Talk:IOTA (technology)

Avoid editing my text with yours, very unprofessional, If you want to respond use :: to indent your responses. (:: Thank you for the advice, I'm not a Wiki professional indeed.)

Please follow the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages guidelines. Sign your name by typing four tildes on comments please. Note: New discussions should be at the bottom, not bumping something to the top that was written later. The Criticism section thread has been placed in the chronological order of creation of this talk page. Builderbobero (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute at IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology)

Comefrombeyond is developer of IOTA and is removing Criticism section, also editing and removing mentions of facts as of 2017 July - IOTA has a central authority to reach consensus called Coordinator. (Editing and removing of false information cannot be a proof of having a non-neutral point of view.)

The whole article as written, reads like from a marketing department, where dissenting opinions are erased. (Dissenting opinion contained outright lies.)

Please ban the user Comefrombeyond from editing the IOTA article. (This is a sign of hypocrisy - posting censorship request after blaming the opponent in using censorship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this Dispute

The issue with this NPOV dispute is that the above user does not have a NPOV. What this user considers as "facts as of 2017 July" is incorrect. The Coordinator is not a central authority of the network, nor does it provide consensus in the network, nor does it provide security to the network. The issue at hand is that what this editor above considers a 'dissenting opinion' is a fabrication of information. Having an opinion is fine, but wikipedia is here to represent factual information. This editing war can be seen as an attack, and an attempt to spread ill formed information to uninformed users. The claims presented in this editor's Criticism section are not legitimate criticisms, but an attempt at misguiding people with fabricated information. The Censorship section is a deliberate attack with unknown motives, and these claims are void of reality.

Please refer to my edited criticism section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789291097

Builderbobero (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NPOV Dispute

To address the filed NPOV dispute

"Comefrombeyond is developer of IOTA and is removing Criticism section"
The original editor, and user who has filed this dispute has persistently edited the article to include their own improperly placed opinions within the context of this article. The editor in question altered the content within four sections of the article to include incorrect and un-referenced information in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to misconstrue facts. Specifically, the "Criticism section" was wholly unsubstantiated and outside the scope of an encyclopedic repository, such as this.

"also editing and removing mentions of facts as of 2017 July - IOTA has a central authority to reach consensus called Coordinator."
To address this dissent, a section including all known facts about the Coordinator will be added to this wikipedia entry when editing permission is restored.

The whole article as written, reads like from a marketing department, where dissenting opinions are erased.
The purpose of this platform is to allow anyone to participate in the editing process, in an effort to create a comprehensive source of knowledge on this subject. Editors are tasked with providing facts that can be substantiated with external references, as those who contributed on this entry have done.

Please clarify the Coordinator role, with a subtitle == Coordinator == . Mention when it is planned to be removed. Mention why it is not removed right now or 1 year ago. As you say it is not providing security or consensus, why is it there?

Criticism of iota is censorship, official channels are moderated, mentions of Coordinator is stomped out like here. There must be an Criticism sub-section like any other wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

IoT and proof-of-work are at opposite goals of each other, IoT especially battery-driven wireless devices aim to preserve-energy, by doing as little computation as possible and sleeping. Iota requires the device to compute hard, PoW, wasting energy. No IoT device exists with Iota on it. Very small IoT devices can not do the Work required, even a smartphone takes a minute to solve the PoW and make a transaction. A smartphone has Ghz cores, and several GB of memory. IoT devices have less than 100Mhz and memory in kilobytes. And if they can (bigger devices), the transactions are not zero-fee, but are the wasted energy to prove work was done. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system#Variants mentions a variant which doesn't require all that.)

Coordinator is active and has been active till this day 2017, July. Its existence is hidden and attempts at censoring it where-ever iota is discussed. Unclear what it actually does and if it provides any security to transactions. It is optional yet essential for security as it is until 2017 July, with promises of its removal being around the corner. Can it be removed with maintained security, or not? When, what is the criteria for its removal? (Coordinator existence is revealed in various sources, e.g. the official slack where Coordinator reports are posted every minute, the official wallet software where milestones are reported in the bottom panel. Only users decide when Coordinator is removed, making the decision for them would be a centralized solution.)

Unclear if PoW adds any security to transactions or if it is the Coordinator. (It's clear from the whitepaper.)

Only 31% of PoW power is needed to attack the network, compared with 51% for bitcoin. (It's 34%, this is typical for all solutions using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance#Byzantine_Generals.27_Problem)

Permission-ed by social gossip in iota slack channel. Not fully permissio-less system. (No definitions provided, so they can mean anything.)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath

Looks like a nice article stub. Sure it has lots of primary sources, but that is common in new articles. Certainly it is notable as one of the larger market cap crypto's. But a lot of work needs to be put into on RS. If there is edit warring between anonymous editors, maybe leave that on until the article can take shape and more editors arrive. Certainly unconfirmed editors pushing an agenda (whether it is right or wrong) is not good for wikipedia. If confirmed users are also edit warring then it is right to also ask them to leave the article alone for a while. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is pushing an agenda, is is marketing material from iota. See the reaction of iota developer and their fans, edit war, attempts at doxxing me, calling my edits lies and false. Their agenda is having the article be an advertisement, not to actually describe what is reality and facts today - Coordinator is active, iota is centralized, PoW expended does not secure the transactions, only the Coordinator milestone releases are "truth" of the network - exactly to prevent over-power attacks (only 31% required), and to prevent someone exploiting the social anti-Sybil means. They say this all is "training wheels" and "will be resolved in the future". Thats all fine, that should be said in the article and not hidden as they have now successfully done. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, Censorship is rampant among IOTA official channels and intimidation from their developers and founders - See the linked article on medium how they reacted to Eric Walls article. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia would describe what-is as it is, and not what-is-promised by a product-building foundation. Iota does not run on any IoT device, as of 2017 July. It does not matter what they promise or how they will resolve the problem, this is not a technical discussion board or idea-brainstorming notepad. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like WP:Tendentious editing to me, specifically WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, the autoconfirmed lock is warranted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have fully protected the article for three days. After that time, the page will be open for good-faith discussion, but I'm afraid that some of those who posted above may have disqualified themselves already as good-faith editors. Some facts about IOTA may not yet be known for sure, and its virtues could be arguable, but we can still summarize what reliable sources have written about it without injecting personal opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed citations to original research (WP:NOR). Please replace them with citations to reliable third party sources.LarsPensjo (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of text was added without sources by @Sephirothika. Please look into WP:RS how to use reliable sources, and include these into the text. LarsPensjo (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A resume

The person hidden behind 178.78.237.194 has a strong incentive to keep vandalising the article (because of being invested into a competing technology). Keeping the current version locked indefinitely is the only way to prevent this. Deleting the article won't solve the problem unless Wikipedia has an autodelete mechanism to prevent emergence of mirrors which will be created by thousands IOTA fans. Comefrombeyond —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider trying to reach agreement here on the talk page about the disputed issues. It is surely possible to create a neutral summary of the disagreements, even though many practical questions about IOTA can't yet be answered, at such an early stage. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the agreement (with 178.78.237.194) hasn't been reached during last 12+ months then it won't be reached in the foreseeable future. I suggest to ignore the editwar here, eventually 178.78.237.194 will give up once he sells his share of the competing technology. Comefrombeyond (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see IOTA as in competition with other cryptographic platforms? EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, IOTA is clearly leading, but some platforms try to catch up and they see IOTA as the main competitor. Being unable to outpace IOTA tech-wise these platform spawn people like 178.78.237.194 who use different black PR tactics to protect their investments. Comefrombeyond (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, see the IOTA announcement thread from 2015 https://bitcoin talk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.0 it was started by Comefrombeyond. Iota is in competition with all other crypto-currencies, especially Ethereum and Byteball. The later, Byteball, has outpaced Iota both to being the first block-chain less technology to reach several exchanges, first to launch in production mode/livenet without requiring "training wheels", having usable smart contracts, and private payments (does Iota even have the mentioned "Masked Authenticated Messaging" yet or is it another marketing promise?), among many other leading features. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: looping you in here, another crypto page with issues. I think these editors are making a clear case for a autoconfirmed lock on this page. Then we just deal with COI if necessary. This article has a lot of issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have placed a WP:RS tag on the article. The article is interesting, love these new technology articles. But it relies way too much on primary sources. Please find RS for the claims, prepare for claims that are not supported by RS to be deleted, and avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Happy editing... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to IOTA (technology) — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) → IOTA (cryptocurrency) – IOTA is one of many forms of cryptocurrency. The present disambiguator is incorrect if for no other reason than that it is in title case rather than sentence case (properly, it should be IOTA (distributed ledger technology)). But worse, it is incorrect because the essence of IOTA is that it is a new form of cryptocurrency. The fact that it uses the distributed ledger as its underlying technology is important, but it is not the essence of the thing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cryptocurrency" is a home-made term which is incorrect in the most legislations (which don't define legal status of "cryptocurrencies"). "Distributed ledger technology" can already be used everywhere because it's a technical term and it doesn't require an approval from legislatures. The essence of IOTA is messaging. Token transfers ("payments" would be an incorrect term without corresponding laws) is a special case of messaging. If we count the percentage of the token transfers we will see that they take less than 10% of all messages. Maybe we should use "(platform)" disambiguator? Comefrombeyond (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Comefrombeyond: That is a legalistic explanation that doesn't hold much water in the light of everyday use, which is the norm that governs article titles at Wikipedia. At the List of cryptocurrencies, there is an entire collection of concepts that fall under the category of "cryptocurrency" (including, not surprisingly, IOTA). Whether it is a "home-made term" (I really don't even know what that means) or not, it is a term that has common understanding among readers, whereas "distributed ledger technology" is not such a term. Also, the acceptance of any given terminology by any given legislative body is not the issue here. We are not writing this article with an eye toward allowing legislative bodies to understand and permit any given transaction technology, we are writing it with an eye toward having the general public gain an understanding of the concept. If IOTA requires legislative approval for any given application, that's between its developers' lawyers and the legislators. I am not requesting that the description of IOTA in terms of distributed ledger concepts be removed from the article, only that the title be made clearer and simpler for readers to understand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IOTA is a messaging protocol for Internet-of-Things too. What do you think of "IOTA (platform)"? Comefrombeyond (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer IOTA (technology) as platform is a generic term that can have several meanings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's use "technology". Could you do the changes? I'm a newbie editor and not sure I'll do it right. Comefrombeyond (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Comefrombeyond: This discussion process should be allowed to run for several days to see if other users have any input. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IOTA (technology). In the scope of intended use cases for the technology "currency" is a small part. While reductive, its understandable that it's coloured by that label due to the most vocal users being those with money at stake (See the editwar above). Twpks (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IOTA (technology) per above Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seed length

The Seeds paragraph reads:

 Seeds can be any length, but any more than 81 characters fails to add extra security.

Then:

 The number of possible IOTA seeds, when using the maximum length of 81 characters [...].

This sounds contradictory. Can a seed really be any length? Or does it get truncated after 81 characters?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranfrere (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Advert template should be used.

92.221.198.20 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advert response is invalid

The Advert template should not be used. When factual design specifications do not appeal to a specific editor/editors, this does not legitimize the removal of factual information in the context of design implementation. Design information can not be claimed as an advertisement, design information is a factual section which contains specifics, and conceptual information regarding the existing implementation.

If there is a specific sentence, which we can come to consensus as being: "Written as an advertisement", then it should not be included. Removing entire 13 subsections, under the guise of 'being written like an advertisement' can be seen as censorship by special interests.

Sephirothika (talk)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2017

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at IOTA (technology). (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Requesting to not change any existing sections. But append the 13 subsection entries of the Design section, as referenced in the older version. The current version is omitting legitimate specific information, and can be seen as a form of censorship of information. Design specifications is not an advertisement.

The sections which had consensus after the last editor war are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(technology)&oldid=794354029

Removing the vaste majority of established, factual information from a wiki article is irresponsible, and can be seen as an attempt at hiding truth.

Sephirothika (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text you want to add contains a lot of statements without any references to sources. That means your are violating the rule WP:NOR (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research). If the facts are established, please provide citations to third party sources that confirms this. You also have to fulfill the requirement WP:RS (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it).LarsPensjo (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]