Jump to content

Talk:Blockchain/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Edits of this date

OUTSTANDING, OUTSTANDING ARTICLE, MATES, BRAVO/BRAVA. About the best tech article, in terms of WP:VER I have seen. I am beside myself with admiration. As for edits performed, they were almost all in service of removing the article tag, which calls for copyediting to present a unified citation style. One is beginning to appear as a result; my desire is not for this style, per se, necessarily (e.g., dates were of multiple styles, so I just chose one). Just that the biblio look encyclopedic, and not like a hodgepodge. Note, in the editing, some other substantive changes were made, if I found a source did not say what its appearing after a sentence implied, or if I confirmed an issue of an earlier editor.

But bottom line, this is a magnificent representation of what WIkipedia can accomplish. Making the styles consistent is immaterial to the content being accurate (since drawn from reputable sources), verifiable, and understandable. Cheers, all, and again congrats. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and found that the earliest contributions of dates were in dmy format. So per WP:DATERET, a part of WP:MOSDATE, that format should be retained. Fortunately, most of the recent citations added use that format, or the ISO format of yyyy-mm-dd, which some bot will come along and happily make all the dates consistent in due time. I've also added a dateformat template to the top of the article prose. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
OUTSTANDING? I disagree if you mean anything related to the actual content. I came by to add a sidechain only to find an anonymous IP address removed every single sidechain except for Blockstream. The proper course of action is to request citations, not delete an entire sections content except for the one company. On that note there is entirely too many commercial efforts listed in this article, as a reminder of the many conversations there have been here on this talk page on the topic, there are very few proven and widely accepted implementations (such as bitcoin) and none of them are commercial to date, the only exception is possibly Ripple but they do not call their technology blockchain according to their website. Commercial references should be NOTABLE implementations that can be proven as fact, not "possible" things that companies are offering, this is not a place to advertise products and I mention this because it got out of hand before and seems to be creeping back. Microsoft and the Azure BaaS is a good example of a notable reference. "Deloitte and ConsenSys announced plans in 2016 to create a digital bank called Project ConsenSys." should not even be listed in this article. The "might-be's", "currently building", "going to implement", "currently offering", "planning to this or that" type references do not equate to actual fact. This article seems to be headed back to a bunch of "theory" again. It is also unreadable to the average person. For example what does "which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations" suppose to mean? It uses a reference that links to a book page that has no reference to the term and the term itself makes little sense. Please refer to WP:CITEPAGE when using books and add sections, pages, and notable references so that they are verifiable, currently this one is not. This article is a mess. OnePercent
Agreed, the "which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations" makes no sense, and it is actually unsupported by sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the "which hold exclusively data in initial blockchain implementations" bit, since it had been tagged for a couple of months now with "failed verification" and no editor had attempted to clear up the matter. I don't know which is correct; just good practice to clean up the stuff after maybe two or three months, and let other editors write new prose when they have better/more sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
N2e, you especially removed the tags marking a YouTube video unreliable as a Wikipedia source for several months, and marking another source as unrelated ("failed verification") to the actual claim. Both of these tags are still valid, and the claims you inserted into the article, therefore, classify as WP:OR. That is why your edits must be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir, thank you for your response here on the Talk page. And also thank you for your recent set of edits responding to specifically identified problems in the article, rather than making a massive revert. I think we'll be better served and obtain a better article by discussing items of contention here on this Talk page, in a item-by-item basis.
I suspect this Talk page section is, in general, the wrong place to continue the in-depth discussion, simply because these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the section title, and are far removed from the date, two months back, when the OP topic of this section was set. Other editors are more likely to know what issue is under discussion with a more focused approach and clearer section heading names that approximate the discussion topic.
We can address various items better in new item-specific sections below, in whatever priority order we and other editors wish to identify and discuss issues. I will however just briefly respond to your last comment above on the YouTube video here, so the response is close to your comment, and that particular topic may or may not be the highest priority to take up below. That particular YouTube video is of a talk given at a technical conference, and is published by the formal organization that sponsored the conference. I believe it will thus stand scrutiny; but happy to discuss further and get other ediotr's views if you want to highlight that particular issue below in a new section. There definitely is not a blanket policy on Wikipedia that no YouTube video can ever be used as a source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that the claims discussing the structure of blockchains remain unconfirmed by reliable sources, they are also not discussed in the article body. This fact violates the policy that the contents of the lead section should be the most important claims discussed in the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Blockchain Revolution — a book published in May 2016

I had mentioned above, in a Talk page item dated 31 May, that a new book had been published. I had a copy from the library then but only had limited time to work with it as a source at the time. I did use it to source some other articles at that time (probably findable in my edit history), and got it at least mentioned here. When I started editing today, it was mentioned in the Further reading section of the article.

I obtained another copy of the book today, and have now spent a few hours reading it. Have sourced a half-dozen or more citation needed requests, while cleaning up a variety of others that had been challenged for at least a couple of months. I also used the book to greatly expand the material in the article on permissioned blockchains, which seem to be a fairly big thing in the financial industry. Prior to this time, the article has mostly been about public (or "permissionless") blockchains, so good to get a bit more balance. I looked, but did not locate, any place in the book with a clear list of the pros and cons of public/permissionless blockchains, so that is legitimately something we may want to find, in this or other sources, to improve the article.

The book has been out for several months now, at least in the US, so I would guess others might be able to locate a copy at their libraries as well. There is a lot more information in Blockchain Revolution that might prove useful to improving this article, should others want to consider taking a look at it as well.

I'll have the book for while, and if I find the time, will come back here and endeavor to use it to improve sourcing on this article, as I believe it may be the first book-level treatment on the subject of blockchains. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestion, I am going to read it as well. Here is a link by the author on TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_how_the_blockchain_is_changing_money_and_business?language=en Coincidentally I just watched it recently, very good. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Article lede: question of sourcing

Thank you to Ladislav Mecir for clarifying the issues with the lede section. Since that was mixed in with a meta-question about cleanup tags in the previous Talk page section, let's capture the issue here, and then discuss.

The issues as identified by Mecir are:

  • The second sentence of the lead section describing the subject is WP:OR, and it has been challenged as such since May.
  • I watched the Youtube video you advocate as an acceptable source above, but am still missing a specific minute:second in the video, which supposedly confirms your claim.

To which, I (N2e) had said, once the issue was clarified to be the items tagged with inline tags:

  • those specific issues addressed by the inline tags can be worked on over the coming days, without wondering if there is 'also' some meta-issue about the section that should be worked on first. I already have one idea to chase down for supporting the disputed statement; just need to put the time in to find it.

If I have not summarized the issue(s) correctly, then feel free to add more info, either below, or just correct/fix the text I quoted from you above.

I'm loaded with other work now, but will commit to be back here to address your concerns within two days; i.e. even faster than you responded to the questions of the topic in the above section that was attempting to clarify the issues. N2e (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a chance this morning to look at that source Ladislav Mecir is questioning. Fortunately for my time, that statement is supported by material in the first three minutes of that video source. I have added the specific minute:second to the article citation as requested. N2e (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I may somehow still miss it, but you mentioned the 1:45 - 2:42 part of the video. In that part, however, there is no mention of the structure of the blockchain, blocks, and their contents... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think that section, where the person in that video says: "In Ethereum, all transaction processors come to consensus about what happened and when with respect to transmission and storage of the ether value token as well as coming to an agreement about all the processing that occurs on all of the shared programs on the world computer. " supports what I had understood to be the part of the sentence in the lede that you are challenging. If there is something else, do let us know.
So, you confirm that the source actually does not say anything about the blockchain structure. Especially, it does not say that blockchain consists of blocks, and that blocks consist of ... You confirm that the source only mentions that the transaction processors come to an agreement about all the processing. This is is not a description of the structure, and therefore, your description of the structure remains unconfirmed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Huh? Did you even listen to the first three minutes? Or read my entire post? (since your response was inline)
I'll continue the discussion below, so that the entire previous history of what I said ten hours ago might be seen by other editors, in context, as I'm increasingly certain that we are going to need other eyes to resolve this amicably. N2e (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The challenged sentence in the article lede currently says:

It consists of data structure blocks that may contain data or programs—with each block holding batches of individual transactions and the results of any blockchain executables.

My understanding was that it was the second half of that, the newer part that may not be in all blockchains but is in some today, was the challenged part. I had understood that the data part, and the "batches of individual transaction" were not at issue as every blockchain since bitcoin in 2009 do that. Only the executable programs part is very new. And the time stamp I added (01:45) is where that specific point of executable program results being recorded on the blockchain is supported. Of course, the gentleman is giving a talk, and the context for that sentence is given in his comments starting at 01:10. So if you think it would help, feel free to modify the time provided to whatever you believe would help other editors be best able to verify the idea that, yes, nowadays, blockchains can indeed store both transactions of the ledger type (their historical and first use) and also may store results of program executables.
But do let me know if I have that wrong about what specific statements or substatements you are challenging. Are you, on the contrary, challenging more parts of entire sentence? N2e (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


(repeating, for contextual clarity, in date/time order of what has gone on before) Here is Ladislav's comment of 21:16, 27 August 2016, earlier today:

So, you confirm that the source actually does not say anything about the blockchain structure. Especially, it does not say that blockchain consists of blocks, and that blocks consist of ... You confirm that the source only mentions that the transaction processors come to an agreement about all the processing. This is is not a description of the structure, and therefore, your description of the structure remains unconfirmed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm amazed. All this time I had understood your issue to be that you wanted really solid sourcing that the newer blockchains, in addition to the widely-understood characteristic of traditional/older blockchains—that "blocks" make up block chains (chains of data blocks) and that those blocks contain ledger transactions—now also include in newer blockchains the result of program executables in the blockchain data. That is what is clearly supported in that source, a YouTube video of a conference presentation by Joseph Lubin, and through quite a lot of hard work and hoops, I have clearly demonstrated to you (and all readers of this article) that, yes, that is a pretty standard understanding of what the (much newer) Ethereum blockchain includes. Therefore, in mid 2016, it is something that might be included in blockchain records, as well as the traditional "blocks" and "data" from "ledger transactions" that are widely understood to be a part of any blockchain. That is what I added to the lede some five or six months ago when I first edited this article, and sourced it when I added that.
Frankly—since you have been editing this blockchain article, extensively, since May of 2015 (diff), a full year earlier than I began working on it—I am incredulous that you did not, and do not, understand, as you assert above, basic "blockchain structure." and " that blockchain consists of blocks, and that blocks consist of" transactions that include ledger entries in the standard/traditional blockchains like bitcoin. Really, if you think about it, that is an amazing claim for you to make. Did you ever read the sources you used to extensively edit, and find fault with, this article over the past 18 months???
Moreover, as you likely know, and as anyone who has even passing familiarity with the subject will know, blockchain databases (since bitcoin, 2009) consist of "blocks" of data, and those blocks have traditionally consisted of data that is ledger transactions of value transfers. Beyond that, it would be secondary-school simple to find tens of citations to support that in the lede of this article; if it would even need a citation, since it is likely supported in the body prose, and MOS:LEADCITE does not require every statement in a lede to be cited for material cited in the article body.
Now, I do not know your motive for this move, and I explicitly assume good faith that you are merely wanting the block/traditional block contents to be sourced, which would be easy peasy. But I must say that, given what your behavior here has evidenced to me; and given that your recent behavior on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (on the issue of use of YouTube videos as sources, and specifically in this article) was found to be slippery, and your argument continued to change as each of those editors, repetitively, pointed out you were not correct on your earlier argument; then I find it much easier to believe that you may be doing the same thing here: changing your argument after your initial position is found to be lacking.
Listen, I want to just improve Wikipedia articles. I happened to find this one of interest six months ago as I came to understand about this new sort of continuously-growing and non-repudiable and transparent database technology. I will be happy to work with you if you can work constructively to improve the article. But this move today, to first attack me (in another Talk page section, which I've already responded to there), and to now change your position on what needs to be supported by a source, is reflecting badly on you, in terms of showing that you have the sort of editor characteristics that would make mutual improvement of an article straightforward and comradely. I hope you decide you want to work collegially to improve Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You truly embarrassed yourself Ladislav with that move to changing your story to say you were merely looking for a source for the structure of a block chain. And now, after four days, you haven't added any source for that story, when sources on the basic structure of data going into blocks, new blocks connecting back and back-referencing prior blocks etc. would be simple, and would exist in hundreds or thousands of places on the quick-searchable web.
Moreover, your story does not ring true since you were very active editing this article for a full 12 months prior to the day I first came to this article. If you had so much concern about it, you surely would have done this extremely easy and lightweight sourcing then. And according to your edit history, you've been editing the original blockchain articles (Bitcoin, bitcoin, and many related articles for several years prior to that. I'm calling BS on your claim that getting a source for the basic structure was all you were looking for. N2e (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done, easy peasy, as I said above. And it would have been super easy for you too, during most of the last 18 months you've worked on this article. The basic structure of the blockchain is now sourced: block chains are made up of blocks of data. Seems a bit overdone. But per the issue made of it by you, it is now sourced all over, in the body prose, and in the lede where you've been defending a lot of redundant tags. N2e (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It has not been done at all:
  • the source challenged since May, which does not discuss the structure of blockchains at all, is still used to "confirm" a claim
  • I added a tag to mark the part that is not sourced at all Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, Ladislav, it seems a bit of overkill, since all the claims there are entirely sourced by the sources provided already, nearer the end of the sentence in question. But since you've asked so insistently, I've responded in good faith by sourcing EACH.INIDIVIDUAL.CONCEPT in that sentence, even though this required multiple uses of the source citations.
I will go on record as saying that I think this is, in general, a poor practice for Wikipedia, and citations at the end of sentences are generally considered sufficient. But there are exceptions, and your insistence seems to be one of them. (Although quite likely, some other editor will find such repretition tenditious and will clean it up and reduce the redundant citations in due time.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
A note: You may have missed the fact that the sentence also violates the WP:MOS policy as mentioned above. That is caused by your tactic to discuss one issue at too many places. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that comment, nor what your argument is about a violation of [{WP:MOS]]. N2e (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Access to blockchains" section violates NPOV policy

WP:WikiVoice requires: "Avoid stating opinions as facts." The section, however, claims: 'Blockchain technology may be permissionless—public, or "open for anyone to use"—or permissioned—private, closed off and accessible only to chosen parties which have specific "credentials giving them a license to operate [on a] particular blockchain".' This violates the cited policy, since, as the "Debates" section demonstrates, there is a dispute "whether a private system with verifiers tasked and authorized (permissioned) by a central authority, should still be considered a blockchain". In contrast to the "Debates" section, the "Access to blockchains" section cites only one source to prove its claims, and, in addition to the main claim, it contains several other claims that contradict other, even some academic, sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

On first pass of reading this I tend to agree with you. The issue is the whole section defining what a blockchain is above it also tends to define it as the data and then the blocks. Anybody else have comments? Suggestions? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating this section to discuss a single "article scope" question. Are permissionless (public) and permissioned (private) blockchains really both be properly considered blockchains at all?
That's a fair question, but not one I had previously understood to be contentious. I guess since I read parts of that book on blockchains a couple of months ago, and it talked about both types of blockchains, it just seemed to be both were databases, and databases with data structures that are developed by successively adding time-sequenced blocks of data, frequently and fairly regularly, after the first block is put in place. Thus it seems that the only difference is who or what accounts have access permission to get to and add transactions, or perhaps even "read", the growing database.
I'll take a look at the other source you mention, and come back after I've had a chance to do that. N2e (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I did a major copyedit to that section to present the controversy from the get-go, immediately after defining the terms. And I used a reference to the source to provide the definitions/terminology as coming from a particular author, and not necessarily adopted by all commentators.

So I believe that the section reflects both sides of the issue now. Certainly, editors may want to locate some additional sources for reflecting further on the pros and cons of public blockchains, or improve it in other ways. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not true. For example, the claim: "Current examples of both types of blockchains exist." speaks in Wikipedia voice. Another problem with the sentence is that it misrepresents at least one of the cited sources - the last one, which contradicts the claim. In addition to that, it uses weasel-worded formulation "examples exist" instead of being specific. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
So if you think the permissionless blockchains are not adequately represented, have at it. I noted earlier that I could not find in the Tapscott book the same sort of condensed pros and cons for permissionless blockchain access as I found on the permissioned blockchain access. I'm guessing that is simply because the permissionless/public block chains have been around for over half a decade now, whereas the permissioned-access blockchains are a much newer model, with so many of the larger banks and financial institutions developing permissioned implementations now.
You'll note, that to be fair, I explicitly added an {expand section} tag to demonstrate good faith to you to go ahead and expand it, with the sources you are familiar with, to reflect as full of a scope as you wish about the permissionless. After my copyedit, I certainly assume that other editors will happen along and continue to improve the article.
I can certainly add examples, as I recall that book is full of them. Busy with some other work now, so check back in a few days and I'll likely have gotten to that.
Finally, if you think some bit misrepresents one of those sources your are familiar with, by all means, improve the prose to match the source better. After all, we are all here, or should be, in an attempt to improve this wonderful work that Wikipedia is (or can be) in describing the state of human knowledge on a subject. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, I removed the claim misrepresenting the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem removing that sentence of prose, but you inadvertantly removed the sources the support the other statements prior to that sentence. No problem. I've restored the sources, but left that sentence out. N2e (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, that was unintended, thanks for restoring. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added an alternative definition for permissioned, which Tapscott is saying the banks are using (thank you again N2e (talk · contribs) for suggesting the book. I am reading it on a kindle so I dont have page numbers. My format for references didn't follow those being used on the page already, as I dont know how to do the abbreviated references. If someone changes my reference, please ping me so I can see how you did it and study it and learn how to do it.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NqBiCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT20&dq=%22referring+to+it+as+distributed+ledger+technology%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQiq3O4vDOAhVN4WMKHSMXBFYQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=%22referring%20to%20it%20as%20distributed%20ledger%20technology%22&f=false
That's fairly straightforward, Jtbobwaysf. I found that quotation of yours from google books to match page 8 of the book. So you could just take a copy of one of the current uses of the "tapscott201605" source citations, the ones that are short (as they "reuse" a longer form full citation that is elsewhere in the article), [Be sure it is one of the Tapscott cites that does not include a specific quotation to a specific page number] and include the syntax "rp|somePageNumber"; copy it to the statement you want to source, and then be sure "8" replaces any page number that is already there. (If you have detailed questions on source citations beyond that, probably should put them on my Talk page; I'll be happy to help you do better cites as Wikipedia is greatly improved from good citation practices, without tieing up this article page for extraneous discussion.) N2e (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Next, I wonder if this term "distributed ledger technology" is just a term. I guess that the essence is still the same. In a sense, Bitcoin is also permissioned. I will give an example of bitcoin to highight my point. You need to have a Bitcoin and a Bitcoin client (or an exchange to act as your proxy) to interact with the blockchain. If you don't have those tools, then you don't have permission to interact. I think what the banks are meaning is that they restrict who can get a token, and who can get a client to interact. That process requires permission. But the other parts remain the same, in that say on a r3 blockchain, none of the banks could on their own ask their IT department to update the records, they would require consensus from the other participants. I guess that my prose and thoughts has no business in the article. But I just thought I would say that, as maybe we are splitting hairs a bit about the definition. Please feel free to correct me. Thank you!

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There are more NPOV problems to resolve:

  • the advantages of permissioned blockchains are again in Wikipedia voice
  • one of the advantages listed is "transactions may be kept confidential on permissioned blockchains", but the permissionless blockchains can have confidential transactions too. In particular, this article proves that privacy in permissionless blockchains can be achieved: [1]
  • "members can change the rules of the blockchain if desired" - that is true for permissionless blockchains too, once over 50% of users agree with the change
  • "cost may be reduced as only transactions from members need be validated and brought into the blockchain consensus." - this is certainly true for total cost if the number of transactions is small, but it may be false for cost per transaction
  • the risk of a 51-percent attack is lessened because all parties are trusted - hmm, if the parties are trusted, then there are other types of attack that cannot happen when the parties do not need to be trusted Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: For some reason your signature disappeared, maybe you edited a few times. I would say in general I agree with your points. What do you suggest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, sorry for the mess I might have caused. My suggestion:
  • I strongly recommend to use more sources where possible and be careful to maintain the NPOV.
  • I would, especially, prefer to be neutral with respect to the permissioned/permissionless blockchains. I think that it is possible to maintain the neutrality, although it may be harder than to prefer one side.
  • For example, the "History" section contains the claim: "By April 2014, at least eight funded projects to develop blockchain 2.0 technology were under way" The problem I see is that, in my opinion, the claim is not a history-type claim. It is more a future-oriented claim, suggesting that the projects will be finished in the future. For me, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if any of the projects succeeded, we should rather refer about the finished product than about projects under way.
  • I hope it makes at least some sense. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
All makes sense to me. Please feel free to go in and make the edits you are suggesting. I don't think anyone on this talk page at the moment (N2e or me) have any major objections to what you are saying. I think permissioned and permissionless are different beasts, and if we are making it look like one is superior to the other, we are not doing our job. I think it mostly comes back to censorship resistance. Permissioned intentionally censors unauthorized users to increase speed, control, privacy, etc for the small group that is authorized to use it. Put it this way, it is like they are both cars. One is a taxi and one is private car. We could get into an endless discussion of the advantages of each private/taxi, and it would be paragraphs long, and in the end they are both cars but they are used in different circumstances (or like having a discussion of the advantages of alcoholic beer vs. non-alcoholic beer). Maybe we should drop the advantages section, or rework sufficiently it such that the differences are explained and the merits listed (but not too many merits for either that it becomes an NPOV issue). Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Good idea on the "voice" of the text. I've modified the prose to ensure it is crystal clear, even to those who don't see the sources provided, that the list of advantage and disadvantages of permissioned chains is from the book-length work by Tapscott. See what you think.
Beyond that, I'm having difficulty seeing what the POV issue is that you mention (relative to the subject of this section: "Access to blockchains" section violates NPOV policy". Tapscott specifically lists some quite serious disadvantages of permissioned-access blockchains, along with the advantages, so I don't see POV there. In fact, from reading his section on that, he seems merely to be attempting to describe the thing, not side with it and think it is either a good thing or not a good thing. Seems balanced.
But if somehow the section has POV, as I've said both in edit comments and on this Talk page, other editors should certainly feel free to add sourced material that shows other strengths and weaknesses of the technology(ies), and the two major approaches for access to blockchains. That's what this article should be about: explicating the phenomnon of blockchain databases for the reader who doesn't know what they are about. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Moreover, with respect to your statement that "privacy in permissionless blockchains can be achieved", I've also read somewhere that that technology is being worked on. So if your source supports that, why not add it to the article. Lots of development is going on, and as soon as its funded/active development and covered by reliable secondary sources, I wouldn't think you'll have much debate about it being valid material for the blockchain article. N2e (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fundamentalist trying to enforce just one correct opinion. However, after making the recent edits, I still perceive slightly distorted POV in the article. To explain what is it:

  • According to the present wording of the section, in his book, Tapscott defines blockchains as either open (permissionless) or closed (permissioned). On the other hand, in the Harvard Business Review article we also cite, he adds "open to anyone" to blockchain definition. Thus, Tapscott is not unanimous whether permissioned databases shall be called blockchains.
  • We almost fail to list the properties of open blockchains which surely exist and are notable, while we are very thorough to list the properties of permissioned blockchains, for which we, on the other hand, fail to list any notable example. This looks significantly distorted to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The right to be forgotten; large financial institutions have some dislike for the immutable permissionless blockchains

An interesting article in the New York Times yesterday on why the permissionless chains like bitcoin or ethereum may not offer the sort of characteristics that large financial institutions are required by law (European and, soon, US) to offer: the right for their customers data to be forgotten, because privacy, etc. Downside of Bitcoin: A Ledger That Can’t Be Corrected, New York Times, 9 Sep 2016.

I had not read this sort of rationale for permissioned blockchains before. N2e (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lead area

The lead area is tagged This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. Tagged for good reason as it was bunch of jumbled up information that was cobbled together out of mostly poorly sourced material is now removed because it appears they can not be reliably sourced. More can be done in this regard to the lead and then maybe the warning template about the lead could be removed. Sourcing for instance something to a PDF from a forum is not a good idea. Github, more industry news and blogging forum. Earl King (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What is your specific complaint about the lede section? Please clarify so that other editors might respond specifically. Moreover, best practice would be to use a specific inline article cleanup tag so that every editor concerned might see the issue more clearly. As it is, the section level tag is non-specific and therefore unclear what we can discuss, or remedy, to improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bramcohen

Hey, it looks like Earl King reverted a few very reasonable edits made by Bramcohen about pretty obvious details of these sorts of systems (like that loads of computation power is required for hashing etc.)

I can understand wanting them to be properly sourced, and certainly citation required is reasonable, but I don't think removing those contributions was reasonable, at least not without some discussion.Pmetzger (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

O.K. It does not really matter who made the edits if they are unsourced and there are large blocks of unsourced information. All the more reason to remove the mess that is this article in sections that are sourced to 'blue sky' or something similar. Earl King (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The definition of the blockchains which is just one sentence is incorrect. The definition I gave is accurate. Blockchains are a subtle concept with a bunch of caveats and the whole thing just barely works. They can't be defined accurately without explaining a bunch of the technical machinery. It's reasonable to request a citation but changing the page to be inaccurate doesn't help the situation. References to Tapscott's book haven't helped the situation, because most of the technical detail he gives is incorrect. There's a problem with most of the best sources on blockchains being 'primary sources' by wikipedia's standards. For example the block size limit is explained well at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy Bramcohen (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In the definition now a citation to a bitcoin pdf is given. That is primary and the writing , sourcing is pure gobbledy gook nonsense as far as not being written in understandable English. It is totally off the wall with neologism words adapted into long drawn out explanations. It needs an actual news storey or it needs removal. Citing to a shadowy unreal person in an anon pdf published by a crypto promo advert site??? Does not make it. Besidea it is not the definition as in the first sourced paragraph which is o.k. - it is just some weird drawn out gibberish in neologism new-speak. Remove. Earl King (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No one is really addressing issues associated with the blatant lack of sourcing in this article. Not sure why. Some people are reversing the revisions of removing material that is either not sourced or poorly sourced. So removed but put back but will remove again if no argument is made for keeping this Bitcoin pdf of unknown origin and unknown author. Earl King (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I am in agreement that any unsourced info may be challenged, and if not sourced after some time, may be removed. I suspect that the disagreement you are seeing is from too much being totally removed too rapidly; not any fundamental argument that ordinary reliable sources are needed. I remove a large amount of unsourced material from the encyclopedia quite regularly, but my personal standard has generally been to let a challenge (e.g, "citation needed") stand for about two months before doing so, in order to allow a bit of time for editors who want the information to stay to find a source and get a citation added.
Of course, we can also have discussions about better sources and worse sources for particular parts of the article. Clearly secondary sources are better than primary sources, but once again, even info sourced by a primary source can stand a bit of time to pass while editors who want to retain the information locate better sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Article critique

I feel that the Description portion of the article in particular suffers from a lack of direction. Some of the features noted in Openness seem to be notable disadvantages that aren't mentioned in the actual Disadvantage section, and the purpose of the Permissionless section is not immediately obvious. In fact, looking at it, it seems that the details there are describing something else entirely rather than the permissionless nature of Blockchain. The Definition section is also woefully short and could use more information pulled from its sole citation. Amraphenson (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Amraphenson, please come in and help edit the page. This article has suffered from a great deal of very coarse edits lately with some editors deleting large amounts of stuff in fairly quick succession, and some amount of drama and argument both on the Talk page and in edit comments. I know for me, that I've tended to work less on this page simply to avoid the drama. But I can also say that for sure, with such stuff going on, it is quite difficult to slowly and consistently get an improved article in place, than it would be with somewhat more measured and incremental edits.
In my view, the article read better at various states it was in a few months ago.
So do please, come on in and help improve this article and Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Article clean up

Certain areas in the article are still poorly sourced, were tagged for either removal or better sourcing and a lot of poor citations in the article like CoinDesk and unknown Pdf's and misc were removed. Bad sourcing has been reduced a little. Here [2] The article still needs more editing clean up and needs to be sourced better. I hope other editors will honor recent findings on some sources not being 'right' for Wikipedia and also stop returning information that is tagged as iffy for one reason or another. Earl King (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

As has been requested of you on other article Talk pages, if there has been a consensus found that some particular source or other is not considered a WP:RS for purposes of use on Wikipedia, please identify specifically that particular source, along with a link to the discussion/consensus that was reached. Until then, your rather more vague assertions that certain sources "not being 'right' for Wikipedia" is coming off as a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than policy-based and consensus-built determination that some source is, in general, not acceptable on Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Tapscott

It appears that this source which has every appearance of a somewhat promotional link to a book, is being over used, over sourced in the article. Tapscott is an inspirational orator for bitcoin etc. I think a major amount of his pep talk style lovefest of this subkect needs removal. Too unbalanced. He is an unabashed true believer and that is not neutral presentation. All those citations to his book seem unbalanced, just about advert promo.its not news, its his opinion. Earl King (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The book by Tapscott is a perfectly fine source. It definitely meets WP:RS. It does appear to be the first full-length book treatment on the topic of blockchain, so rather naturally would be used to source various aspects of the material that makes up this article. MOreover, take a look at the sort of previous in-depth books by the author; the guy has been writing on topics in digital technology and computers for over 30 years. N2e (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Highly doubtful. I think he has drunk the cyber Kool aid. He is a promo advert guy. My guess is that he has a load of bitcoins and the idea is to promote and start new people going to the party [[3]]. It seems obvious. The article should not be a victim of cheerleading by an advocate. Its a very poor information source and a lot of it is pretry much ponzi garbage Earl King (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Earl King, if you think that the source represents an opinion different from other sources, you can balance the text by adding other opinions. What you shall not do, per WP:NPOV, however, is to just delete the source and sourced information from the article because you dislike it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What I said was that it is being over used and that Tapscott is a known evangelist for Bitcoin and block chain technology. I gave a link also which show that he is nothing more than an advance man, promo guy advert creator for bitcoin and bitcoins organizers of which he is one. Quote from the link The digital evangelist recently gave a TED talk called “How the Blockchain is Changing Money and Business,” in which he discusses the principles and applications of this emerging innovation. In the speech, Tapscott says that the advent of blockchain will transform how society interacts with money etc. So he is nothing more than a cheerleader and as said I am willing to bet is heavily invested in Bitcoin so has a lot at stake. Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme is simple. Get others intrigued. Do not spend your own bitcoins. This drives the price up with fresh meat getting involved. That is why Tapscott should not be used more than a couple of times in the article and then with some restraint even. Oh have we divulged here whether some editors own bitcoin? I think that was called for on the Ether and Bitcoin article. Keep in mind that being involved in these money schemes might exclude certain editors in a conflict of interest from editing these articles. A lot of people on the same wavelength promoting this guy [4] means trouble for neutral editing. He is just a guy standing to make a lot of money off this what some consider a fake 'value' system which is based on nothing. So Ladislav Mecir You seem heavily involved in bitcoin off wiki. How much of it do you own? Hate to ask that but obviously some editors have a stake in this and it is affecting the article negatively. I am guessing this is not outing since you are a public person with a large persona connected to all this off wiki. Earl King (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's slow down here a bit and separate two issues, and especially, let's assume good faith of other editors as an initial reaction, and not go all ad hominem to weaken your rhetorical argument.
On the argument that the book by Tapscott is not a reliable source, you (Earl) are welcome to argue that. Other editors may argue otherwise. Since that is what this section is about, please limit the discussion here to the argument about the Tapscott book, and not pollute it with other arguments about editor behavior.
Re the second argument made by Earl, whether Ladislav is or is not able to work on this article, three things: 1) this is the wrong Talk page section for that discussion; Ladislav is clearly not the only editor who has argued that the Tapscott book is a reliable source. So take any Ladislav COI argument to another section on this Talk page, at minimum. 2) Or if you actually want to argue something about editor behavior Earl, then I suspect no article Talk page is the right place. Go and make your case on the proper noticeboard for such things. 3) Just as an aside, but for perspective, I have been known to use US Federal Reserve Notes on occasion. I am also an economist, and have done the usual courses in monetary economics and macroeconomics. The usage of US currency does not prevent me from editing articles on the Federal Reserve System, nor US monetary policy, nor History of banking in the United States, nor would it be a conflict of interest for me to edit any of those articles merely because am a user of US currency. Now, if I were an employee of the Federal Reserve, ..., then perhaps a case could be made. Keep perspective and chill. N2e (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Earl, Again I agree with N2e here, this repeated referring to reliable sources as bad quality due your disagreement with the source's author's statements is useless. If you have evidence of a COI, bring it forth. Otherwise, your position is baseless. You have made a similar argument ad naseaum over at Ethereum for the past few months. Blockchain is a type of database, I can't imagine how someone could have a COI with a database ;-) Your repeated edit warring (deleting of content and referring to sources as having a COI) is a waste of everyone's time. You are free to find content that supports your worldview (aka NPOV), but you are not free to delete cited content to support your worldview (aka NPOV). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed most of the references to Tapscott's book not because of where he's coming from politically, but because they were factually incorrect. As an example, the claim that proofs of work act as a timestamp for their encoded time is just plain wrong. Blockchains can be used as timestamping services but it is not the case that blockchains use timestamping services. The real reason for timestamps being in blocks is subtle and has to do with work difficulty adjustments.Bramcohen (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bramcohen, You need cite evidence to support your claim that Tapscott is incorrect. We dont just delete content based on a user's personal opinion that the source is factually incorrect. See WP:NOR If there is a major dispute, you can create a controversy section in which multiple editors will seek a consensus of content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It is more or less a primary source and it was over used in the article previously almost like a promo of the persons book. It is questionable to use as a source anyway since he is involved in the promotion of bitcoin. A lot of people on the same wavelength promoting this guy [5] means trouble for neutral editing. Earl King (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Earl King, your claim that Tapscott is a "primary source" is unfounded. Obviously, Tapscott's books and articles were written much later than the blockchain was created, and there are other substantial reasons why your claim cannot be accepted as correct. Even if the works by Tapscott were primary, that still does not suffice as the reason to erase them completely from the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
it seems like bram cohen whorver that is, agrees the source was misused. It is obvious that Tapscott is a cheerleading guru for blockchain https://news.bitcoin.com/don-tapscott-blockchain-organization/ so maybe he does not really even deserve a voice in the article at all. His Ted talk is ridiculous hyperbole and I would suspect he is sitting on a hoard of bit coins and doing everything possible to promote them. Not a good source. Earl King (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The Tapscott book is an obviously adequate source for Wikipedia. It may not be a perfect source for all information, but there is no reason at all to impugn the source in general, at least no reason that comports with wiki-policy that I am aware of. As I understand it when I read that book a couple of months ago, the authors spent a couple of years researching blockchain and writing that book; if there are errors, then let's deal with those as we find them, and have countersources that argue other perspectives. It is also, rather obviously, not a Primary source.

Earl is arguing that Tapscott cannot or should not be used at all. Feel free to make your case Earl to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but you certainly have no consensus for that view here, and at least three active editors who argue directly against that point of view.

As for Bramcohen's argument: that the source may have been used to support something that Bramcohen thinks is incorrect. I agree with Jtbobwaysf: the correct way to deal with that would be to cite a source that shows diagreement, or take it to the Talk page to discuss how a particular statement is not quite correct even though sourced by this book, etc.

Let's work together to improve this article

This article is a mess.

A part of the reason that it is a mess is that a very large number of deletions are occurring, with no related attempt to improve the article in the section affected by the deletion. These have been going on for some time, and over time, this sort of behavior in articles just leaves the article a mess, as the editor noted who started the Talk page section above this one a week or so ago.

Let's begin a more intentional process to improve the article, so that readers who come here can see a reasonably encyclopedic explanation of what these blockchain data structures are all about, and how they are being used in a wide variety of technology implementations globally.

To that end, I'd like to suggest that the large deletions without consensus stop. The best way, it seems to me, would be for editors who find particular and specific issues in the article to add a specific inline cleanup tag (here is a large list: WP:CLEANUPTAG, with <!-- "hidden" explanatory text like this clarifying what specifically would make the article better --> adjacent to the inline tag. Then, let's give it some time for an editor to come along and work to improve that, with better prose, new prose, a new or better citation, or whatever. On my own use of {{citation needed}} templates, I usually give it a couple of months before removing the unsourced text. Other amounts of time are certainly okay, but let's all chat a bit and see if we can't agree on giving it some time to allow the article to be improved.

Of course, the other alternative is the standared Bold, Revert, Delete cycle. In this case, editor who deletes, but especially large deletions with no attempt to improve the article, can be challenged, moving the discussion to the Talk page on an item by item basis, to see if consensus for the deletion might be sustained.

My own view, we would make the article better for the readers who come here by adding a cleanup tag and specifying what it is exactly that would make the article better. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but maintaining a bad article was the history of the article previously and that does not seem a good way forward. There are obvious things in the article that cry out for deletion according to not being cited or cited as some kind of promotion for something. A part of the reason that it is a mess is that a very large number of deletions are occurring, with no related attempt to improve the article in the section affected by the deletion. end quote. It is better to give people a streamlined article instead of a bloated bad article. There has been a problem on these crypto currency articles obviously of collusion of like minded people supporting one another. I will be kind and say this is unconscious perhaps. If junk sources and un sourced material is present it can be removed. Maybe some neutral dedicated dweeb will show up and really do the article justice. In the meantime it is better to condense and strip it than make it bad example of failure as a good article. Earl King (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
You are asserting that, Earl. That is not what other editors have repeatedly told you.
But failing the voluntary process to begin identifying the alleged issues inside the article so that they might be fixed/improved, there is always the alternative I suggested above. One editor may choose to boldly make a large deletion(s), and then other editors can selectively choose to revert under the standard WP:BRD process.
I continiue to believe that we would get to a better article quicker with the former process. But we can certainly work with BRD if the Bold deletions continue. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You have a credibility issue after your persistence in returning unsourced and advert like material [6] You reverted me to an unsourced shit advert on Ether. I do not believe you are working in the best interest of the article. Are you involved in the buying and selling off this crap crypto stuff? 0. as to you improving the article. A big negative to put back the Ether promo. Earl King (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Earl King, you should not:
  • distort the contributions of other editors
  • use indecent formulations inappropriate for this forum and purpose
  • question motivations of other editors
Such practices are nonconstructive and unhelpful. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Number one its not a forum its a talk page discussion. My point of the edit is that it is returning a large block of information that is like an infomercial, that is not sourced and the persistence in returning unsourced and advert like material [7] seems beyond the pale of ordinary editing, and according to the article history and admissions of editors there may be an unhealthy conflict of interest at work. If not its doubtful the information would be returned into the article given what it is and what its saying. Earl King (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for article improvement

Blockchains must be going mainstream. Just got a book from my local library that provides wide and deep and historical coverage of the topic. Details: Don Tapscott, Alex Tapscott, The Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World, Penguin Books, Released May 2016 ISBN 978-0670069972]

I'll certainly use it to source a few things in various articles in the next week I have it, before other work will prevent. My edit history will probably show some of them, and I'll get back here to this article and build content and citations as well. N2e (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Tapscott's book is terrible. I've now removed most of the references to it in the article because they said things which were just plain wrong. He doesn't seem to have any technical understanding of how blockchains work whatsoever. Bramcohen (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe, Bramcohen, that is absolutely incorrect. The Tapscott book is one of only about two books in the English language on blockchain technology that I am aware of. That does not mean it has no errors, or cannot contain positions at odds with other sources. But I take the position that we have no evidence that the book as a whole is some sort of an unacceptable source. There is a way to get such a finding on Wikipedia; but mere assertion by an editor on an article Talk page does not make it so.
In the meantime, if some particular claim supported in the future by the Tapscott book does not meet with your approval, please address the specific claim you think is incorrect, and provide a source for the counterclaim you want to make. N2e (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Other recent secondary source articles that support the rather broad impact of blockchain technology, and especially second-generation blockchain technology, to a wide variety of application areas:

— N2e (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not actual impact, but hypothetical impact. Should certainly be noted as hypotheticals being put forward in a given era (indeed, it would be useful to track the popular hypotheticals over time) - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no statement in the Wikipedia article prose should ever be more than that which is supported by sources. Thus, if it is an article with future releases dates for subsequent software versions one would want the statement to clarify the projected or scheduled nature of those dates. Of if it is Janet Yellen, head of the US Fed Reserve Central Bank that bitcoin and/or blockchain are ______x y z______ and that other central banks ought to be paying attention to the blockchain or bitcoin space, then article prose should say no more. Always, only what the sources support. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Added the Tapscott book to further reading, hope it saves you a bit of time. Don't forget pg nos. when you extract from it. Also, with the thorough use of reFill tool to create up-to-date and uniform citations for the web sources, there are, throughout, good templates for {{cite journal, book, and web that can be copied and pasted, as starting points, to create the other new citations. I like using journal, even for WSJ, NYT, wired, etc., because it gets all the formats correct, to a MLA/Chicago-type style. Cheers, Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Blog is not a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That is not correct. See Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. The term "blog" does not make a source "unreliable". Depends on many other factors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Updating the above: a self-published blog like the above does not classify as a reliable source, especially because it is self-published. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No, actually, Wikipedia:Blogs as sources makes the specific point that blogs are just names for a type "website that commonly organizes its contents into "updates" that are posted in a given order, with the newest content frequently first."
Moreover, Wikipedia:Blogs as sources indicates that "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer. So that source is the lead researcher for the Ethereum Foundation, and it is published on a website of the Ethereum Foundation. The fact that the location where those items are put by the organization carries the title of "blog" instead of "website" is irrelevant for WP:RS purposes. Blog /= "self-published"
So that source would be fine if someone chooses to use it in the article to support something substantive in a statement. To date, noone has. And I merely placed the source here for interested editors to be aware of material that might be useful for future improvements to the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • more mainline media sources on blockchain This Is Your Company on Blockchain, Business Week, 25 August 2016. "Blockchain, as it’s called, is something new in computing. It mashes up cryptography and peer-to-peer networking to create what amounts to a shared database of transactions and other information—which can be open to all, controlled by no one. It’s not just for securely recording payments in crypto-coinage; a blockchain can handle complex transactions, even entire contracts. True believers say blockchain could reduce the need for businesses to organize as companies, which get work done via command and control. Using blockchain, they say, collaborators will be able to work together as free agents instead of under a hierarchy of bosses." and this: "Blockchain, in this vision, could replace gobs of bankers, accountants, and lawyers, as well as escrow accounts, insurance, and everything else that society invented pre-21st century to verify payments and the performance of contracts." and this, which could help with a debate elsewhere on this Talk page where no amount of sources seems to satisfy one editor about the basic structure of what a blockchain is: "A blockchain, as the name suggests, is nothing more than an ever-lengthening chain of blocks of data. Each block contains a compact record of things that have happened.", noting that "things that have happened" is a general locution that allows for both ledger transaction data and also the results of program executables, without answering the latter question and specifying the distinction between the two types. Also, this Bloomberg summary of the exploit of The DAO, after the money was taken back from the hacker: "A group of blockchain enthusiasts attempted a leap into this brave new world earlier this year by raising $150 million for a “decentralized autonomous organization,” running on Ethereum, that was chartered to be a leaderless venture capital fund. An anonymous hacker found a way to divert crypto-currency now valued at $40 million from the DAO without technically violating its rules. That created an embarrassing dilemma for the blockchain community: Stick to the letter of the contract and reward the hacker by letting the diversion of funds go ahead, or alter the supposedly inalterable record to recapture the money. In July participants in Ethereum chose the latter of those two evils. They rewound the blockchain to how it was before the hack, thus capturing the funds. Some members rejected the rewind, so now there are two versions of Ethereum going." More too.
  • Maybe Blockchain Really Does Have Magical Powers, Bloomberg, 1 Sep 2016. Overview of recent report, with this statement: "The World Economic Forum recently published a report on how blockchain will reshape financial services" and this "Financial institutions spend $65-80 billion on back office reconciliation every year." Also this on the new large bank collaboration on blockchain technologies: "Many regional banks don’t have access to a global clearing network. They rely on bigger correspondent banks for clearing and settlement. When these smaller banks threatened to use a blockchain as a channel to global financial inclusion, the world’s biggest financial institutions formed a collaborative alliance to defend their territory."
I used that source to articulate several additional issues with private/permissioned blockchains. I used extensive/longish quotations so as not to misrepresent the author, but perhaps other editors may want to tighten up the prose a bit. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Earl, several editors have asked you to stop your disruptive editing so that we might build this into a better article. You seem to be unable or unwilling to do this voluntarily, despite the requests by fellow editors.

Beyond that, you seem to rather frequently resort to the fallacious form of argument where you attack the other contributor, rather than just focus on improving the encyclopedia and its content. That was identified as the fallacy of ad hominem by Aristotle, many centuries ago, and most of us learned it was a poor way to debate sometime about junior high school. I suggest you drop the personal attacks, as I have specifically warned you about a couple of months ago. (before the time I had to ask you to stay off of my Talk page; and I indicated that I would also make no more helpful suggestions or warnings on your Talk page.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockchain_(database)&action=edit&section=17 Now, back to the topic of this section. We can choose to work together, with civility and engagement on substantive points of discussion, or if someone decides not to do so, then we won't. It appears you have decided on a course of action to not do so, despite my quite civil request in the previous Talk page section. So, we will necessarily be in a mode of edits where, if challenged by another editor, will need to be discussed and consensus reached on the Talk page, per standard WP:BRD. This approach takes longer, but if that's your choice, I'll necessarily go along with it.

What cannot and should not continue to occur is messing up the process of article improvement because of your rather clearly stated view that digital currencies like those that utilize blockchain databases are WP:FRINGE. While you are welcome to go to some forum or other (or here on this page) and attempt to build a consensus to support your view; at present, it appears that you hold quite a minority view. Moreover, a now vast number of sources and increasingly widespread adoption of blockchain technologies by a number of large corporations would seem to blow your fringe argument out of the water. But go ahead and try to build a consensus for that position. I will be happily to civily engage that argument should you do so.

In the meantime, some of us are trying to improve Wikipedia. So please stop the frequent large deletions and attacks on other editors. N2e (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just saw the edit comments back-and-forth on this Talk page (and about this section) between Earl King and Ladislav Mecir. I'm happy to take Earl's name out of the section title of this discussion. Would have been glad to do so if asked; but was not. So now, name is out of the section title. Let's stop the disruptive behavior, engage constructively, and improve this article. N2e (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree with N2e. Earl, unless you have a finding from RS Noticeboard, you have no evidence to prove your claims of FRINGE and must refrain from using that, as it is baseless here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a little Wiki etiquette should be observed here and the starting of threads on other editors should be avoided. Content disputes should not escalate into name calling. Persistence in returning unsourced and advert like material [9] is the issue I brought up and it has not been addressed. Earl King (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Earl, this is not about name calling. It is about identifying editing behaviors that are disruptive and make it harder to improve the article. See above for the specific bahaviors that need to stop if we are going to improve the article. N2e (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Doubtful then that your behavior will change. I asked you not to point the finger at people. Talk about edits and not editors. I find your comments really baiting and ridiculous. Earl King (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Article scope

Due to some edits in the article that have gone back and forth in recent months, it is probably long past time to have a discussion here and get the scope of the article elucidated.

I'll take an initial stab at it:

The scope of this article, Blockchain (database), is about all blockchains, originally "block chain," in use today, in mid-2016. That scope would then, rather naturally, include:

  • the history of the idea of blockchains (per sources in the article: from bitcoin, and the white paper of 2008) and stretch into many other blockchains that were built/instantiated off of the bit coin source code circa 2009 to today (in other words, sidechains and altchains when sources indicate reasonable notability, etc.), and would also extend to the slew of blockchains coming out in the past couple of years that, while based on the concept of blockchains from bitcoin, are in no way based on the bitcoin source code.
  • permissionless and permissioned blockchains. While all of the early blockchains were permissionless, and even many of the important second-generation blockchains are permissionless, not all are. In recent months several notable corporate entities, non-profits and consortia are rolling out their own permissioned blockchains, which is definitely changing the "nature" of what blockchains were historically and traditionally seen to be. (note: the article already has sourced info about some controversy between adherents of various views on what constitutes a blockchain)
  • technical considerations and description of various blockchains: how they work, etc.
  • pros and cons of blockchain databases over traditional database and data structure techniques
  • social, economic and political impact of blockchains, both historical and prospective (obviously, only when backed by reliable sources, which is true for all of these bullets)

In other words, it is about an encyclopedic treatment of the subject of blockchain databases as they exist in 2016.

Does anyone have items we should add to this list? Or find any of the above in need of clarification? Or is any of it contentious? If so, weigh in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the comments below by @Ladislav Mecir: I think we should also note in the definition section the whole debate about what a blockchain is. It seems we should work on a definition, how to treat the disputed definition, and then work the content around that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Bitcoin uses the following:
  1. Etymology and orthography
  2. Design
  3. History
  4. Economics
  5. Legal status and regulation
  6. Criminal activity
  7. Security
  8. Data in the blockchain
  9. In academia
  10. In art, entertainment, and media
  11. See also
Gave the list here of Bitcoin just for some perspective. Thought we could take a look at its organization and take what we need from that. Think we could probably trim a bit from Bitcoin's list, as the content here on this article is much less. Suggestions? I am also ok with your suggestions as well N2e. Both approaches are suitable I think.
Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I guess we could talk about article organization. Or even what the organization is of one other particular article on one other particular example of a blockchain; just not sure why that article would imply too much about the organization of this article. We kind of just have to go where sources take us.
But in the question I asked for this section, I was suggesting a simpler topic: scope. Just try to see if consensus might be developed on what is and is not "in scope" for the article. If/when that consensus emerges, then we might want to discuss organization of the article.
In the meantime, I see that a new section has been opened below on whether both permissionless and permissioned blockchains can both be properly considered blockchains at all. So even before we get the overall issue of article scope addressed, we probably ought to take on the issue of permissionless/permissioned blockchains first, as just a single component of the overall scope discussion. And I'm fine doing that in a separate section below, since another editor has expressed a view on that subtopic, to keep each issue being discussed rather distinct and more clear. N2e (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I get what you are saying now. Yes, I agree that your organization suggestions are fine. I just thought I would take a look at Bitcoin, as it is sortof related. Some refer to Bitcoin being the first blockchain. I will go comment more on the permissionless area, and agree we can tackle that first.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of legality and social implications and economics should go on the Bitcoin page or on pages related to cryptocurrencies generally. Block chains are a highly esoteric technique in distributed databases. For comparison, look at the page on Byzantine fault tolerance. That's a highly technical page, and block chains solve the problem in a highly nontrivial way which took a long time to develop. This page should mostly be about what block chains actually are, how they work, and why, with maybe some discussion of history thrown in and discussions of security and incentives included as necessary because subtleties of those are essential to how block chains function at all.
Citations are also somewhat problematic for this reason. Popular press or pop science articles are never going to delve into detail on highly technical topics, and even when they try they generally get things wrong. Citations from this article should be mostly academic papers and textbooks, and since it's a young field there aren't many of those.
Bramcohen (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Removed some what looks to be bad or poor sourcing in the article [10]. There is no reason to use blogspots that have adopted web address's and Coin Magazine promo advert sources, blogs, for the article. Earl King (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, there has been no consensus decision on this Talk page that any particular media source is not a reliable source. The fact that you don't like some particular source does not make that source a bad source for all other editors here. No one owns this page, and gets to set all page editing policy. Decisions like you are asking for require consensus to be achieved first, as has been communicated to yor previously. Else, regualar WP:BRD applies. N2e (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
But perhaps you would like to get a specific source to be unwelcome on this page. As discussed previously, please do suggest a particular source that you'd like not to be used, some rationale for why, and others can join in the discussion. Consensus can be formed. Responding to vague generalities about some broad types of sources you don't like, and doing so after you've deleted chunks of prose in the article that were adjacent to those sources, is a very unproductive way to go forward. N2e (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Agree, if there are some specific offending sources we can go over them here or take it to RS Noticeboard if we cant find consensus here. But unilaterally deleting content is not acceptable.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
It could be that the word consensus is being overworked here. In general blog posts and industry coin online sources are poor. Blogspots super poor and in general a blogspot.com even with someone sticking their own domain on it is still just someones blog. I support getting rid of sources of that type in the article and going for actual news or scholarly sources. I gave an example in this thread above already a couple of times as to what was reverted and why. If four people think a citation is good but its not a reliable source and another takes the information and citation out its better because in articles where people have an ax to grind or support some theory sometimes they unknowingly work together in a negative way though perhaps they are not aware of that. Earl King (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a pretty vague objective again, Earl ("I support getting rid of sources of that type") So to start us on this path, why don't you provide one specific source (URL and what is being supported with it in the article), and then we can discuss that. I'm quite confident that if you make a clear and concise proposal, you'll get plenty of editors joining in to see what we can do to improve the article.
It is very challenging to try to gain any sort of Talk page consensus on the rather vague generalities. We all want good sources; the challenge is to work the details, so we'll need that info from you. The general and broadly-applicable criteria for sources are already laid out in WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CS, etc.—so not a lot of value comes from trying to boil that broad/general ocean on this article Talk pageN2e (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This talk page really seems like The Twilight Zone. I gave a revert link above with a source which was not good. Circular arguments are not really arguments when ground is already covered as to why. Earl King (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No, Earl. That diff you provided at the top of this section rather clearly illustrates the problem of broad and vague assertions about sources. You deleted three different sources in that one single edit; they certainly do not all fit the same vague criteria you have at various times suggested here. So, no, you did not specify a particular single source supporting a particular statement; if you did, that is what might be rather straightforwardly discussed here on this Talk page, and we could see if a consensus exists for any particular source being removed, or "source non grata" in this article.
Just to keep it simple, I have just restored a single one of the three diversely-sourced citations you removed. Could have (and now I see, should have) just reverted under WP:BRD back when you made the broad deletion of sources. But I had thought that perhaps we could discuss getting more specificity here about your concerns without the revert. I was, apparently, incorrect about that.
I continue to think we would improve the article faster on these sourcing questions with you bringing a specific source you don't like here for discussion. Present your rationale, and it gets discussed. But if not, we still have WP:BRD in place to discuss it after the fact. Just takes more work, and is less respectful of your fellow editors, several of whom have challenged your deletions on this Talk page. N2e (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if it were that simple. But, with consensus voting blocks issues arise. At another article poorly sourced material was removed or challenged. That process ended on a noticeboard where it was agreed that CoinDesk and that ilk of industry promotion online magazine type of stuff is not a good source. Prior to that happening the talk page became a few editors against a few editors. Some endorsing CoinDesk as a great source and others saying it was not really good at all. If that is the process on each bad source then not many volunteer editors will get involved unless they are super bored and have a lot of time on their hands. Earl King (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why insist on non sources like this [11] CrytoCoinNews which is nothing more or less than a content generator site for the cryto inclined? It is mostly a site where anyone can write, submit an article. Other than that is a press release site on non events that no doubt money changed hands in adverts or promotion in a connected way. It is not a news site in the ordinary sense at all. Its hard to even call it an industry site. Closer to content generator type of site. The type where people can post things like a brownie recipe for instance and get money by it being clicked on. Bad source. Maybe worse than CoinDesk also given a thumbs down on the drama board a while ago. Earl King (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Earl King, please stop deleting sourced content, for which it was indicated to you that you do not have the consensus to delete. That is not constructive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
What you refer to as sourced content is? It is a content generator site. Its a garbage internet site designed for press releases and content generation. Is that clear? No one is addressing that so far, so information from CrytoCoinNews is in the same zone as CoinDesk, but probably even worse as to quality. Previously CoinDesk was dismissed as a poor choice on the reliable sources notice board. CrytoCoinNews is even worse. Take it to RS Noticeboard if we cant find consensus here. They will reject it as they did CoinDesk I assume. Earl King (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Earl King, this is for you in hope that it will help:
  • You have been spotted to delete sourced content such as CoinDesk, etc.
  • You do not have any WP:Consensus to do so as indicated in this discussion.
  • Unless and until you find such consensus, any deletions spotted will be considered unconstructive and reverted.
  • Also, please take this as a warning that such a behaviour is considered unconstructive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Its a pity you have not addressed the issue. Voting blocks on a talk page are not an end all or be all. Bad sources are just that. Are you going to the Reliable Sources notice board again like before when they rejected Coinbase? Zero response also to the quality of the source. So, deleting another editor for the sake of deleting because you like a bad source is not a good idea. I have edited the page a lot with much good information and new sources. A failure to address the issue of a poor citation and a threat to revert all and anything is a bit over the top. Again making things about an editor instead of edits in question is not really a good idea. Earl King (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Earl, it's really rather simple:
  • If you have a consensus decision from the reliable sources noticeboard that a particular source is not considered reliable, then by all mean link us all to that specific decision. I would expect any such consensus to have great weight here, and likely control.
  • If you can build a consensus here on this Talk page that a source is not a good source, then that would of course control.
You have not done either of those two options. So, until you do, it's also rather clear that you should not be removing sources that have been provided by other editors—deleting them completely—and replacing an extant source with a {{citation needed}} tag. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The same people said the same thing about CoinDesk before. It was brought to the R.S. noticeboard where the sentiment was overwhelmingly not to use it and that probably was a better source than the new one being argued about (cryptocoinsnews) which is a press release content generator site. So it is a poor source for multiple reasons. I do not do drama boards so if you wish to that is your choice. Earl King (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to disbelieve your assertion for it is backed with no evidence. If you have such a decision from WP:RSN, please provide the link. Else, it is rather clear that your continuing to delete sourced information and sources without consensus is in direct contravention of the Talk page consensus; and is disruptive. N2e (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Disbelieve means lying right? I don't think so. Those discussions from the Ether article, apply here also, and they were closed a long time ago and the sentiment from the board was strong to not use those kind of sources Did you forget about all that? You might not like the noticeboard result but that is not an issue. [12] So lets move on and stop the sourcing of content generator promo advert sites. Just because some other media used the sources that is not a good reason to also use them either Wikipedia has some criteria to uphold. Adding them back into the article will insure problems and their removal again, and the notice board pretty much concluded they were not good sources for the article, perhaps you missed that. 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. Thanks, The archive is there. Discussion was archived. Earl King (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Earl for providing the link. I will review it later today when I have some time. But yes, reference to a specific prior discussion/consesus is something that can re reasonably discussed on a Talk page. Vague assertions about sources that are not liked by an editor? Not so much. N2e (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

CoinDesk etc.

Recently a board concluded that the industry promo sites are not appropriate for sourcing the crypto currency articles like the Ether and bitcoin article. So I suggest we go through this article and clean up the sources with mainstream news or more 3rd party 2nd party sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please give us a link to the board conclusion you mentioned? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are being rhetorical and know where these discussions have taken place since you took place in them. I don't understand continuing to lobby for these industry pov promotion sites? The board has said as much and long time interpreters of the Wiki on these boards, have said they are not good references. When things like this are floated on these boards it is good form to accept what these boards think. This is why the board is there, for perspective. Not sure if you are aware of Wikipedia being a non voting endeavor except for simple talk page discussions. If ten people on a subject are wrong about something they can not include something they like by body count or 'liking' some source, such as CoinDesk. Earl King (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
So you actually cannot point to the conclusion. That is what I was sure of. Thanks for confirming. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Your "industry pov promotion sites" formulation shows clearly to me that by trying to defame CoinDesk you are promoting your own agenda. For me it is funny knowing that general sources such as The Guardian, The Economist, and many others can cite CoinDesk informations, while you are pushing us not to. This makes the situation crystal clear for me, regardless of how many times you repeat the fabricated propaganda. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Propaganda? You think my editing is propagandist? No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This includes: Insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. Earl King (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding a third voice here. I am aware of no place on Wikipedia where CoinDesk has been deemed an nonreliable source, in general. I am quite aware that Earl King has been rather actively tooting that horn on a number of Talk pages. I have seen discussions elsewhere where editors took both sides on that question, but none where any consensus was reached.

Full disclosure: in at least one or two of those previous discussions, I stated explicitly that I am (personally) agnostic on the question being discussed: CoinDesk as a reliable source. But I do think we need to follow correct wiki process here. And also, editors should not claim conclusions that are not supported by policy nor consensus. N2e (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

From a cursory reading of Bitcoin's talk page and this talk page as well as article edit histories, it seems obvious that Earl King / Earl King Jr. has an agenda and is not editing in good faith. Take that as you will. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Mrcatzilla, since I've not seen you on this Talk page much, let me draw your attention to a very narrowly taylored WP:!vote discussion on only the single issue of CoinDesk as a source below. Feel free to weigh in as we are endeavoring to have a wide set of views, with policy rationale provided, so that this divisive issue on that source might finally be driven to a closure of some kind. N2e (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead section

In the last paragraph of the lead section, these claims can be found:

Side chains and blockchain based smart contracts are not currently used but an effort to develop those concepts is taking place.[1] The technology is not mature and has a low readiness level.

While I do not doubt the claims may be true, I do not think the claims belong to the section for these reasons:

  • Neither sidechains nor blockchain based smart contracts are the subject of the article, therefore, they may be mentioned and explained in the article body, but I do not think they should be present in the lead section.
  • This should be an encyclopedic article, and the reader is not informed what sidechains and blockchain based smart contracts are before reading the text.

References

  1. ^ https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1603.pdf Retrieved November-13-2016

For the above reasons, I propose that these claims should be moved to the article body, preceded by appropriate definitions. Per the manual of style, not every claim is suitable for the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockchain/Archive_2&oldid=787032249"