Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Earl King Jr. (talk | contribs) at 23:32, 6 September 2016 (→CoinDesk etc.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance). Databases (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Numismatics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: Bold move, Block chain (transaction database) → Blockchain (transaction database), 19 May 2015‎ Revert, Blockchain (transaction database) → Block chain (transaction database), 20 May 2015‎ RM, Block chain (transaction database) → Block chain, procedurally closed, 28 May 2015 (discussion) Bold move, Block chain (transaction database) → Block chain (database), 30 May 2015‎ RM, Block chain (database) → Block chain, No move, 20 June 2015 (discussion) RM, Block chain (database) → Blockchain, no consensus, 31 October 2015 (discussion)

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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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:

• Beyond bitcoin. Your life is destined for the blockchain, Wired, 9 June 2016.
• We're About to Live in a Blockchain-Based World, PC Magazine, 10 June 2016.
• Study bitcoin and blockchain, Federal Reserve Chair tells central banks, CCN.LA, 9 June 2016. (Janet Yellen, US Chair of the Federal Reserve statement on the topic.)

— 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• On Sir Richard Branson's Necker Island, 'Bitcoin Illuminati' Reassess Blockchain Strategies, Forbes, 10 Jun 2016. Adding another source, from reliable source media, by an established journalist who covers this topic. N2e (talk) 23:31, 13 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)

• Questions and responses by the big/established financial sector players who have been looking at/evaluating/doing proof-of-concept projects on blockchains—public and private—following the Ethereum hard fork in July 2016: http://www.coindesk.com/big-banks-consultants-ethereum-hard-fork/ N2e (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Includes some of the advantages and disadvantages of comparative blockchains or the public/permissionless and private/permissioned varieties On Settlement Finality, a technical note by V. Buterin. N2e (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Blog is not a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That is not correct. See Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages: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."

• is a source claiming that much of private blockchains is just snake oil and spin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

Include a link?

I wanted to suggest that a link to record be created in this article. I'm not certain if and where it belongs. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange, I'm agnostic, and have no opinion one way or the other. Only thing is, we need a good solid reliable secondary source that supports the use of the term "record" in the context of blockchains. If I find one, I'll try to get back here and note it. N2e (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Section tag on the lede of the article

A section tag was applied by an editor to the lede of the article. To wit:

"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page."

Two questions:

1. what is the specific statement in the lede for which factual accuracy is disputed?
2. if it is one of the areas of the lede that is tagged with an inline cleanup tag adjacent to the lede prose (and I don't know if it is or is not), then do we really need redundant cleanup tags? One for the prose needing attention, and another for the overall section? I suspect the answer is no, and that Misplaced Pages has some policy for this, but will avoid looking that policy up until I know what the issue is that the editor had in mind.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been a couple of days with no defense for the double/redundant tagging. I'm going to remove the section-wide tag and just assume, for now, that the specific issues are tagged with inline tags, per item no. 2 above.

If the section-level tag is about some other issue, then please articulate that issue here so it might be addressed. N2e (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, this should now clear things up and 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. Soon. N2e (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

N2e, the lead section tag is appropriate, because:

• 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 explain the issue more thoroughly, I took part in the discussion in the above section, and updated the tags in the lead section to explain the reasons why the citations are not acceptable for the specific claim you made.
• You reverted all attempts to restore the text to WP:STATUSQUO, even though you admit that, after those months, you still did not find a source confirming your claims.

You may not know it, but the policy here is to revert the unconfirmed and challenged edits to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question as to why the section need TWO tags—one at the section heading level and others inline, at the specific points of contention.

But I do appreciate that you have clarified that both the section-level tag and the inline tags are about the same topic. With that clarification, we can discuss the specifics of the contention in the next section, below; and leave this section just about the single issue (avove) of whether redundant/duplicate tag types are appropriate, messing up the appearance of the entire article.

I'll go on record that we do not need both. One set of tags should suffice; pick whether you want to identify the problem at the section level, or at the specific inline level. But I'll not remove it a second time as I don't want an edit war with you. (the other items, where the inline challenges are, will be dealt with in time, as I said above). I'll try to get a second opinion on the redundant/duplicative use of tags. N2e (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And I go on record to say that your edits were challenged since May. After some time it was evident that you were unable to prove the claims by citing WP:IRS, and a consensus was established that they were wrong. (see above) After that, you actually admitted the incorrecness, yet you continued your edit war and:

• you reverted the reinstatement of the WP:STATUSQUO information, which is strictly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy
• deleted all inline tags marking your sources as inadequate

Due to these actions, I had no other possibility than to tag the section, to make sure the readers are warned that the claims in the section are not supported by reliable sources. The strategy of yours to start several discussions related to the same problem, restating that you do not know what the problem is, has a name in Misplaced Pages, it is called WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I hope that instead of continuing, you start addressing the problem in an adequate way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoah. You just went over the edge and did not assume good faith. You have accused me of edit warring (which I've not been even close to the line on). We are talking here about whether redundant levels of tagging are appropriate in this section. I won't let this section's discussion get derailed by your move to personal attack on me. So if you want to allege that I have violated those Misplaced Pages policies, then as a very experienced editor, you know where to go. Take that to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you want to try to back up your mere assertions.

You are clearly off the topic that this section is about: do we need redundant tags in the lede of this article, as it stands, today. I think not. I'm done here in this section, and will let other editors resolve with you as to if we actually need both section-level article cleanup tags and also inline article cleanup tags, as the personal attack move on your part makes it quite impossible to continue ordinary dialogue. N2e (talk) 11:29, 27 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ]. N2e (talk) 17:11, 3 September 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)

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)

"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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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), 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:
• "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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Cryptography articles
• Mid-importance Cryptography articles
• Start-Class Computer science articles
• Mid-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• WikiProject Cryptography articles
• Start-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• Start-Class numismatic articles
• Low-importance numismatic articles
• WikiProject Numismatics articles