Jump to content

Talk:Ethereum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LarsPensjo (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 2 March 2018 (→‎Performance - contradictory statements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please add section "Academic and Professional Reception"

Please add a section discussing how Ethereum has been received in academic and professional computer science. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Newagelink: I have created the section per your request Ethereum#Academic_and_Professional_Reception. Please feel free to add more content, it is quite bare of content today, but should be enough to be considered a notable start. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is a good start. -- Newagelink (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was later blanked by jytdog (talk · contribs). Feel free to comment here if you like. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New template suggestion: Infobox cryptocurrency

@Kjerish: I propose that the template for this article be changed to Template:Infobox cryptocurrency which is now also being used over at Bitcoin Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kjerish (creator of the template) suggested that we wait a month to get feedback on the template's launch over at Bitcoin before we deploy at other places. Seems logical to me, so I withdraw this suggestion for a month or so. We welcome your feedback on the template here Template talk:Infobox cryptocurrency Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The repository linking to Go Ethereum in the infobox isn't quite right.

Go-Ethereum is an implementation, client, or engine of the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The URL for the repository would be better as "www.github.com/ethereum". However this is compounded by the repository URL apparently being taken from the reference to the Go Ethereum repository for the license, being the only place that the reference occurs. Furthermore there are more licenses than GPLv3, LGPLv, others have been used such as MIT in many repos, Apache 2.0,[1] CC BY-SA 4.0,[2] MPL-2.0[3].

References

  1. ^ https://github.com/ethereum/dopple. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://github.com/ethereum/yellowpaper/blob/master/LICENCE.md. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://github.com/ethereumjs/ethereumjs-vm/blob/master/LICENSE. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Proposed uses

Proposed uses are really not required for the article, proposal change all the time, and there are enough examples of ready available products already. This sub-section should be removed. prokaryotes (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there has been a ton of hype and many of these had been added as actual uses. The section should probably be renamed to something like "Impractical proposed uses" and expanded. The section of uses needs to be weeded to give only actual uses and take out other hype. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it's extruded hype product. We've been around this one on this page before - hypotheticals in the blockchain space are so common as to be worthless, and the bitcoin blogs routinely run articles on things that are completely hypothetical, don't exist at all and never eventuate. I'd cut anything without evidence of actually existing - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of etymology

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ethereum. Way too much of this kind of garbage sourcing on this article and related ones. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Split-Ether

@Mikael Häggström: created a new article today Ether (currency). I am am undecided if it is helpful but happy to see how it plays out. If the split article format survives, I think we hould have a discussion of what will stay on the Ethereum article and what will move to the Ether article. Seems like we would move price, and other related concerns to Ether and focus on the technology and history on Ethereum. Anyone else have suggestions and thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in that edit history, just the wp:article size here is enough to motivate a split. Also, although the Etherium network handles the blockchain of Ether, there are other entities that deal with this currency, such as cryptocurrency exchanges. I'm willing to further expand the Ether article in a near future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support that split. The body of this article is only about 2000 words and per WP:SPLIT, the reasonable time to split is when it 6K - 10K. This article is not too long, and the other is just a second place we have to watch for promotional cyptocurrency spammers etc. Per WP:PROSPLIT there should have been a discussion first, as this was not a clearcut case. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with jytdog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've now merged Ether back into this one. Still, I do think it needs a top-header, because the scope of the currency is also beyond the architecture of Ethereum. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What type of top header do you suggest? Next, can someone please fix the size of the infobox and logo, its too big. I dont know how to fix it myself. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Infobox Cryptocurrency" should be placed in that section, I can retrieve that from history if deemed necessary. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralized applications and the question of spam

The section "Decentralized applications" currently lists a number of application types, with links to examples. These examples are by name, and the question is if this is to be considered as spam. The purpose of these names isn't to advertise businesses, it is to prove the point by providing links to real applications. I added a link to Etherdelta, which was removed because of being seen as spammy. Either Etherdelta should be allowed, or all other named applications should be removed. What would be the best here? At some point in the future, it is possible the number of applications will be too big to list here, but I don't think that is the case yet. LarsPensjo (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was spammy b/c of the ref. Bring a nonblog ref and and it would be fine. Jytdog (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

This article currently uses {{Infobox cryptocurrency}} in the lead, which is not appropriate as Ethereum is not a cryptocurrency. The change to the infobox should be reverted back to the old {{Infobox software}}, which makes more sense. The cryptocurrency-specific infobox should be moved to a subsection dedicated to Ether, which is a cryptocurrency. Laurencedeclan (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the common usage/naming see Coinmarketcap.com, or any other crypto exchange which refers to Ethereum or ETH in relation to this cryptocurrency. Ether is the correct terminology but everybody usually refers to it as the Ethereum cryptocurrency. The infobox layout and info makes the distinction clear enough to me. prokaryotes (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nobody would be interested in this thing except number go up, and said number being ETH - David Gerard (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true – and I believe it is for the vast majority of people – it is not in any way a justification to have factually incorrect information in our articles. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology on "coinmarketcap.com" is irrelevant. It is not a WP:RS. Wikipedia should present topics correctly, not perpetuate misconceptions. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I originally edited the infobox to be placed in the Ether subsection. --TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. It should be moved back there, and the software infobox readded to the lead. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual machine

Having re-read the following sentence a few times it doesn't seem to make sense to me: "It is a 256-bit register stack, designed to run the same code exactly as intended." I wonder if the sentence is incomplete or has lost something in translation, specifically: 

- same as what?
- as intended by whom or what point of reference?

Regards, Ianactually (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be edited to "... designed to run the same state transitions exactly as intended, across a distributed network." The point of reference is that of a typical Ethereum node (one that is not an adversary), that propagates state transitions and blocks with other peers to achieve consensus about canonical network state. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Criteria and Dispute Resolution

For recent edits made that were reverted by user Jytdog, I am leaving a talk section for discussion on criteria for credible citations, and any other concerns with recent edits. Wikipedia makes no canonical reference I can find to COI in citations pertinent to the situation. I may have missed something important. If found, please direct me to a reference. I also advise that reverting entire edits should not be done (except in the case of uncaught vandalism), and instead constructive rewording be done, or placing details in talk sections before reverting entire revisions. Hopefully we may reach consensus on recent edits. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please just:
a) use high quality sources - by this we mean i) independent and ii) secondary. (so not self-published stuff on github, not stuff published by ethereum). Independent people, indpendently published, looking at the field of play.
b) summarize what those sources say. Nothing else.
That is this how a community of pseudonymous editors can build and maintain an encyclopedia. Sources are authoritative, not us. We just summarize them. We find high quality sources to summarize. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance - contradictory statements

The wiki reads: 

   As of January 2016, the Ethereum protocol could process 25 transactions per second.[133]
   On 19 December 2016, Ethereum exceeded one million transactions in a single day for the first time.[134]

But 25 transactions per second is over 2 million a day (25 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 2160000). So what's up with that?

A pure transaction costs much less gas than some contract invocations. If Ethereum was used only for transactions, it could probably do 2 million per day. I think it was for that during the Olympic beta phase. LarsPensjo (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative applications (trash section)

@VL innovateurs: I blanked this section yesterday and an you re-added it. I will blank it again, anyone who wants to re-add it needs to fix the sources issue. Right now the sources are all trash. Even if you can find sources for a couple of these non-notable projects, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. We aren't going to do a list of every project on Ethereum. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2018

Request to reapply my revision 826805893 and 826812316 as Jytdog's concerns have been addressed in my talk page. Tasdienes (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Please make your request here and provide sources here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarificaiton: request to replace the content of the Milestones section with the content below. Tasdienes (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several codenamed prototypes of the Ethereum platform were developed by the Foundation, as part of their Proof-of-Concept series, prior to the official launch of the Frontier network. "Olympic" was the last of these prototypes, and public beta pre-release.[1][2] The Olympic network provided users with a bug bounty of 25,000 ether for stress testing the limits of the Ethereum blockchain. "Frontier" marked the tentative experimental release of the Ethereum platform in July 2015.[3][4]

"Homestead" was the first to be considered stable.[5][6] It includes improvements to transaction processing, gas pricing, and security.[7][5][8] Since the initial launch, Ethereum has undergone several planned protocol upgrades, which are important changes affecting the underlying functionality and/or incentive structures of the platform.[9][10]

"Metropolis Part 1: Byzantium" was launched on October 16, 2017, and included changes to reduce the complexity of the EVM and provide more flexibility for smart contract developers.[10] Byzantium also adds supports for zk-SNARKs (from Zcash); with the first zk-SNARK transaction occurring on testnet on September 19, 2017.[11]

There are at least two other protocol upgrades planned in the future: "Metropolis Part 2: Constantinople" will lay the foundations for the transition to proof-of-work (Casper), make adjustments to the difficulty time bomb, and add support for account abstraction.[12]

"Serenity" should include a fundamental change to Ethereum's consensus algorithm to enable a basic transition from hardware mining (proof-of-work) to virtual mining (proof-of-stake).[10][13] Improvements to scalability, specifically sharding, are also said to be a key objective on the development roadmap.[14][15]

These appear to be all forward looking statements. We dont do product roadmaps per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Buterin, Vitalik (9 May 2015). "Olympic: Frontier Pre-Release". Ethereum Foundation. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Lombardo, Hans (17 May 2015). "Ethereum Debuts "eπ" Ethereum-on-Raspberry Pi as Olympic Whirs before Frontier Release". Allcoinsnews. Archived from the original on 20 August 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ Gupta, Vinay (12 March 2015). "Getting to the Frontier". Ethereum Foundation. Archived from the original on 8 May 2015. Retrieved 5 June 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Vigna, Paul (31 July 2015). "BitBeat: Ethereum Opens Its 'Frontier' for Business". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 6 September 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ a b "Ethereum Homestead Documentation: The Homestead Release". Ethereum Foundation. n.d. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Donnelly, Jacob (14 March 2016). "Ethereum Blockchain Project Launches First Production Release". CoindDesk. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Wilcke, Jeffrey (29 February 2016). "Homestead Release". Ethereum Foundation. Archived from the original on 3 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Hertig, Alyssa (22 November 2016). "Ethereum's Fourth Blockchain Fork: So Far, So Good". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 27 May 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Gupta, Vinay (3 March 2015). "The Ethereum Launch Process". Ethereum Foundation. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ a b c Silva, Los (25 February 2017). "Ethereum's Road Map for 2017". ETHNews. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ O'Leary, Rachel Rose (19 September 2017). "Ethereum's Byzantium Testnet Just Verified A Private Transaction". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 23 September 2017. Retrieved 24 September 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "Metropolis Part 2: Constantinople & What's In Store for Etheruem?". CryptoCanucks. 2017-11-04. Retrieved 2018-02-21.
  13. ^ Hertig, Alyssa (18 January 2017). "Where's Casper? Inside Ethereum's Race to Reinvent its Blockchain". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 30 May 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Hertig, Alyssa (n.d.). "How Will Ethereum Scale?". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 10 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Rizzo, Pete (19 September 2016). "Ethereum's Creator Proves Blockchain Scaling Vision is No Joke". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 5 June 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ethereum&oldid=828423722"