now also. If its a go to source to just slap on anything, not a good idea unless it can be proven to actually provide the information needed. Sourcing to a promo page Block geeks is not a good idea [4] For the time being tagged it as citations are needed. Putting a book as a source with no page number, chapter number or way of checking the information is not a good idea. Earl King (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Earl King. Since you did not know how to tag a source for which a page specification is required, I made the requisite edit for you. Hope that helps. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl, Refrain from vandalism, in this case section blanking WP:NOBLANKING. If you want to challenge the Tapscott book as a RS, do it at the RS noticeboard, not here. BTW, are there any editors besides you stating it is not an RS? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it a reliable source? Maybe. Should it be used as a source to slap on any information which is not sourced, as it was done? No. Was a chapter or page number given? No. Is it easy to access like a Pdf of news source? No. Is it right for an editor to call another editor a vandal? No. Earl King (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl, I reverted your change. The source is in google books, and you can search for it there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. There is no quote to it. It was pasted onto that block of information by someone. The information was there a long time without being sourced. Your edit summary again accused vandalism. Not good. If the information exists then present it here. Otherwise will just remove again. If something is unsourced can not just take a book with no chapter or indication of anything and say it is a source. Earl King (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"...will just remove again" - the chapter is already present, and, as mentioned above, you have been warned to not delete. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Why all the obtuse behavior and repeated deletion/deletion/deletion Earl? You've been cautioned by multiple editors to try to avoid the obtuseness and work constructively to improve the article. You've been asked to add specific article improvement tags and allow some time for improvement before attempting to remove material.

While you have every right to ask for improvement, as in for example WP:CHALLENGE asking for a source, the consensus on this talk page has been overwhelmingly that you not then just delete the challenged material the next week. Give it a month or two for an editor to come along and improve it. If the prose just seems unequivocably wrong, and perhaps should be removed more rapidly, then by all means, start a Talk page discussion about it and see if you can develop consensus for faster removal.

In the case of the few sentences of this article that address smart contracts, the material seems rather straightforward. It broadly comports with all that I've read on the subject and is not particularly controversial. Smart contracts are a thing. Ethereum not only has them but does, in fact, facilitate Turing complete programs to be written to implement smart contracts. Many sources have mentioned the potential for Ethereum adoption to leverage blockchains is a large way, and even be disruptive in industry segments. Many other sources have mentioned the large number of (even large) companies that are adopting this technology. None of the prose there is particularly controversial. Moreover, you've not made a case for it on that basis here. And what you have argued on pedantic technicalities has not gained the support of other editors, nor have you built a consensus.

If however, some of the prose is eggregiously wrong, Talk page consensus on removal should be fairly easy to achieve. But there is just no need to rush to hurry to remove straightforward and uncontroversial text, at least not if article improvement is the goal? So what is your goal, Earl?

And finally, if, following your request for a source, an editor helpfully adds a source to improve the article, then assume good faith unless you have some real evidence that the source fails to support the statements made in the prose. Most of us are tying to improve this article. N2e (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have created a RS Noticeboard for Tapscott, feel free to comment there. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book:_Blockchain_Revolution:_How_the_Technology_Behind_Bitcoin_Is_Changing_Money_..._by_Don_Tapscott Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The Noticeboard discussion has concluded on WP:RSN, and the record is now in RSN Archive number 216. Three editors told Earl it is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned. N2e (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe its reliable, maybe not. Depends, but not in this case for sure because it is being slapped on the article as a source when its not a source for the paragraph. Using it as go to convenience all purpose source for a long term unsourced paragraph is patently wrong. Also In the case of the few sentences of this article that address smart contracts, the material seems rather straightforward. It broadly comports with all that I've read on the subject and is not particularly controversial. end quote. That is o.r. Original Research. Your opinion counts for zero as making the unsourced paragraph into a remotely sourced piece of good information from a book we can not access written by a industry promotion guy who formerly worked for bitcoin foundation. It seems the over use of that book smacks of promotion of the book since you have to buy it on Amazon for a peak. This then appears to be special interest promotional editing for the book. Its over over over used. Instead of using such a closed unknown source that is possibly promotional to a book since the guy is a promotional ad man of sorts for blockchain bitcoin why not use news sources like this type of thing [5] and not a promotional book? Earl King (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl, you are being obstructionist and disruptive. We work collaboratively here. YOu just deleted a perfectly valid source, with a completely normal and complete citation, and explicitly assumed bad faith on the part of the editor who added that source citation. I presume (but did not check just now) that the citation was added simply because you peppered the article with a lot of {{citation needed}} tags—so the source added on eminently uncontroversial material was likely added beccause you asked for it. And now you come by and delete the source provided? Amazingly disruptive!.

I see that another editor (not me, this time) has reverted your uncalled for deletion.

Now, should you want to try to build a consensus that a well-researched book (something like 2 years and hundreds of interviews) written by an author who has wrritten something like a dozen books on digital technology since the 1990s is an unreliable source, have at it. But no such decision currently exists, and your WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insufficient. N2e (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed User:Earl King disruptive editing. Its unacceptable to unilaterally come to some conclusion and removal content accordingly. I will support efforts to push back this user's poor editing practices on articles I am watching. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous editor bashing aside I see no one is addressing the issue that a big block of information was not sourced for many months, perhaps years. Then an editor who notoriously likes a certain book and is actively promoting it on the talk page again, sticking the citation for the book, only available on Amazon, for a small fee over and over on multiple articles. The author of the book is an unabashed bitcoin blockchain promotion man cheerleader. He hosts big meetings of the like minded for that purpose. Sound fishy? Sound weird when the citation can not be looked at? Another editor says it comports roughly with what their opinion is of the information according to them. So? Sound bad? The problem with articles like this is that a little knot of editors try to own them because apparently they are greatly inspired, or do not have anything better to do, than make an Alamo stand about ridiculous aspects of the article. Why not source the information to something reasonable, available and not promotional and perhaps even newsworthy? Its not expecting the worst to ask that. Its not being un-collegiate and its not disruptive to ask for better sourcing, specific sourcing instead of some editors pet citation that they are ready to slap on just about anything because they think its a catch basin for any old information related to this subject. Earl King (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl King wrote: "Maybe its reliable, maybe not." - based on this alone, your above "frivolous" characterization perfectly fits your approach. According to your own words, the source may be reliable. Why, then, are you deleting it from the article so many times, not having any consensus to do so? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the dynamic of my presentation above. Maybe reread? Its obvious the material was badly presented, inaccurate and a source was randomly used that did not really fit. Earl King (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The source was not randomly used, and you are again not assuming good faith to say that. That source supports the remarkably uncontroversial material there. And it's a good source. Sometimes I think your goal is not only not to improve this article, but to cause as much disruption as possible to the normal editing process by your style and frequent repetition of spurious claims. You've been admonished by three or four different editors on that in the past couple of weeks. N2e (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes this pretty much exposed the whole section nearly as complete BS. It ain't happening. The cheerleader Tapscott is not connected in any way to the information being fabricated as a futuristic scheme. Its not happening now. It does not exist now. So it is false information. Read the section about Smart contracts [6] I do not understand why this is so incomprehensible. Putting the filler crystal ball possible future information as if it were true in the article is a big fail right now for article information presentation. Earl King (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The section contains the statement "As of January 2016, smart contract systems are not being used for ether." which is annotated to have this PDF as its source. Apart from that statement obviously being wrong (which I know you don't care about), I can't even find anything in the PDF saying what the part of the article I just quoted claims it does. The closest thing to statement I'm doubting I was able to find in that PDF is "Several platforms such as Ethereum and Codius seek to apply the blockchain technology to execute smart contracts. Unsolved technical difficulties include reliably observing and integrating external events. No viable smart contract systems have yet emerged." on page 23 of the PDF. However, them seeking to apply blockchain technology to execute smart contracts does not mean that they don't currently support smart contracts. In fact, if you Google "ethereum smart contract", the first result currently is https://www.ethereum.org/greeter which is a tutorial to build an Ethereum smart contract. McGucket (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point, McGucket. I have removed the statement, which simply was overbroad and not supported by the source provided. N2e (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

New report on FinTech, Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), and blockchain technology

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) just published a long-form report on Financial Technologies (FinTech). The report is here: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD554.pdf The report title is IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (Fintech).

Chapter 5, which makes up about a quarter of the overal report, covers "Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), including application of the blockchain technology and shared ledgers to the securities markets." Has a really useful chapter introduction that should greatly help inform the explication of the topic we do in this particular Wikipedia article. It squarely places blockchain technology in the context of DLT and distributed databases more generally. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Distributed ledger

Read this today that Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation will deploy a distributed ledger. Can we put that in this article, or is that a distributed database?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/business/dealbook/wall-street-clearing-house-to-adopt-bitcoin-technology.html?_r=0

Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am not eager to immitate a crystal ball and mention preannounced projects, trials and tests here. Does it make sense to list lots of these? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these blockchain projects are trials and tests. Trials and tests is not crystalball. This one certainly meets notability. Maybe even bitcoin & ethereum are trials ... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, bitcoin is sometimes called "an experiment", "experimental code", etc. But the difference between bitcoin and the above project is that bitcoin works since 2009, while the above source claims that "IBM [...] aims to have it fully functioning by early next year", making it a preannouncement with a lot of buzzwords now. Why can't we wait until it is announced as functional? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned above, there is no guarantee it will not be just a distributed database. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

We could wait and I understand the inclination considering vapourware. However we have many articles for under construction, proposed and unreleased things. I can't see the harm with including software in development if there is significant coverage to meet notability. If we had a list page we could divide blockchains into two tables based on their genesis. This would be the same way we divide list of tall buildings into completed and under construction. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that it gets out of hand and this is not an advertising billboard. Furthermore, "possible" products or projects that may or may not exist at some point in the future have no place here. OnePercent (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Lightning network

Recently, this text was added to the article:

One of the more advanced projects is the Lightning Network by Blockstream.

References

The problem is that, most likely, the Lightning Network by Blockstream is not a blockchain. Therefore, I doubt that does belong to the article. Also, it is a project, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I doubt it is useful to list all the trials, project, tests and pre-announcements we find in news. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Lightning Network is a layer atop the blockchain (bitcoin) and several companies and developers contribute to it, not just Blockstream, Originally conceived by Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja. OnePercent (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Indeed, per the source you cite, Lightning Network is a "Network of Micropayment Channels". I see several issues here:

• There are many things atop of blockchain, (exchanges, payment processors like BitPay, university courses taking bitcoin as payment and bringing related knowledge ...) These are generally not listed here, since they are rightly seen as off topic, although they generally exist "atop the blockchain (bitcoin)".
• Said "Network of Micropayment Channels" does not exist yet.

Summing up, my understanding is that if we listed the Lightning Network here, we would violate Wikipedia rules. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2017

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: page moved as there was a clear consensus for a primary topic. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Blockchain (database) → Blockchain – Is the database the primary topic for the term "blockchain"? Note the dab page is at block chain. I'm starting this discussion because, despite there having been several RMs on this in the past (box at the top of this talk page lists them) with none of them ending with a consensus to have this article as the primary topic, editors keep edit warring to make Blockchain redirect to this article. I would ask that if this RM ends as no consensus or not moved the closing admin please protect that redirect (Blockchain) so that it stays redirected to the dab. This is a procedural nomination in the hope we can get a clear resolution, I have no particular opinion one way or the other on whether this is the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that the database is the primary topic. Blockchain.info is derived, Cipher block chaining is never called Blockchain, and, as far as I know, it is not common to call a Bar-link chain a Blockchain. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with renaming I think database is not needed in the article title Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose the bitcoin is more notable in books In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi: This is the bitcoin usage, isn't it? One of us is not understanding something. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In ictu oculi, I second BarrelProof. It seems to me that this must be some misunderstanding. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay. The article could do with mentioning "bitcoin" in the very long lead paragraphs. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agree Blockchain = that distributed ledger thingy. Block chain = dab page. All the dab entries except blockchain look quite sketchy though, so not exactly clear what the purpose of the dab page is. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Rename to blockchain Blockchain is the common term for a sequential ledger secured by cryptographic hashing, as used by Bitcoin and most other related networks. If someone is typing blockchain in the box, they're not looking for a bar-link chain, and if they're looking for blockchain.info, then they can append it with .info. JefKay (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Agree I think the addition "database" is unnecessary Benik1 (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pemanence

It is claimed in the lede that 'Blockchains are "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way..." ' I do not see anything in the article to explain or support the claim that records on a blockchain are 'permanent'. There are reasons to think that such records are difficult to falsify or delete, but this does not make them permanent. The continued existence of a record appears to depend on a sufficient number of independent data storage devices maintaining records of the blockchain, and there is, on the face of it, no reason why they should. If there is a satisfactory explanation for the claim of 'permanence' it should be included, or if there isn't, it should be qualified.109.148.117.66 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the term permanent is dubious. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Forks

I marked the section as needing citations. The claims in the section are not just uncited, they are plain wrong. For example, the first sentence in the section:

If two groups of users disagree about a proposed change to a public (permissionless) blockchain protocol or algorithms, the two groups are free to each run their own versions of the blockchain software, which creates two descendant blockchains with their own separate histories from that point forward.

messes up two separate issues:

• software forks - the situation when two versions of the network software exist
• chain splits - the situation when two descendant chains with their own separate histories are created

Network software forks do not cause chain splits in general. Only when there is a disagreement between users, a chain split can occur. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Old consensus rules" versus "new consensus rules"

The text of the section uses the terms "old consensus rules" and "new consensus rules" without any explanation. In my opinion, if there is a chain split, it occurs due to a lack of consensus, so, speaking about "old consensus" versus "new consensus" is self-contradictory. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative blockchains

The section "Alternative blockchains" contained the example "Proof of Existence an online service to verify documents" which I just removed because it's definitely wrong as that service only uses the main chain. Other examples may be wrong, too, but I don't enough about them to find out for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGucket (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I also dont understand the purpose of this section. What is an alternative blockchain? Is it a blockchain that is defined differently? Or is it a sidechain? Or is it a project that has a token that is running on Ethereum? Ethereum#Applications has a section that has uses in it, and it will eventually grow into a list of all kinds of stuff on the blockchain (maybe that is ok and uses becomes a stand alone page eventually). Anyhow, this could certainly grow into a section that people want to add their pet projects to and becomes unmanageable unless we define what it is for. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice the term wasn't fully defined. Otherwise, I would've added the definition yesterday. Anyways, I added it now and you can read it up in the main article or in the Bitcoin wiki. I agree that this section shouldn't be cluttered up with small projects but think it's important that it exists so people know that altchains are a thing. Furthermore, some diversity should be maintained so people see that blockchains can have different uses (though by far not as many as portrayed by mass media because companies attempt to get attention by throwing the word "blockchain" around, during press statements / press conferences, from time to time). I'd like proof of existence to be in the article because it represents a use of blockchains I don't see anywhere in the article (now :D) but the altchain section is clearly the wrong one for this as the service doesn't use an altchain. This is, of course, not to say that the others should be removed, too. If the examples listed do in fact use altchains or are altchains and are either major ones or represent potentially important uses of blockchains not represented by any other one, they should be listed. McGucket (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

So what is an altchain an alternative to? Is litecoin an alternative to bitcoin, or is Ethereum Classic an alternative to Ethereum, or is Steemit an alternative to blogger.com ? This is a general article about blockchain, so how could anything that uses a blockchain be an alternative to it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

They aren't really alternatives to each other. It's a term coined by cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Bitcoin is the original cryptocurrency and all other cryptocurrencies are called altcoins. Bitcoin's main chain is the original blockchain and all other blockchains are altchains. McGucket (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So is the idea to make a long list of all the 'notable' blockchain projects in this section? There must be hundreds.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

7 of the 9 altchain projects currently listed have Wikipedia articles. There should be a list containing the notable non-cryptocurrency altchain projects (but I think it should be made clear that these are all non-cryptocurrency altchains) as people reading this article are likely to be interested in them, it should either be part of this article or linked to by it. 9 items don't quality as enough to create a dedicated list. Furthermore, I don't think there will be enough actual projects to create a dedicated list anytime soon but time will show this. Do you want to just delete the existing list? McGucket (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I understand now... no I don't want to delete the list, I just wanted to understand the purpose. I also read above on this talk page that shiftchange (talk · contribs) had also suggested a list of non-cryptocurrency blockchains. I will look around and see if we can find an WP:RS with a definition, as I don't think we can use the wiki over at bitcoin.it as a RS for a definition... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In 2010/2011 the term Altchain or Alternative chain was put into use along with Altcoin to segregate "blockchain" (as in bitcoin) from other networks (such as litecoin) because (in theory) when people said "blockchain" they thought of bitcoin. The term blockchain pretty much meant bitcoin until last year 2016 when other (mostly commercial) efforts started using the term for everything, in fact Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne made that exact statement in a speech given at the "Policy Challenges of a Decentralized Revolution" conference in Washington DC... OnePercent (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if examples as Counterparty are blockchains. It is on top of Bitcoin blockchain, so I guess it is a Meta Coin. A Meta Coin is a coin that is launched on top of another blockchain, as a “meta” layer. For example a small ammount of bitcoin is “marked” and can represent an ounce of gold or a share in a company or even points in a video game. Other words for meta coins that are also used are: Tokens, Cryptoequity, Assets, Crypto Assets, Colored Coins and more Raceman (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

The entire section on the "Stigmergy Age" is cited, but is making some wild futuristic claims. While I don't oppose the fact that this article should state why blockchains are important, saying that "the blockchain may allow human beings to evolve to a Stigmergy Age with leaders without orders, order without law" is a wild claim that can't possibly have supporting evidence. Jw12321 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agree - Thank you for deleting the whole section propagating the "Stigmergy Age" theory. I do agree with you that it should have been deleted. Reasons:
  • The cited sources were questionable, self-published and have been marked as such for some time.
  • The whole "Stigmergy Age" theory was fringe and futuristic without respecting WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL.
  • There are other objections such as the placement trying to make it more important than the description of the subject of the article, the use of all caps formatting, lots of grammatic errors, etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agree per above Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Agree Thank you for deleting. But most of the cite sources were academic research. These supporting evidences told us that the blockchain ecosystems of bitcoin and Ethereum are stigmergy approaches with "leaders without orders, order without law and communities without borders". "The blockchain may allow human beings to evolve to a Stigmergy Age." Please edit the restored "governance" section.

References

Picture relevance

Nothing personal about the author of the IEEE conference picture...Just it does not contribute anything interesting to the article and it is not of good quality either :( MarmotteiNoZ 15:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not the editor who contributed the picture, but am for keeping it to illustrate the research. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Problems with existing formulations

Ok, the discussion is growing rapidly and I think it is time for a cleanup. If you agree I would remove our discussion above and my other comments and we can concentrate us on the following points. I don't persist on my formulation, but there are problems with the existing formulation, which should be listed here for solution: Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

Since you wanted to start a new discussion, this is the proper way how to do it by the rules. It is not necessary to delete the old discussion to be able to focus on new points. It is also against the rules. The old discussion will eventually be archived by the automatic process. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

After our discussion under "Request for revision" and the resulting identified problems below I have added the threads "What is a blockchain and how to define it" and "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use" above for discussion of a sustainable solution of the definition to solve the problems below. Stefan Konst (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Citation of Investopedia: Investopedia is not a reliable secondary source because they don't cite reliable primary sources. So, please delete the citations. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

The reliability of Investopedia has actually been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with a positive result. I understand your preference for academic sources, and can agree with replacement of Investopedia by such sources where available. However, for me it is as problematic as for yourself to use your diploma thesis as the source - for you it is a matter of conflict of interest, while for me it is a matter of language - your diploma thesis is written in German, which is not the language I can read well enough. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, and why don't cite the book which you cited below? In combination with the article of The Economist it is more reliable than Investopedia, which can change their definition on their pleasure and don't cite any primary source by what Investopedia becomes themselves a primary source. It seems to me to be a double standard if they are not removed. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• The word "list" in "...growing list of records..." is mathematically not correct and in discrepance to the "Blockchain formation" picture on the right side. It is furthermore not used in the cited articles of The Economist or Investopedia. Please replace "list" with "set" (from mathematics) or "collection" (from the definition of database). Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

"why don't cite the book which you cited below?" - thank you for the suggestion, doing it now Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

'The word "list" in "...growing list of records..." is mathematically not correct' - let me point you to an academic source referring to the list notion (see "​A block chain is a linked list that is built with hash pointers instead of pointers.") Also note that the notion of a list is a computer science notion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if list is right than the picture is wrong. A list has no forks. So, please add an explanation for the picture to clear the discrepance or remove the picture. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• The picture "Blockchain formation" is not referenced in the text. Please reference it in the text and add a primary or secondary source. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• The picture "Bitcoin network data" is not referenced in the text. Please reference it in the text and add the primary source. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• The picture "Bitcoin transactions" is not referenced in the text. Please reference it in the text and add the primary source or think about to remove it. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• "Database" is mistakeable: "A database is an organized collection of data." is also applicable for blockchains. But a blockchain has no schemas, tables, queries, reports, views in that form as a database. Can not be solved if there is no better reliable secondary source which sets not on colloquial formulations. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

Let me, again, point you to an academic source contadicting your opinion (see "...together form a massive distributed database that records all of the actions that happen in the system...") Per Wikipedia policies, it does not matter what your or my opinions are (see WP:NOR), an independent (and preferably academic) reliable source should be used. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

As I noted. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, solved with the new "What is a blockchain and how to define it" thread. "database" is a duplicate to list and not part of the cited definition: "Figure 1.5 shows a linked list using hash pointers. We call this data structure a block chain." Stefan Konst (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• Mathematical formulation and definitions of blockchains, the diffenrent types and options for implementation with symmetric or public-key cryptosystems, hash functions or random number generators should be based on a separate section and could be an intention for the future. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

You and other critics are right that several claims in the article are based on poor sources or no sources, which is what I am trying to fight when possible. This claim, however, also applies to some of your edits missing independent reliable secondary sources too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your great work! It is essential for Wikipedia and all of us that there are people who take care on it. This is an suggestion and we have to look if there is a way for improvements by following the rules. Stefan Konst (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• History: There is no hole between 1991 and 2008. The articles of Anderson in 1996 and Schneier and Kelsey in 1998 are relevant reliable primary sources. They are cited by a reliable secondary source: (http://publikationsserver.tu-braunschweig.de/get/64933). So, please readd with the improved link. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

As I said, your diploma thesis is inaccessible for me due to the language barrier. However, as I mentioned, since your diploma thesis was written before the first blockchain was conceptualized, it is also a primary source that should be judged ex post not by us, but by an independent secondary source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't added the citations of prior work to the history. Haber & Stornetta, Anderson and Schneier & Kelsey were cited by my work (and others). Someone else decided that this is relevant for understanding history before Satoshi Nakamoto and added this to show that there are alternative ideas / supplementary notes. You will find this citations also by a bunch of independent secondary sources which are (as I searched) indeed not academic but which are not all worse than Investopedia. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the "IT supplement on blockchain" of the "Chartech magazine July/August 2017, Issue 210", referenced on the right side of page 5. On page 4 of the IT supplement you will find "A brief history of blockchain". Stefan Konst (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• The articles of Schneier and Kelsey shows that a Blockchain must not necessarily be distributed. Please add a note and a citation. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

Since the articles by Schneier and Kelsey are also primary (historical) sources predating the conceptualization of blockchain, they should not be judged or interpreted by us but by independent secondary (preferably academic) sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

See my answer to history above. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Satoshi Nakamoto conceptualised the first "distributed" blockchain. Please add this or a similar word to "The first blockchain was conceptualised by..." in the abstract because this formulation skips the prior work which is expressed in the history section with "then" in "...was then conceptualised...". Stefan Konst (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

I see that this is where your opinion differs from independent (even academic), reliable secondary source defining the blockchain differently than you do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Request for revision

At this time, this article is terribly hard to read. For example, the first two paragraphs of the Description section are filled with jargon, and sentences seem to be put one right after another with no connection between them. In other words, it looks like a bunch of people had something to say and stuck their sentences in wherever they could, resulting in a confusing mess. Can someone fix it up? 67.200.201.137 (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on my diploma thesis from 2000 I abstracted and improved the definition. More changes will follow. Stefan Konst 12:21, 23 July 2017 (CEDT)

Ladislav Mecir (talk) undid the following abstract definition in the main article. It is the base for a better description on a mathematical level with less jargon, better accuracy (next thread) and the solution for the "Blockchain != distributed" thread. So, as requested, I place them here for discussion. Please agree to following definition or make improvements so that I will redo them to the main article. Based on this definition more changes would follow:

A blockchain – originally block chain – is an ordered set of records, called blocks, in which the blocks are chained by cryptographic techniques in such a way that new blocks can be successively added and the order and completeness of the set and the authenticity of the blocks can be verified.

Each block consists of information for the cryptographic chaining (e.g. hash of previous block or key to decipher next block), typically but not necessarily a timestamp and the payload (e.g. a digital signature of a document or a log entry).

The order of the set is represented by a directed graph. There are different types of blockchains which can be implemented by different cryptographic techniques and the verification can be based on distributed collaboration or on a private information.

Stefan Konst 14:41, 23 July 2017 (CEDT)

The following discussion under "Oppose" lead to the thread "Problems with existing formulations". To find a sustainable solution I added the threads "What is a blockchain and how to define it" and "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use". Stefan Konst (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On that subject, the description has the claim "Variants of this format were used previously, for example in Git. The format is not by itself sufficient to qualify as a blockchain.[35]" It's not clear what format the second sentence is referring to, or why it's not sufficient to qualify as a blockchain, so I watched the talk in the reference to find out why Git couldn't be considered a blockchain But in the talk, Torvalds doesn't mention Git's format or blockchains, especially not at 2:30, so it's still not clear. Also, the question of whether Git is a blockchain or not is controversial 67.200.201.137 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Oppose - there are several reasons why the changes I reverted were problematic:

Ok, now I can understand your motivation. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• Your edit did not cite your diploma thesis as the source.

Yes, my fault, I didn't thought that this is necessary for a more mathematical based definition. To improve this I added the citations of my and other work for the discussion. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• Since you are the author, it is a conflict of interest if you delete other independent reliable sources and base the text on your diploma thesis instead.

I deleted the investopedia citation at this point because their definition is not mathematical, too specific in context of bitcoin and seems to be more a commercial advertisment. Ok, there may be a conflict of interest, but I don't think so because the new formulation is more general, includes the old definition and solves the "accuracy thread" and the "Blockchain != distributed thread". Both threads shows that the old definition isn't sufficient. A blockchain is not necessarily a distributed database as you can see in the cited works and below. However, feel free to readd my definition and citations to the main article by yourself. I added the new definition because I was bored of the inaccuracy of the old one. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• "I deleted the investopedia citation at this point because their definition is not mathematical..." - this is a very subjective reason. I have got nothing against mathematical definitions, but that does not constitute a reason why to delete independent reliable definitions you do not regard as mathematical.
• "too specific in context of bitcoin" - if the independent reliable sources claim that the blockchain is defined this way, and that the life of blockchain as we know it began in 2008, then, maybe unfortunately for you, that is what the Wikipedia shall reflect. These reasons make me afraid that your edits are being made in a conflict of interest.
• "Both threads shows that the old definition isn't sufficient." - actually, not. You can read below that the "Blockchain != distributed" thread is based solely on "plain logic" of the contributor, disregarding all independent reliable sources. As opposed to that, the "Accuracy" thread is based on the correct observation that the marked sources were unreliable, which is what I do agree with. You cannot correct that by replacing the lead section by your own thoughts - that would, actually, make the things worse. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Economist confirms that blockchain began its life in 2008, therefore, your diploma thesis from 2000 cannot be used as a secondary source.

I agree in relation of the word as it and the use of a blockchain as a distributed database for bitcoin. But there is prior work which was cited here (and more in my diploma thesis) which you removed from history on 7th July 2017 (and I now partially readded for discussion above) which used the words "vertices" (instead of the word "blocks") and "edges" from graph theory, "cryptographic chaining" and "chained". So I didn't removed the citation of The Economist. But the other fundamental work must be cited as well. It is not accurate not to cite them because The Economist didn't cited them. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• "there is prior work which was cited here (and more in my diploma thesis) which you removed from history on 7th July 2017" - Your older edits judging the importance of the primary sources were based solely on your own interpretation of the primary sources. Such an interpretation is not allowed in Wikipedia. As opposed to that, my edit used an independent academic secondary source from Princeton University Press to confirm the importance of the primary sources.
• 'used the words "vertices" (instead of the word "blocks")' - indeed, a definition using the word vertices instead of the word blocks may be perceived as more general, but it would not define a blockchain, but, actually a vertex chain. Therefore, such a definition would contradict the way how blockchain is understood by the independent reliable sources now. Using the unnecessary and confusing graph theory jargon you actually make the things worse for the reader, pretending that blockchain is not a chain of blocks, but that it actually may be any chain of (graph theory) vertices.
• "other fundamental work must be cited as well. It is not accurate not to cite them because The Economist didn't cited them." - As noted above, when judging the importance of primary sources, you should use independent secondary sources, not your own judgment and interpretation. That is what I did citing the Princeton University Press book in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• It does not seem that your jargon is any better than the formulations replaced.

The jargon of the (by me) cited articles is based on mathematical and graph theoretic wording. Mathematical and graph theoretic wording is the measure for quality of accuracy and you will not focus your mind on distributed databases (which is inaccurate). On base of the mathematical and graph theoretic wording advanced mathematically exact definitions can be added in the description section below. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

And there are other inaccuracies in the old definition. 1. The old definition writes "list of records". When you see the graph at the right side, than this graph doesn't represents a list. A list has no branches, but the graph has and branches are possible and ok. 2. The order isn't verified by the timestamp but by the linking. So you don't necessarily need the timestamp. 3. In different implementations links can be at least done backwards to previous blocks or forwards to next blocks. Stefan Konst (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• Since the blockchain began its life in 2008, what you described in your diploma thesis was not exactly the same. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No, see above. In 2008 only started a specific implementation of the distributed verification which becomes widely popular under the word blockchain. This has a great value by itself but there is more than that. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2017 (CEDT)

• As mentioned above, that is your own interpretation of the history. I am not using my own interpretation, basing the claims on the Princeton University Press book as the independent reliable secondary source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Blockchain != distributed

A Blockchain does not have to be distributed, nor a 'distributed database'.

A Blockchain is nothing more than a 'endless logfile' where each block contains the hash of the previous one. Bitcoin then adds a 'distributed' part to this, and thus is the first 'distributed Blockchain', but by no means the first blockchain. Maybe compare this: http://publictimestamp.org/?pass=info&pass2=timestampingdetailed#endlesslog Publictimestamp is a Blockchain, although back than the developers called it 'chain of evidence', which started 2007 and is still up and running. 93.118.20.216 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." disclaimer, the source you cite is not a WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

yes you are right, the wording 'chain of evidence' is merely a description of the underlying functionality. If you assume that 'blockchain' by any means is not a senseless fantasy-creation but also derived from its underlying functionality (as in block + chain), than it's a chain of blocks .. not sure how to further cite reliable sources than plain logic. The real question should be: Whats the WP:IRS to include 'distributed' with the word Blockchain? 93.118.20.216 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"not sure how to further cite reliable sources than plain logic" - the principle behind Wikipedia is that editors are not supposed to use their own plain logic. Editors are supposed to cite independent reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As described in the threads "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use" and "What is a blockchain and how to define it" the actual definition of a blockchain is problematic. If the definition is clarified then the question would decompose to dust. Stefan Konst (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"A Blockchain does not have to be distributed, nor a 'distributed database'." Any WP:IRS for this claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

hm, not really, but by the name of it 'Block-Chain' it is a 'chain of blocks', isn't it? I dunno of some official 'definition' for the word 'blockchain' though.. The real question should be: Whats the WP:IRS to include 'distributed' with the word Blockchain? 93.118.20.216 (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the words: 'blockchain and similar “distributed ledgers”' that are from The Economist source cited in the article? (The Economist is not the only source cited in the article referring to blockchain as 'distributed'.) The Economist also is a WP:IRS, as opposed to your own plain logic, which is not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Differ technical solution ("cryptographic secure chain of blocks") and use (cryptographic secure ledger). Then it is clear that the distribution is a possible characteristic of the ledger to improve availability (see CIA triad under information security). Stefan Konst (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like The Economist got this wrong if it really says as you say. But nevermind, if wikipedia wants to rely on reporters logic more than on math's logic, then go ahead. I told you my oppinion and will leave it to you from there. 93.118.20.216 (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"A Blockchain is nothing more than a 'endless logfile' where each block contains the hash of the previous one." Any WP:IRS for this claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Well, by the way it works "each block contains the hash of the previous block" it indeed is simply such a logfile. I just think it's wrong to include the 'distributed' part within the word 'blockchain' as given (see comment 2 lines above) 93.118.20.216 (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

See my response above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

See my response above. Stefan Konst (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)