Talk:Ethereum/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vis-à-vis Bitcoin

@Hocus00:, @Kencf0618:, @ToniTurunen:, and @RobertBlinov: I first removed a lot of content that is WP:PROMO from Ethereum#Comparison_to_Bitcoin for appearing at first glance to be promotional. Then later I was wondering if it is before the colon that precedes the text? So I re-added it (maybe only temporarily). Since each of you edited this text recently I thought I would ping you all here to discuss it. If anything in this section is promotional, unsourced, or obviously wrong, it will be removed. I am aware that a number of applications are being run on Lightning Network as well as bitcoin sidechains such as Rootstock and Omni, therefore the statement that 'bitcoin is only money will ethereum is everything' is both untrue (and probably promotional). Thought you all might comment on the sourcing first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody responded and I went today and looked at the sources and it almost entirely failed verification. The first source only states they are similar (Popper) and the second source points out the ethereum is designed to be more than a payment network. No other comparisons were made that I saw. I blanked the rest of the PROMO text, dont re-add it without sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That'll suffice for now. These are early days and we don't have to get into the weeds about what does what. It's a bit like comparing Swiss Army knives at this stage... kencf0618 (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How are you even supposed to interpret 'bitcoin is only money will ethereum is everything'? ToniTurunen (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That was me explaining things on this talk page, and not the text I have entered on the article. Please see the diff for the text i entered on the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this section was problematic. However, now after the deletion I think the section contains too little information. It definitely needs some additional details besides the fact that it can run applications. This article RS helpful. I can help work on the section. Hocus00 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, there was a lot of well-sourced information in this section that was just reverted by User:Jtbobwaysf. If it wasn't cited specifically in this section, it was cited elsewhere in this article. For example, blocktimes are specifically mentioned in the NY Times article but reverted by Jtbobwaysf. Tokens that run on top of Ethereum are cited elsewhere in the article. This user has a history of reverting/deleting large contributions to articles with disregard for sourcing. A lot of this information should be replaced and Jtbobwaysf, please note that this article is still under WP:1RR regarding reversions to user edits. Hocus00 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You have re-added content that is laregly unsourced. Please explain where in the sources the specific claims you added are, as I could not find them when I looked the first time.

• "Bitcoin's primary use case is that it is a store of value and a digital currency." Unsourced
• "Ether can also be used as a digital currency and store of value, but the Ethereum network makes it also possible to create and run decentralized applications and smart contracts." This statement appears to be a feature, that has been moved into a comparison section.
• "Transactions are processed faster on Ethereum than Bitcoin, as new blocks are validated approximately every 12 seconds on Ethereum as opposed to approximately every 10 minutes on Bitcoin." Unsourced
• "Additionally, Bitcoin has a fixed supply of 21,000,000 coins, whereas Ethereum as no supply cap." Unsourced

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I literally posted the Forbes reference that sources all of this information right above your post. It's in the article as well. Also, what is with the "edit war" notice you posted on my Talk page? What edit war? This was not an appropriate way to gain consensus for a major edit to the article. You suggested deletion of a large longstanding section of the article that a lot of editors contributed to, then gave editors less than a day to respond before deleting it. Hocus00 (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I templated your talk page due to continuing WP:TE. Forbes contributor sources are not RS on cryptocurrency articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is written by a Forbes editor as well which makes it a RS. Are you really accusing me of tendentious editing? You're deleting basic well-sourced content that discusses how Ethereum has shorter block times than Bitcoin and how the supply caps are different. Hocus00 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is an advertorial and has advertiser notices all over it. There are plenty of sources that refer to bitcoin and ethereum supply caps. Drawing a conclusion on that is WP:SYNTH. I recall editors have previously discussed cryptocurrency sourcing with you on these talk pages. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not an RS. The NYT article that was cited also talks about block times. Why did you delete that? Hocus00 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies to your edits and discussion about this contributor source (WP:UGC). Does the NYT article contain a comparison of blocktimes? If yes, then my deletion would be an error, and I missed it when I read the NYT source earlier today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It appears that I've violated every Wiki policy under the sun in the past 24 hours: from WP:ICANTHEARYOU, to edit warring, to tendentious editing, to using improper cites. Amazing, I wonder what other policies I've violated. Is it not possible that you're trying to deflect from the initial point that you deleted an entire section of this article without proper discussion on this Talk page first? You believed it was improperly sourced or promotional, and you correctly made an initial post about it on this page. However, you should have given everyone ample opportunity to discuss the issue and potentially fix it. Not less than 24 hours before deleting editors longstanding work and contributions to the article. Inline tags should have been added to the article instead until we came to consensus here about what do with the section. Hocus00 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The source you have added says this "David Rodeck, Contributor; Benjamin Curry, Editor; Editorial Note: Forbes may earn a commission on sales made from partner links on this page, but that doesn't affect our editors' opinions or evaluations." This is clearly not an RS for cryptocurrency articles, find another source. If you cannot find another source then delete the content. Yes, the section in general appears to be promotional, poorly sourced, and of the 'x blockchain is bigger and better than y blockchain,' (you have made similar arguments at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins). It's becoming a problem. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a reliable source per WP:FORBES as it was written with editorial oversight. If you don't think so, then you need to escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion. This is the proper approach rather than bullying editors into deleting their edits, posting frivolous Talk page warnings and made-up Wiki policy violations. Just because certain facts aren't to your liking doesn't make them promotional. Hocus00 (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that we are even discussing IF it is reliable should be a clue it isnt, as we have been using extra stringent sourcing guidelines on crypto articles for a few years now (specifically to clamp down on promotional and COI edits). You are having trouble hearing that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What? You said this type of source was novel and it is appropriately going through discussion. Look through my history, I always edit with RS's. Go on, please continue to try and bully me and Wikihound me though through all the articles I edit. Hocus00 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF on these talk pages. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Intro

I think the lead section needs some improvement. Right now, it introduces some pretty complex subjects which requires the reader to open a lot of different articles before understanding what's going on. Basically WP:PLA. For example, the lead references smart contracts, DeFi, NFTs and ICOs but doesn't really explain what each of those are. I think expanding the lead a bit more would be helpful (and warranted for an article of this size). Hocus00 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fleshed this out a bit. Hocus00 (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinated effort on crypto currencies.

When I read this article I did not think it was very informative or useful. So I looked at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin to have something to compare with. I was surprised how different it looked from this one to cite the third paragraph about Bitcoin:

Bitcoin has been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity (and thus carbon footprint) used by mining, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. Some economists and commentators have characterized it as a speculative bubble at various times. Bitcoin has also been used as an investment, although several regulatory agencies have issued investor alerts about bitcoin."

The sentence about “illegal transactions” is not very useful for most crypto to have in a beginning of an article. If a currency goes on and of exchanges there is less risk of any criticism about “illegal transactions”. In fact you could argue it is something positive since that implies the privacy is good. But Nether Bitcoin or Ethereum are very good in that perspective compared to for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monero.

Ethereum also need large amounts of energy unfortunately it seems there is no good source as https://cbeci.org/ for Bitcoin. In the best case scenario bitcoin use 4430KW. If some of the best Ethereum ASIC:s miners where used the theoretical lower bound would be be around 1500KW (do not quote me on that). The point is that Ethereum needs large amount of electricity too. Different crypto currencies have different market cap and use and it is not a good methodology to compare like I did. It would probably better to compare the difference between using mining algorithms that is dependent on low/high power components.

Since Ethereum is likely, haven not read price charts in depth, more volatile than Bitcoin and speculators loves volatile Ehterium is probably more speculative.

The paragraph in the article about Bitcoin is true for most/many crypto currencies so if it is used about Bitcoin it should be on most articles about crypto.

If you going to use buzzwords like “Turing-complete” you better take some real word example why that is useful for a crypto currency. If you write about “tokens connected to digital works of art or other real-world items and sold as unique digital property” you better tell people in practice (to the best of my knowledge) it have been hyperlinks to sites with the “digital property”. If you are going to mention Vitalik Buterin you should mention he has at least 1,366.636079957997984225 Ether (https://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c5b3259aec9b) worth $3.8 billion and likely have the most to gain if ever Ethereum 2.0 happens.

I think this kind of double standard reflects negatively on Wikipedia. It is even worse then if people who loves Apple wrote a very positive article about Apple and the same people wrote a very critical article about Microsoft. Since much of a crypto currencies value is because people think it has value there should be no doubt the descriptions on Wikipedia is fair and free from marketing. It would be good to compare crypto currencies on technical merits and the applications perhaps some kind of template for all. Developers and history is of course important too.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. You are welcome to suggest specific changes to the article provided that they conform to our basic rules WP:NPOV and WP:V. JBchrch talk 21:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with JBchrch. Hocus00 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Beeple NFT

I suggest a correction for the NFT sale at Christies: the article seems to imply that somebody paid 69 M dollars for an NFT token. What seems to have happened is that somebody paid 69 M dollars for an artwork and got an NFT token along with it. That is like paying for an artwork and getting a piece of paper alongside saying "you own the artwork, this is the original artwork". Obviously nobody pays for the certificate itself, they pay for the artwork and the certificate comes attached to it and it is only worth as much as people attribute value to it (which is currently unknown if people value it at all by itself or see it as "proof of ownership" as intended or simply as "nice to have"). The token by itself is not what they paid for, I think the article is somewhat misleading and it should clarify this, the cited article states:

"The winner of Beeple’s 2021 piece, “Everydays: The First 5,000 Days,” will receive the image along with its unique token, which will be sent to the winner’s address—the unique identifier for a cryptocurrency account. This token will convey ownership from the artist to its new owner.".

--hroest 13:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source for this assertion? This contradicts everything I have read about the Beeple sale. JBchrch talk 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this confirms what Hannes Röst (talk · contribs) is saying. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes this was a quote from the WSJ article that is used to reference that statement. --hroest 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it's actually correct and that the RSes have indeed framed the auction as the "purchase of an image", with the NFT coming along as its "proof of ownership". However, if you allow me a small WP:NOTFORUM/WP:OR moment, let me say the legal agreements governing the sale (which are public, I have no involvement with the sale) are very clear that the buyer purchased the NFT and nothing else. It's unfortunate that this reality was not reported by the RSes. JBchrch talk 21:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch To continue on that thread, I wonder whether the buyer did not receive any sort of licence to use the image with the purchase. I have no insight into the matter, but it would seem strange if the buyer bought the NFT and does not have a (legal) right to use/display the artwork, potentially with an exclusive licence. Other NFT sales come with such a licence: iii. Commercial Use. Subject to your continued compliance with these Terms, The Company grants you an unlimited, worldwide, exclusive, license to use, copy, and display the purchased Art for the purpose of creating derivative works based upon the Art (“Commercial Use”). Examples of such Commercial Use would e.g. be the use of the Art to produce and sell merchandise products (T-Shirts etc.) displaying copies of the Art. and I wonder whether that was the case here in the Beeple sale as well or whether this was sold without such a licence. (and whether any such putative licence agreement was reported in RS). Interestingly, it seems that Beeple is now selling individual images as NFTs as well. --hroest 18:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: based on my very original research, the Beeple NFT did not include any material copyright license. I mean, like the example you gave at Talk:Non-fungible token, it contained a pretty BS license that allowed the buyer to use the art for personal purposes (or something like that), which, for all intents and purposes in the field of copyright, means that you own nothing. Moving out of my original research, I have here a CNBC source which says The “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” NFT that Winkelmann auctioned at Christie’s, for example, was sold including a massive jpeg file and Ethereum blockchain code, but did not include copyright ownership of the art.. Happy to consider any contradictory (or more granular) source you may have on hand. JBchrch talk 23:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Based on my reading so far and specifically this article [1] it seems that also if you buy physical art, you do not own the copyright. So not owning the copyright seems to be the norm when buying art, not the exception. It seems therefore strange that this is brought up as a "disadvantage" of NFTs when it is the norm in the field. I dont understand your point why being given a licence to use the art for specific purposes (eg commercial reproduction) "means that you own nothing." -- yes you dont own the copyright to the art, but there are other things besides copyright, eg you can own a licence (exclusive or non-exclusive) to do certain things. Its like patent law: having an exclusive licence to use a patent can be very lucrative even if you dont own the patent. Or am I misunderstanding something here? --hroest 00:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: This is a whole subject! Maybe I will just throw at you a few points and you can tell me if they are in any way convincing to you. First, when you buy a painting, you buy a physical object which is the artwork, and you can display in your home and know that it has been painted by the artist for sure. With a NFT, you only buy a representation of an artwork. The question is: what does this representation consist of? It cannot consist in ownership of the artwork, since it is either a digital file, or has been destroyed. You could then expect that it consists in owning the IP of the artwork — but in practice, that's most often not the case. Maybe the owner is given a license on its copyright? Apparently, that's not the case either. So we come to the conclusion that this representation is only ideal/abstract/intellectual. What we have just gone through is the actual thought-process of big buyers purchasing NFTs. It also doesn't help that most of the discourse around crypto-assets doesn't come from the arts side, but comes from the finance side, where you expect the instruments you purchase to be legally structured so as to give you the payoff you are looking for. Of course, if you own some form of copyright over the artwork, the discussion changes somewhat; but again, I am not aware that this is classically the case for the moment. JBchrch talk 09:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the digital image AND the NFT were purchased. The NFT is what made it interesting, however, and 'transferred' the ownership of the image over the blockchain. Right now the article states: "In 2021 Christie's sold a piece of NFT artwork by Beeple for $69.3 million, making him the third-most valuable living artist in terms of auction prices at the time." Would folks be okay with the following edit instead? "In 2021, Christie's sold a digital image with an NFT by Beeple for $69.3 million, making him the third-most valuable living artist in terms of auction prices at the time." Hocus00 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. JBchrch talk 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

works for me. --hroest 17:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Text has been updated in article. Thanks all. Hocus00 (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

We just follow what the sources say, we dont do our own WP:OR on what we editors think about it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

...and I am perfectly aware of that, which is precisely why I prefaced it with if you allow me a small WP:NOTFORUM/WP:OR moment. This was an attempt at explaining why my initial reaction was to oppose the changes. Hope that's clear enough. JBchrch talk 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jtbobwaysf that we have go with what RS say and here speculation is especially misplaced since the public may not be privy to all details of the sale and we can only write what was reported. There was likely also a contract in place granting the new owner certain legal rights on the image but I have not seen any reporting of this. --hroest 14:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have expressed in no uncertain terms that I have agreed with Hocus00's—and by extension, your—proposition. This was just a small comment on my part to explain why I was initially opposed to the rewording proposed, in order to bring this discussion to a close. I fail to see how I am engaging misplaced speculation. JBchrch talk 14:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was speaking in general terms not specifically about you. --hroest 17:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Etherum's tie to bitcoin

Hello-I tried to enter the text below in the 'Comparison to Bitcoin' section but it has been removed.

Additionally, some argue that the price of Etherum is tied to the price of Bitcoin, in the sense that they both experience similar changes in value simultaneously.[63] As highlighted by Cointelegraph[64], analysts at skewdotcom, a cryptocurrency data analysis company owned by Coinbase, found that as of November 2019, Etherum was the highest-correlated cryptocurrency to Bitcoin for the previous two years in comparison to any other cryptocurrency.

I think it is important to highlight Ether's link to Bitcoin and see no reason why it cannot be on the page.

Please let me know your thoughts-if I receive no replies I will attempt to add it to the page again in a few days time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlaw44 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please no Cointelegraph. Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, the text should be cited to a WP:RS. Also, that section is a comparison to the technicals of Bitcoin and price-talk is out of place. Hocus00 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

News about London

P2P to PoS is near by today ERC-20 tech down so we should add some real market news to show investors not to be optimistic.

"In a month, Ethereum network computing power decreased by 17%. This is equivalent to turning off 895 000 GeForce RTX 3090 graphics card.And the fall will continue..? "

Other: "After a strong decrease in the value of cryptocurrency as a result of the harsh actions of the Chinese administration against miners, many crypto-workers began to leave the business and sell their farms..." Dombov89 (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No discussion of hashing algorithm

In the design section of the page, there is no mention of which hashing algorithm Ethereum uses for it's PoW mining. This seems like an important addition that should be made.

Strallus (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a "Mining" section is needed. HmmInterdasting (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

An issue is finding a WP:RS that discusses in depth ETH mining. If someone knows of some, I can help develop that section. Hocus00 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethereum whitepaper may be a good start. Ethereum.org has a lot of resources. I will help Keleti (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

most used blockchain

This was in the lede and I removed it, it is WP:UNDUE. In the top of the lede it has the heaviest WP:WEIGHT.

Ethereum is the most actively used blockchain.

The issue with this is how do we attribute this? Some blockchains are private, some have loads of use and maybe are not really blockchains (Ripple), some are by far the most widespread adoption (bitcoin), some have the most daily on-chain transactions (ethereum). This is too specific to summarize as such in the lede in wikivoice. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree on removal of that statement from the lede at this time, for a couple of reasons. 1) the explication of signifincant facts should be detailed and supported with sources in the article body, not just appear in the lede with a source. The lede should merely summarize that, per WP:MOSLEAD. 2) two sources from ten days apart in 2020 would not support a general claim with no time context provided with it; stuff in the blockchain space seems to be very dynamic and is changing all the time.

If an editor would like to develop the content, and specifically by what metric Ethereum might be heavily used (with sources) in the main article prose, then we could look at a more narrowly worded summary for the top section. N2e (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

question everbody knows

Today, I removed a tag added by N2e (talk · contribs) and then the user reached out to me so I reverted my removal here. I see the point that the source is old, but my logic to remove it was that I think everyone knows that Ethereum is #2 by market cap, and we can all look at coinmarketcap.com (or google, or whatever). There is little change to this top 2 ranking, as ethereum has been there for some time. So it seemed obvious and uncontroversial thus I didnt see the point for the tag. My logic was the statement was not controversial and the tag was a bit overkill, especially in light that the next sentence (that I removed) was stating that Ethereum was top-ranked in terms of transaction or use, something that is probably quite controversial. Anyhow, the latter point has another section I created right above this Talk:Ethereum#most_used_blockchain, so we can split those discussions I think (although both of them probably fall under the category of promotional). Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's use recent sources and make everybody happy? Here are two: Szalay, Eva; Venkataramakrishnan, Siddharth (28 May 2021). "What are cryptocurrencies and stablecoins and how do they work?". Financial Times. Retrieved 14 August 2021. Vigna, Paul (3 June 2021). "DeFi Is Helping to Fuel the Crypto Market Boom—and Its Recent Volatility". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 August 2021. JBchrch talk 17:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Those work for me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Aight  Done. JBchrch talk 22:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Turing-complete"

The article repeatedly notes the Turing-completeness of the Ethereum scripting language and instruction set. Portraying Turing-completeness as a notable technical feature or innovation of a computer system may be misleading. By comparison to other virtual machines, Turing-completeness is not mentioned at all in Common Language Runtime, Java virtual machine, Smalltalk, or Virtual machine, nor in Scripting language or Instruction set architecture. The property is generally taken as given in discussions of languages and virtual machines because it is ubiquitous.

Turing-completeness does not even distinguish Ethereum from Bitcoin, as shown by Craig Wright in this talk and paper. That Ethereum was marketed as the first Turing-complete blockchain system is no doubt the source of the undue attention to this feature. The fact that this claim is false may itself be notable if additional sources can be found.

Regarding the current sources, Tapscott & Tapscott do not make this claim themselves but attribute it to Buterin in interview and to "his legion of followers". The other source is a self-published primary document from the Ethereum developers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminator 2 really happened (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Crypto-currant

Ethereum Ravikantcool2008 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs sees ethereum rallying 80% to $8,000 within two months if it keeps tracking inflation

Ether, the cryptocurrency of the ethereum network, could well jump 80% to $8,000 in the next two months if it keeps tracking inflation expectations, Goldman Sachs has said. Goldman's global markets managing director Bernhard Rzymelka noted Monday that crypto assets have closely tracked inflation over the past couple of years. Rzymelka compared the Bloomberg Galaxy Crypto index with a market-based measure of inflation expectations and found there was a strong correlation. He said ether has tracked inflation markets particularly closely. The strategist added that the token is pro-cyclical – that is, it tends to go up when the economy does better. Given that inflation expectations have recently risen sharply, ether could well be about to jump as well, Rzymelka said. Ether rose to an all-time high of close to $4,500 on Tuesday, according to Bitstamp data. Goldman said the recent chart pattern suggests that the cryptocurrency is either becoming exhausted or is reaching a "starting point of an accelerating rally." Rzymelka's note included a chart looking at the potential future direction of ether, showing that it could surge to $8,000 by the end of the year. That would be around 80% higher than Tuesday's record high of $4,468. However, Goldman cautioned that central banks are unlikely to let inflation keep rising sharply. If ether continues to follow inflation expectations, then there is likely to be a rally followed by a "longer-term market top ahead." JPMorgan has also recently seen signs that inflation is driving crypto markets, noting that investors seem to favour holding bitcoin rather than gold as a hedge against sharp price rises. Many institutional investors are highly skeptical of this argument, however, and say that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether are far too volatile to include in financial portfolios. 136.158.41.60 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Original Authors

Original authors should include "Charles Hoskinson" to be accurate. Or not? Bob (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Add one image where all the founders is visible instead of just only portraying Vitalik on the history tab as founder

Just today I edited the image title of Vitalik from founder to co-founder as it should be. But I think there's more to be done, maybe it is would be a good idea to show a photo in the history tab were all the founders are visible. Like this image – https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FD7fI-KXsAIhKmL.jpg (although all of the founders is not visible in this particular image but I hope you guys got the idea) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MohammedAbdulMalek (talk • contribs) 01:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a photo like that would be great. Need to find one with the correct license, maybe someone from the ethereum foundation watching this and will updload a similar photo to wikimedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Also fully agree that a photo such as this (the one you posted in particular) is needed as this is the original group in Miami: https://tokeneconomy.co/visions-of-ether-590858bf848e. It does not do justice to ETH founders although I realize VB has made a large contribution. Perhaps the photo of VB could be placed in another section? Bob (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

ETH pos timeline

In December 2021, Vitalik (Co-founder) announced that the development efforts for the PoS transition were more than 50% done and predicted that the merger would be completed in the first half of 2022. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/12/06/endgame.html Web3 student (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GuihaoFu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Cyrus Adkisson at DEVCON 2015.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Change:

Ethereum also allows for the creation and exchange of NFTs, which are non-interchangeable tokens connected to digital works of art or other real-world items and sold as unique digital property. Additionally, many other cryptocurrencies operate as ERC-20 tokens on top of the Ethereum blockchain and have utilized the platform for initial coin offerings.

To:

Ethereum also allows for the creation and exchange of tokens, which can be used as a store of value or to provide utility in decentralized applications. For example, a newly minted fungible token can be offered to raise funds in an initial coin offering, which grants voting shares similar to an IPO for securities. These fungible tokens often follow the ERC-20 technical standard, and are thus commonly referred to as "ERC-20 tokens". In contrast, non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, can be used to represent individual pieces of digital artwork or real-world items to be traded as unique digital property. 139.47.43.67 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SK2242 (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proof of staking

Proof of staking is expected to launch in Q4 2022, instead of 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Web3 student (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

.eth domain names

How should this be handled?69.66.129.194 (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by this comment? Would you suggest including a bit about ethereum domain names? Is this covered in any WP:RS such as ft.com, bloomberg, fortune, wsj, etc? We are not using coindesk, and other cryptozines. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

There is one other domain name .tez. Advertising Age has an article on it which I found through ProQuest. .eth seems like a big deal.69.66.129.194 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add links to the sources here as well as the text you propose. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

How do you propose I link to ProQuest? The average person won't be able to get to it.

Also, I would assume either articles would be created with the standard description of the domain name, like with .com, or maybe something like that can be done here. I wouldn't know what the text should be if it's done here.69.66.129.194 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethereum 2.0

Ethereum’s roadmap includes a few more major phases, including a four-part upgrade that developers are calling the “surge, verge, purge, and splurge” citation: https://fortune.com/2022/07/21/vitalik-buterin-ethereum-merge-ethcc-paris/ Web3 student (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The "Design" section will need to be updated at the Merge. Which sources can we cite?

Let's get prepared for this. HmmInterdasting (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point in time please remove the forwarding looking WP:CRYSTAL content that lacks proper sourcing. We dont need to be the definitive source of information on what ethereum might one day be. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Uppercase currency name?

Regular currency names are lowercase: dollar, euro. This article writes "Ether" midsentence. Is there any source confirming either spelling? DePiep (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Use lowercase: Two apparent independent reliable sources that I was able to readily access in a quick check (The New Yorker and Business Insider) both use lowercase. A third (Fortune) uses uppercase, but for instances where the sources are mixed, Wikipedia prefers lowercase. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. This aligns with regular currency names then. DePiep (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I found a fourth (Wired) that uses uppercase, but I'm sticking with my lowercase recommendation per the Wikipedia MoS, which prefers lowercase when sources are mixed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning lower-case on this, since the sources are mixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge

Now that the merge has happened it needs to be discussed in the article. As of now I see nothing in the article and only in the lede. This is against wikipedia policy in which teh lede summarizes, and doesnt introduce new concepts. If I am wrong please let me know. Otherwise, the content needs to be removed from the lede or expanded in the body. I did read a story today in NYT about it, I am sure plenty of RS on this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Languages

Ethereum was also created with Javascript. Please add this to the written-with part. https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/programming-languages/javascript/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravergragoon77 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

New editors, please be advised that ethereum.org, fintech sites, crypto sites, and contributor sources are all not WP:RS for this and all crytpcurrency articles. I removed most that I could find. I did leave a couple that document the creation of ethereum (historical) as they are non-controversial and encyclopedic. Claims of whatever new feature or new release date that ethereum has proposed is not encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE unless it has mainstream RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

History table is mostly unsourced

Ethereum protocol upgrades

Protocol layer	Code name	Release date	Block no. or Beacon Chain epoch
Execution	Frontier	30 July 2015	0
Execution	Ice Age	8 September 2015	200,000
Execution	Homestead	15 March 2016	1,150,000
Execution	DAO fork	20 July 2016	1,920,000
Execution	Tangerine Whistle	18 October 2016	2,463,000
Execution	Spurious Dragon	23 November 2016	2,675,000
Execution	Byzantium	16 October 2017	4,370,000
Execution	Constantinople	28 February 2019	7,280,000
Execution	St. Petersburg	28 February 2019	7,280,000
Execution	Istanbul	8 December 2019	9,069,000
Consensus	Phase 0	1 December 2020	0 (epoch)
Execution	Muir Glacier	2 January 2020	9,200,000
Execution	Berlin	15 April 2021	12,244,000
Execution	London	5 August 2021	12,965,000
Consensus	Altair	27 October 2021	74,240 (epoch)
Execution	Arrow Glacier	8 December 2021	13,773,000
Execution	Gray Glacier	30 June 2022	15,050,000
Consensus	Bellatrix	6 September 2022	144,896 (epoch)
Execution	Paris	15 September 2022	15,537,394
Execution	Shanghai	TBD	TBD
Consensus	Capella	TBD	TBD

This table is interesting. It might even be fairly complete. It is also very hard to parse what is going on in the lower part of the table where "Execution" and "Consensus" rows are mixed in.

But the larger problem is that nearly none of these historical date statements for these diverse upgrades to the prootocol are verifiably sourced. Also, links to the Etherscan block explorer are inadequate to source the information being claimed in any row. Without sources for the unsourced rows of information, this material won't be able to stay in Wikipedia long term. N2e (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I think probably too much content here WP:NOTDIR and we cant verify much of it. Wikipedia doesn't need to cover this sort of granularity, assuming it is even all correct (I have no idea myself). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the article history, and found a lot of this was previously sourced. Moreover, these sound a lot like the protocol upgrades I've heard about/read about in the years I've paid attention to this technology area starting in 2016. See for example, this version: as of 2022-10-07T01:35:37.

Importantly, the idea that a decentralized blockchain can coordinate to do a lot of these protocol upgrades from a global developer community and global miner/validator community is quite notable, so it would be shame to lose the list of upgrades info if verifiable sources exist. Ping User:HmmInterdasting, User:Blockchainus Maximus, User:Davide King, User:Hanif Al Husaini, User:Jamesray1 N2e (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I am ok with keeping it too, I am somewhat ambivalent, so if N2e wants to keep it, I will go with that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There should be plenty of news articles out there that discuss the updates, which can be sourced. Jamesray1 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that deleting the upgrade history would not be the right approach; better to source the information. Jamesray1 (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep the table but get rid of the "Protocol Layer" and "Block no." columns, so that the table isn't so huge and doesn't crowd out the text to its left. HmmInterdasting (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Here is a copy of the table from an older version of the article in mainspace, with reasonably complete source citations, as of 2022-10-07T01:35:37

Ethereum protocol upgrades

Protocol layer	Code name	Release date	Block no. or Beacon Chain epoch
Execution	Frontier	30 July 2015	0
Execution	Ice Age	8 September 2015	200,000
Execution	Homestead	15 March 2016	1,150,000
Execution	DAO fork	20 July 2016	1,920,000
Execution	Tangerine Whistle	18 October 2016	2,463,000
Execution	Spurious Dragon	23 November 2016	2,675,000
Execution	Byzantium	16 October 2017	4,370,000
Execution	Constantinople	28 February 2019	7,280,000
Execution	St. Petersburg	28 February 2019	7,280,000
Execution	Istanbul	8 December 2019	9,069,000
Consensus	Phase 0	1 December 2020	0 (epoch)
Execution	Muir Glacier	2 January 2020	9,200,000
Execution	Berlin	15 April 2021	12,244,000
Execution	London	5 August 2021	12,965,000
Consensus	Altair	27 October 2021	74,240 (epoch)
Execution	Arrow Glacier	8 December 2021	13,773,000
Execution	Gray Glacier	30 June 2022	15,050,000
Consensus	Bellatrix	6 September 2022	144,896 (epoch)
Execution	Paris	15 September 2022	15,537,394
Execution	Shanghai	TBD	TBD
Consensus	Capella	TBD	TBD

Better versions might exist before or after 7 Oct 2022, but at least this will show that much of this was sourced in older versions of the article. N2e (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Vast quantities of unsourced material

There is no requirement to preserve the vast amounts of unsourced material on this article. Much of it has long been tagged as unsourced, much of it is malsourced to the Ethereum press team, and much of it appears to be unprovable/original research (see standard for preservation of unsourced material at WP:BURDEN). However, an editor matching the profile of a single-purpose account has reinserted this content. I really have no skin in the game, but it's pretty clear there needs to be a deletion of the vast amounts of unsourced material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Pending discussion, reverted back to deletion of unsourced content. Edit summary should have read "With no response to talk page message, reverting now that 24 hour window has closed. Should no discussion occur with another insertion of the material, I might request additional input at the relevant WikiProject talk pages." ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

"Hi there, I would like to change the line where it describes what an NFT is, they also should something like NFT (ERC-721) tokens" AndyChenCrypto (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotAGenious (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

I am trying to translate the Ethereum Wikipaedia content for Nepali language. Razaanstha (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but you don't need to request an edit to this article to do that. - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

In the founding section, "chose the name Ethereum after browsing a list of elements from science fiction on Wikipedia" could have the actual list as a reference Natelolzzz (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I've added it as a wikilink. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)