Wikipedia

Talk:IOTA (technology)/Archive 2

< Talk:IOTA (technology)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Ganbaruby in topic Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021
Archive 1Archive 2

Submission

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

@DGG: Please elaborate on your reason for declining this submission. Benjamin (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Is this being described as a working technology, or as an academic proposal? If it's an academic proposal, it doesn't have to have been widely used, just discussed. Perhaps you should clarify that and resubmit. If it is also a working technology, clarify tha and resubmit.
2. I'm aware of the history of the article., the multiple deletions, attempts to evade the deletions by renaming, and the eventual page protection. After you resubmit, I will let someone else review it.
Is it notable? Benjamin (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
.
@DGG: Thank you for taking the time to review the stub submission.
1. It is described as a working technology. Academia used as the foremost source of information because of the stringent measures forced on this article. There is plenty of information available on the web, as of today Google returns 'About 5,620,000 results' for 'iota AND cryptocurrency'. Had there been less contention in the past, I'm sure content and sourcing would have been less controversial. Listing partnerships and use cases makes the article read like an advertisement. The goal is to provide an objective overview of what the technology is, and a description of it as a cryptocurrency/technology.
However, for the sake of resubmission, partnerships and integrations include:
.
2. I'm aware of the article's history too. However, I only got involved this year during periods where I have spare time. As far as I'm aware, previous collaborators haven't contributed to this submission. At this point it's effectively just me.. Just trying to contribute to Wikipedia on a topic I know a fair bit about. A big part of it is the personal sense of achievement -- both for having used the platform to learn from for so many years, and having spent a lot of hours writing and researching the current iteration of this article. Kutkraft (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: someone asked above for your clarification on why submission was denied. In your denial, you stated "no evidence of widespread use." However, this is not a criteria. The criteria is WP:GNG and it appears this article meets that, regardless of the articles horrible history. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It does seem to be pretty clearly notable. I would greatly appreciate it, if any further discussion, we could be clear about just what exactly still needs to be done to prepare this article for mainspace. Benjamin (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Restore the extensive and detailed criticisms that IOTA promoters bowdlerised from the draft. A live version will rapidly not consist of the present promotional text - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, i didnt notice they took off a bunch of content. This article has been difficult to deal with in the past, as it seems to have very active promoters that show up on wikipedia. I concur with David and also request to please restore the extensive criticism section (I read the centralized iota network was offline for the past 24 hours, maybe some recent press on this, or maybe nobody in the mainstream cares now ;-) ...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: can you please clarify what you mean by:
> Ah, i didnt notice they took off a bunch of content
Yes lots of content was removed, when you suggested the article be trimmed to a stub and remove contentious sources. I don't know that the article has been touched since your last edit, after the article was trimmed to a stub with sources removed. The criticism is still up, and the DCI issue is still listed. I haven't removed content. You looked it over and even formatted it. Who is 'they' and what 'content' should have been left?
@David Gerard: You have been invited (repeatedly) to engage in discussion on the article, including the DCI topic. You've remained silent, or on multiple occassions rather than explain your position, simply threaten the article will be deleted. Your contributions had been anything but impartial, and your sole RS is FT Alphaville -- for example, in relation to an active partnership with Jaguar Land Rover you wrote:
"FT Alphaville reported, however, that this project was not proceeding - that "the press release was allegedly motivated by a last-ditch effort to draw some sort of value (a.k.a. temporary buzz) out of an otherwise failed investment. The source added, if one was to go through the press release carefully one would soon discover it was phrased very cleverly to give the impression that Jaguar was committing to a crypto service when it actually wasn't."[24]
You wrote that in June. The paragraph you wrote is false. JLR did a joint presentation with IOTA in August, showcasing exactly how a car's smart wallet has been developed to leverage IOTA for smart city functionality. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190830005098/en/Powerhouse-Energy-Positive-Building-Hosts-Next-generation-IoT-Innovation
David, are you suggesting speculative criticism like this be restored? If so, why should Wikipedia contributers knowingly publish misinformation? If you're talking about the DCI topic - there's a whole chapter about it on this talk page. You were asked for detailed feedback there too. You didn't give any. Surely impartial observers visiting this talk page would start to form an opinion by this point.
You sprinkle paragraphs with opinion, when you can simply make objective statements and link to a source. Also.. it's curious that you only add criticisms, never any objective details/descriptions about the technology, and never from sources other than FT Alphaville. Why is that?
For the sake of progress. @David Gerard: detail how the article is presently "promotional text". @Jtbobwaysf: considering you wrote the final draft I ask that you verify if you agree with David's position. Otherwise I suggest the article is resubmitted and reviewed in present state. Kutkraft (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Kutkraft, as I am sure you can see I am supportive of this being an article again. Please see if you can dig up what David is talking about, the criticisms stuff. Anything with RS lets add it. I dont follow IOTA enough to know what these criticisms might be, other than I guess that it is centralized. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I can 100% see that you are approaching this article in the spirit of what makes Wikipedia great, I've always agreed with your approach and modified the article with the advice you give. So please don't take my reply as having a go at you. The way I see it the article (as it stands) is completely objective, heavily sourced, and qualifies for publication. I was asking for you to either confirm or deny that it needs to be reworked because it's "promotional text" - which it obviously isn't.
I can only assume DCI is what David is contending -- I can't really be sure as he didn't provide any DETAIL about which criticism he has in mind -- taken from the DCI chapter on this talk page back in May:

>Kutkraft: I'd like to discuss the following lines:

1. The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researchers for revealing the hole, and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue. Ref: https://archive.org/details/FUDIngloriousFUDFTAlphaville

I'm unclear on:

"The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researches for revealing the hole" -Who made the legal threats? Where in the source does it show that?

"and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue." -Who made the violent threats? Where in the source does it show that?

2. The Center for Blockchain Technologies at the University College London severed ties with the IOTA Foundation in late April 2018 after the Financial Times report, due to the legal threats against security researchers Ref: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/04/28/iota-university-college-london-ucl/

From The Next Web: In a statement pinned on its website, CBT explained it has decided to cut ties with the cryptocurrency foundation. Ref (hyperlinked to wesbite text): http://blockchain.cs.ucl.ac.uk/

-Was the severing of ties the result of the FT report? If so, where is the evidence? -Are we able to cite sources that point to entire websites as the source of information?

Can the author/s clear these up please?

>David: What does the source text say?

>Jtbobwaysf: Are these the only 3 mainstream sources?

>Kutkraft: >What does the source text say?

1a. In relation to "The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researchers for revealing the hole" the article's only references to legal are: "Mr Sonstebo said neither he or the IOTA Foundation has ever threatened any legal action against researchers" and "for Mr Ivancheglo it was a matter of reputation, and “Sergey felt he had no choice but to seek legal counsel". I don't see where it clearly shows that the IOTA Foundation used multiple (or various) legal threats against security researchers for revealing a security gap. Can you please show me where in the text this is shown? Otherwise I suggest editing the entry to something that isn't misleading, or removing it entirely - and reconsider referencing material this kind of way.

1b. In relation to "and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue" the editor is referring to the slack comment written by Dominik Schiener. Even if it were a threat (which it isn't -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat), the editor wrote 'threats against a journalist' - insinuating harassment. The article points to a single redacted statement, not multiple incidents, and the incident the article refers to is not a threat by any commonly understood standard. I don't see where it clearly shows that the IOTA Foundation used multiple (or various) violent threats against journalists reporting on a security gap. Can you please show me where in the text this is shown? Otherwise I suggest editing the entry to something that isn't misleading, or removing it entirely - and reconsider referencing material this kind of way.

2. In relation to "The Center for Blockchain Technologies at the University College London severed ties with the IOTA Foundation in late April 2018 after the Financial Times report, due to the legal threats against security researchers." I'm going to add 'alleged' before 'legal threat' - as the sources fail to show evidence of legal action on behalf of the IOTA Foundation toward security researchers.

>A quote from one of David's FT Alphaville sources: George Orwell famously said “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

As you can see, the criticisms were vague and worded incorrectly. When I asked for more detail, I was given silence - or - "what does the text say?". To assert that the original criticism was DETAILED is false. And coming from a single source.. the source he used to assert the IOTA + Jaguar partnership are buzzwords and marketing, rather than a mainstream project that is in active development. Besides.. on the DCI topic -- I'm the one who dug up additional criticism sources to support the criticism:

1. https://fc19.ifca.ai/preproceedings/2019_02_FC_PDF.pdf 2.https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59aae5e9a803bb10bedeb03e/t/5ca0ff3afa0d6013e099cf32/1554054971015/main.pdf 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20190518040248/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq44k/a-5-billion-cryptocurrency-iota-has-enraged-cryptographers-leaked-emails 4. http://social.techcrunch.com/2018/08/09/cryptocurrency-insecurity-iota-bcash-and-too-many-more/

David provided just one. Funny that I'm the one who dug up more materials that criticise the project, then get accussed of shadiness. Frankly I'm over the snide ad hominems.
I still don't see how the existing text is promotional, and how it doesn't qualify for publication. Again. @David Gerard:, explain how that is the case. Kutkraft (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Whispering: - did you get a chance to read through this chapter before rejecting the submission? Kutkraft (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kutkraft: No reason to, no changes to the draft = decline. I'm reasonably sure that anyone would of done the same. All this discussion on the draft talk page doesn't do any good if not actually added to the draft. Why don't you add them to the draft and submit it again? Whispering(t) 13:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Whispering: yes fair call. There was a partnership topic in draft early on, however the section was removed for the sake of impartiality. It would read like an advertisement otherwise. The article has a tricky history, and its current iteration is built around source backed objective statements. Leaving references to notability/wide spread use should probably just stay in talk.. Concensus above shows that the topic meets the criteria for WP:GNG. I believe the article should be resubmitted. What is your recommendation? Kutkraft (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Kutkraft: Exactly what you've done here except on the draft add the references that link to reliable sources avoid peacock phrasing like the plague and then submit it again for review. Whispering(t) 16:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Whispering: thanks for the direction. Added references with a simple line "IOTA is integrated in various technologies". Kutkraft (talk) 02:29, 01 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, please add all the 'negative' content. David's concern is real and will be listened to by other editors as he is viewed as an 'expert' in the space. Easier to just cross those objections off the list and resubmit. This article has a long history of promotion and giving full treatment to the negatives is going to be a must for WP:NPOV. I would err on overweight side of the negative issues for now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
it may help to remember that IOTA has been deleted eighteen times, if I recall correctly, and make the goal here to make sure this isn't number nineteen - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I'm impartial on the overall reception of the content, so long as it's written without hyperbole. Which is what the problem has been to this point. I've added more to the DCI topic, addressing David's concerns, and adding an additional source. The article has been resubmitted for review. Kutkraft (talk) 02:29, 01 January 2019 (UTC)
David, wow I didnt realize this was effort #19. OK, let's see what they say in review this time. One good thing this time is we have discretionary sanctions, so I suppose likely this article will get and extended auto-confirm lock. We might have better tools to manage this time this around than in the past. Let's see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-RS

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

These are not WP:RS on crypto articles (all currently listed on the draft article). https://biilabs.io/ https://cityxchange.eu/ https://www.edag-citybot.de/en/contact-news/ https://evrythng.com/iota-a-new-partner-on-the-blockchain/ https://www.fiware.org/news/iota-collaborates-with-fiware-to-build-the-smart-solutions-of-the-future/ https://inform.tmforum.org/catalyst/2019/05/blockchain-infrastructure-marketplace-enables-pop-networks-fly-business-models/

How does all this junk make its way back into the article when it has been discussed recently on this very talk page? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It was far worse than that, I cleaned out a whole host of trash in the article. Also, here are some sources that are maybe ok;

@Jtbobwaysf: I was taking Whispering's advice to put it on the draft:
"@Kutkraft: Exactly what you've done here except on the draft add the references that link to reliable sources avoid peacock phrasing like the plague and then submit it again for review."
I've always held that this information shouldn't be posted on the draft: "there was a partnership topic in draft early on, however the section was removed for the sake of impartiality. It would read like an advertisement otherwise. The article has a tricky history, and its current iteration is built around source backed objective statements. Leaving references to notability/wide spread use should probably just stay in talk.."
Now you've gone in and tried to write someonething with an intentional lean. I've removed hyberpbole and unsubstantiated claims garnered from unnamed sources. The article is about IOTA "AND NOT" the IOTA Foundation, two seperate entities. The goal is to write a descriptive article about what IOTA is, this isn't a blog trying to influence people's opinions. Keep that in mind the next time you contribute something to the article. Kutkraft (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The key thing this article needs to be brought to a mainspace is RS, and here [1] you are removing sourced content bc it is negative towards IOTA. I will bow out on this until if/when this article makes it the mainspace and then re-add it then. Certainly POV pushing on draft article is silly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to contribute to this article. I would like to improve readability, try to add better RS and restore criticism, as re-adding negative content after it would hit mainspace would not help in any way (given edit wars have plagued this article before). However, as the following is one point that keeps returning and (I assume) will be edited right back in after mainspace, @Jtbobwaysf: could you provide some guidance on e.g. the FT Alphaville “emperor has no clothes” opinion piece:
Some quoted parts of this source are not the opinion of author, but from a(n) anonymous source(s) "close to Jaguar”.
From the article:

But sources close to Jaguar tell us nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, the press release was allegedly motivated by a last-ditch effort to draw some sort of value (a.k.a. temporary buzz) out of an otherwise failed investment. The source added, if one was to go through the press release carefully one would soon discover it was phrased very cleverly to give the impression that Jaguar was committing to a crypto service when it actually wasn't.

Inserted in the draft:

FT Alphaville ridiculed a Jaguar Cars press release that "was allegedly motivated by a last-ditch effort to draw some sort of value (a.k.a. temporary buzz) out of an otherwise failed investment...it was phrased very cleverly to give the impression that Jaguar was committing to a crypto service when it actually wasn't."[20]

At least the "motivated by a last-ditch effort" part seems to fall under WP:QS, given it relies on unnamed sources, and Jaguar responded to and denied those claims in the same article? The authors opinion seems limited to Jaguar not committing to a working smart wallet in the near future, and this part is seems valid given Jaguars response that it is a research project. I am therefore also not sure "PR incident" and "ridiculed" are phrased with a NPOV, as per WP:IMPARTIAL? Could you please comment and give some guidance?
@Whispering: I would need some time to restore criticism and try to find better RS, and therefore @Jtbobwaysf: would you be willing to withdraw the submission temporarily (if possible) until additional RS and criticism are in the draft?
Thank you,
Rbreakle (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I dont know how to withdraw a submission but I think there will be some months until it gets reviewed again. I have put the criticism on my sandbox in case you want to copy from there. I would suggest the article have 90% mainstream RS and only 10% these 'academic' sources. Some academic sources are dubious. The article can be approved as a stub as long as the sources are quality, and I believe there are sufficient quality RS to get approved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic sources (so called)

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@Rbreakle:There was an article in Wired recently about so-called crypto academic sources here [2]. This is of special importance on this article with a long history of issues. I suggest no academic sources unless we can we can all agree it is a legit peer reviewed source. @David Gerard: did you happen to catch that wired piece?. In this [3] edit we had the paper author add his paper as a source. I think we might consider a blanket ban on academic sources in the crypto space, unless we have some clear criteria to review the source, clearly SSRN seems unreliable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SSRN is just a host for papers. Often it's actually good. But you need to look at each paper and check it's actually from a journal, and not a trashy one - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Thank you David! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

text removal

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed some text today that was unsourced. generally with cryptocurrency, every sentence should be sourced. Normally we just reuse the same source a few sentences in a row if it is all the same source. But generally whole paragraphs are sections need multiple sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I was not fully aware, and did not cite every sentence to avoid repetative citing a few sentences in a row. I will revert, and adjust, sorry.--Rbreakle (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
On non-crypto articles people are more loose, but on crypto the sourcing polices are enforced to an extreme. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Major revision

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hello, I have merged my major revision, briefly discussed with @Jtbobwaysf: in my sandbox. Please review and provide suggestions for any points that I failed to address properly. Main reason was to add structure to the draft and provide better sources.

Removed sources

[1] reason: conference paper

[2] reason: conference paper

[3] reason: replaced with mainstream media source

[4] reason: hardly mentions IOTA

[5] reason:conference paper

[6] reason:conference paper

[7] reason: replaced with better reference (IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IF:22)

[8] reason: replaced with better reference

[9] reason: it references powerpoint slides. replaced with reference to the actual paper (not peer-reviewed)

Lines removed from original draft

  • Summary

"It stores transactions in a directed acyclic graph structure." -> removed due to bad source

  • History

"IOTA was founded in 2015" -> mixed up IOTA ledger and IOTA foundation

  • Design

renamed to "Characteristics" to be able to add markets section

  • Design (Coordinator)

"IOTA is a centralized by design" -> Incorrecty cited from reference (which in turn is non-peer reviewed). Corrected and replaced with better reference. "A consequence of using the coordinator node is that it creates a bottleneck for transaction confirmations, lowering the number of confirmed transactions per second (TPS) the Tangle can currently process." -> Removed due to weak reference. There may be better references, but they would be academic and I am not sure this is a notable addition to the discussion (coordinator is centralized and a single point of failure).

Added sections

  • Applications and testbeds

Examples of early proof of concepts and testbeds using the IOTA network that hit mainstream media

  • Attacks and vulnerabilities

Dedicated section towards disclosed vulnerabilities that hit mainstream media

Largely rewritten sections

  • Criticism

Added criticism section on IOTA technology, instead of solely focusing criticism on a single incident and the IOTA foundation. Criticism on the handeling of incidents by the IOTA foundation, e.g. data marketplace and DCI were moved to dedicated sections (Applications and Vulnerabilities, respectively)

Academic references

# Journal type Peer reviewed Impact factor citations used in text author COI
[10] IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials review yes 22.973 21 general on tangle, dag, coordinator not declared
[11] Journal of Network and Computer Applications review yes 5.273 29 general on tangle, microtransactions not declared
[12] Journal of Medical Internet Research research yes 4.945 38 data transactions on iota declared
[13] IEEE Network review yes 7.503 8 general on tangle and coordinator not declared
[14] Cryptology ePrint research no - / (1.537) 3 vulnerability in Curl-P not declared
[15] Computer Networks research yes 3.03 1 quantum resistance and related security problems not declared
[16] Designs, Codes and Cryptography research yes 1.100 0 follow-up of DCI incident; replacement of kerl with troika not declared

--Rbreakle (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I can see a general need to prune sources. But why do you remove conference papers? In computer science, conference publications are the most common and accepted way of academic publishing (we use journals much less often, and, apart from text books, we let Donald Knuth write all our monographs ;-). Of course there are also crap conferences (just as there a crap journals), but Springer and IEEE are normally good sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
{@Stephan Schulz: I have encouraged (my personal suggestions) the other editors to be extra strict on this to see if the article can be re-added. This article has had huge problems with promotionalism in the past. Maybe the IEEE and Springer are in fact good sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a matter of scientific culture, which is different for different areas. In computer science, serious conferences have serious peer review, and their proceedings are the primary type of scientific publication. This is a very different from e.g. astronomy, where (if I understand the field correctly) conferences are more about throwing out ideas, and the actual permanent contributions to the literature are via journals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Blockchain conferences can and do run any nonsense - there's some terrible guff that's been put up as conference proceedings. I'd strongly suggest sticking to peer review for the cryptocurrency area - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The DCI paper was just accepted at FSE 2020, I wondered why the authors were cheering about it and did not go for a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, this nicely supports @Stephan Schulz: explanation. I learned something new today, thanks. --Rbreakle (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ El Ioini N., Pahl C. (2018) A Review of Distributed Ledger Technologies. In: Panetto H., Debruyne C., Proper H., Ardagna C., Roman D., Meersman R. (eds). On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences. OTM 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11230. Springer, Cham. First Online: 18 October 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02671-4_16
  2. ^ Afanasev, M. Y., Fedosov, Y. V., Krylova, A. A., & Shorokhov, S. A. (2018, May). An application of blockchain and smart contracts for machine-to-machine communications in cyber-physical production systems. In 2018 IEEE Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS) (pp. 13-19). IEEE.
  3. ^ Brogan, James; Baskaran, Immanuel; Ramachandran, Navin (8 May 2019). "Authenticating Health Activity Data Using Distributed Ledger Technologies". Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal. 16: 257–266. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.06.004. PMC 6071583. PMID 30101004.
  4. ^ "World Trade Report 2018" (PDF). World trade Organisation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 June 2019. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  5. ^ Fan, Stephen & Khazaei, Hamzeh & Chen, Yuxiang & Musilek, Petr. (2019). Towards A Scalable DAG-based Distributed Ledger for Smart Communities. ResearchGate. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331484970_Towards_A_Scalable_DAG-based_Distributed_Ledger_for_Smart_Communities
  6. ^ Bartolomeu, P. C., Vieira, E., & Ferreira, J. (2018, December). IOTA Feasibility and Perspectives for Enabling Vehicular Applications. In 2018 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps) (pp. 1-7). IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8644201/
  7. ^ Barolli, Leonard; Takizawa, Makoto; Xhafa, Fatos; Enokido, Tomoya (2019). WEB, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NETWORK APPLICATIONS. Springer. pp. 122–124. ISBN 9783030150358.
  8. ^ Wahab, Abdul; Barlas, Mahad; Mahmood, Waqas (24 May 2018). "Zenith Certifier: A Framework to Authenticate Academic Verifications Using Tangle". Journal of Software and Systems Development. 2018: 1–13 – via IBIMA Publishing.
  9. ^ Narula, Neha (February 2019). "Preventing catastrophic cryptocurrency attacks". International Financial Cryptography Association. Retrieved 26 May 2019.
  10. ^ Ali, Muhammad Salek; Vecchio, Massimo; Pincheira, Miguel; Dolui, Koustabh; Antonelli, Fabio; Rehmani, Mubashir Husain (2018-12-18). "Applications of Blockchains in the Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Survey". IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 21 (2): 1676–1717. doi:10.1109/COMST.2018.2886932. ISSN 1553-877X.
  11. ^ Makhdoom, Imran; Abolhasan, Mehran; Abbas, Haider; Ni, Wei (2019-01-01). "Blockchain's adoption in IoT: The challenges, and a way forward". Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 125: 251–279. doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2018.10.019.
  12. ^ Hawig, David; Zhou, Chao; Fuhrhop, Sebastian; Fialho, Andre S; Ramachandran, Navin (2019-06-14). "Designing a Distributed Ledger Technology System for Interoperable and General Data Protection Regulation–Compliant Health Data Exchange: A Use Case in Blood Glucose Data". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 21 (6): e13665. doi:10.2196/13665. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 6595943. PMID 31199293.
  13. ^ Cao, Bin; Li, Yixin; Zhang, Lei; Zhang, Long; Mumtaz, Shahid; Zhou, Zhenyu; Peng, Mugen (2019-07-10). "When Internet of Things Meets Blockchain: Challenges in Distributed Consensus". IEEE Network. 33 (6): 133–139. doi:10.1109/MNET.2019.1900002. ISSN 1558-156X.
  14. ^ Heilman, Ethan; Narula, Neha; Tanzer, Garrett; Lovejoy, James; Colavita, Michael; Virza, Madars; Dryja, Tadge (2019). "Cryptanalysis of Curl-P and Other Attacks on the IOTA Cryptocurrency".
  15. ^ Sarfraz, Umair; Alam, Masoom; Zeadally, Sherali; Khan, Abid (2019-01-15). "Privacy aware IOTA ledger: Decentralized mixing and unlinkable IOTA transactions". Computer Networks. 148: 361–372. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2018.11.019. ISSN 1389-1286.
  16. ^ Kölbl, Stefan; Tischhauser, Elmar; Derbez, Patrick; Bogdanov, Andrey (2019-08-27). "Troika: a ternary cryptographic hash function". Designs, Codes and Cryptography. 88 (1): 91–117. doi:10.1007/s10623-019-00673-2. ISSN 0925-1022.

Network downtime

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Seems one of the most notable events of IOTA's life is currently in place, in that the centralized network was taken offline. Is there an RS for this? Seems a shame not to include it, or does nobody in the mainstream care? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever that I can find in the usual RSes that cover crypto (FT, Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ, Reuters) - the network is literally stopped, but nobody seems to care - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This in Heise would count - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
ZDNet was the first to report on it, I added it some days ago in section 4.4. I would suggest to merge David's contribution with what I wrote there, but I agree that this and perhaps DCI are significant and notable events in IOTA (tech) history (and it would make the history section a bit more balanced). Links to other sections for more in-depth info is not common on wikipedia right @Jtbobwaysf:? As that way it could be added as a summary of events in the history section and point to paragraph 4 for more background? Any suggestions to keep everything in appropriate sections, I would rather discuss here first before reordering and moving text @David Gerard:. - Rbreakle (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd merge it in history - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I didnt notice it in the other other section. Yes, I think also better in history, probably one of the most notable events in iota's history. I find these crypto articles that have limited coverage in mainstream RS (and thus resulting limited coverage in the article) are often better done in a historical prose. It makes for an easier way to organize. Just my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The disadvantage of writing it in a historical prose is that terms are introduced without proper context/background, e.g. coordinator in the wallet attack. I merged in history, provided more detail and added some sources. Please review.--Rbreakle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Following up on this,

probably one of the most notable events in iota's history

Unfortunately, as significant as it may be, it is definitely not one of the most notable events (so far). We resort to a foreign source to include it.
In contrast, e.g. Jaguar was picked up by CNET, Reuters, The Independent, Engadget and more; the seed theft by Reuters, BBC, Der Spiegel, and more.
I feel that a Wikipedia article on technology should provide an overview of the tech first, so its readers can get a balanced view of its strengths and weaknesses. Therefore I have moved the trinity attack back to its dedicated section, so at least the way it is structured now gives an overview on IOTA technology, before describing attacks and how IF dealt with those. —Rbreakle (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Non-RS

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi @Bri:, thank you for contributing. Please revert your deletions, these were forbes staff sources Wikipedia:Forbes. Previously, Forbes.com contributor articles could have been identified by their URL beginning in "forbes.com/sites"; the URL no longer distinguishes them, as Forbes staff articles have also been moved under "/sites". See also: Wikipedia:RSP.

Also, @Jtbobwaysf: could you have a second look at elektroniknet.de. As I understand it is a respected trade magazine, and these specialized things on embedded elecronics are hard to find in general media. The article was written by a member of their editorial board, not a contributor. Also see, https://www.elektroniknet.de/media Rbreakle (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You are correct; I didn't notice the URL convention had changed. Self reverted. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe we are not using trade magazines for blockchain articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Under review Comment

Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Courtesy ping of Curb Safe Charmer to remind you that you still have this page under reivew. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy: thanks for the reminder, but unfortunately this is stuck with DGG per the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Draft:IOTA (technology) as I cannot accept the draft while the mainspace article of the same name is salted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I changed it to semiprotection on the basis of the apparently complete rewrite by reliable editors. I do not recall whether the semiprotection continues to the accepted article, but if it is accepted, I suggest it remain semi protected, considering the history of the article DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Given it was deleted 18 times (I think) in various forms before this, and it's a cryptocurrency article, this is a very good idea. May be an idea to put it under extended-confirmed straight away, under WP:GS/Crypto - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
i agree Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I've approved this. The notability is there and no POV issues exist that I can see. I've also requested indefinite semi-protection. We'll see how this goes. Hold on to your butts. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@David Gerard: or @MER-C: could you please add indefinite extended auto confirmed, this has been a very problematic article in the past and i expect it to continue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Holy shit... this made it into mainspace. Please let me know when the spammers show up - I've got a feeling semi isn't enough but I want to give it a chance first. MER-C 12:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Its already underway in the talk page section below this ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Correction, I meant to say it is underway over at Talk:Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Sources_flagged_as_"unreliable", sometimes I cant keep it all straight :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead section

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi @Rosguill:, @Jtbobwaysf: I have followed up on the draft of the lead section. If you are willing to review, thanks. Rbreakle (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Rbreakle, looks good I've removed the tag. FWIW, for tags like {{lead too short}} tag it's generally non-contentious to remove the tag yourself once the issue's been addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks excellent. I made one small tweak and deleted the 'why' as in why the network uses a coordinator node. The fact that the founders control the network, if we are going to say in WP:wikivoice that the reason behind it is benevolent, we need very good sources for that (and in my opinion one IEEE paper is insufficient.) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Kerl Collisions

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The German language Wikipedia already has this (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOTA_(Distributed-Ledger-Technologie)#Geschichte), but it might be worth adding to the English version too:

"Kerlissions" -- A trivial collision risk inherent to the design of the Kerl hash function: https://github.com/iotaledger/kerl/pull/8

More details: https://soatok.blog/2020/07/15/kerlissions-trivial-collisions-in-iotas-hash-function-kerl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiPHPerCoder (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it based on a blog in German wiki? We don't use blogs here. Retimuko (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Update

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I updated the wiki with some restructuring and additional references:

DCI -> moved to history

Trinity hack -> moved to history

Seed-generator scam -> moved to history

Planned updates (IOTA 2.0) -> created in history

13/M bug -> merged with criticism on coordinator

Quantum resistance and ternary -> merged under signature scheme in criticism

Network maturity -> merged under coordinator in criticism

As far I can tell I have kept all original references. I tried to combine new foreign language refs with english refs where possible. Primary sources were added for Ivancheglo and Sonstebo leaving the board of directors. New references:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

References

  1. ^ Stanley Hunter, John (20 February 2020). "Hacks und Streit unter Gründern: Was ist bei IOTA los?". Capital (in German). Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  2. ^ "IOTA Foundation parts ways with David Sønstebø". IOTA Foundation Blog. 10 December 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  3. ^ Sønstebø, David (23 December 2020). "My departure has been greatly exaggerated". Medium. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  4. ^ "Sergey Ivancheglo departs from the IOTA Foundation". IOTA Foundation Blog. 26 July 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  5. ^ Come-from-Beyond (3 February 2020). "My side of the story about parting ways with David Sønstebø". Medium. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  6. ^ Riesbeck, Peter (15 August 2020). "Moneten für Maschinen - Warum Dominik Schiener die Kryptowährung Iota entwickelt". Frankfurter Rundschau (in German). Retrieved 2 January 2021.
  7. ^ Osborne, Charlie (7 December 2020). "2020's worst cryptocurrency breaches, thefts, and exit scams". ZDNet. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  8. ^ Chavez-Dreyfuss, Gertrude (30 September 2020). "Jaguar, NTT team up with tech group on remote access software". Reuters. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  9. ^ Mix (21 February 2018). "IOTA is vulnerable to replay attacks but has no intention of fixing the flaw". Hard Fork | The Next Web. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  10. ^ Lomas, Natasha. "Xayn is privacy-safe, personalized mobile web search powered by on-device AIs". TechCrunch. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  11. ^ Voß, Oliver (9 December 2020). "Suchmaschine mit Tinder-Prinzip". Tagesspiegel. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
  12. ^ Mix (21 February 2018). "IOTA is vulnerable to replay attacks but has no intention of fixing the flaw". Hard Fork | The Next Web. Retrieved 3 January 2021.

Rbreakle (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the spelling of "Januari" to the correct Oxford spelling of "January" in the section "History" => "Attacks" Humni5 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! DanCherek (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021 (to update dead link)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the upper-right corner info box: The link to the iota whitepaper is dead (it gives 404 not found).

I propose to link instead to an historical version of the whitepaper found on archive.org .

Here is the current (broken link): http://www.tangleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf

Here is a working link à la archive.org : https://web.archive.org/web/20200814021738/http://www.tangleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/IOTA_Whitepaper.pdf Jasha10 (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Benjamin (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section "Applications and testbeds", a privacy centric search engine named "Xain" is referenced. This is a typo, confirmed by the linked citation (TechCrunch article). Please change "Xain" to "Xayn". Thanks. Mckenzie Weir (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IOTA_(technology)/Archive_2&oldid=1133111038"