Talk:Ethereum

Refactoring the Applications section

This section currently is mainly a list of products and companies, instead of a list of Ethereum use cases. I expect the list to grow as there will be new additions, which will make it harder to read. A Wikipedia reader is probably more interested in what is possible to do with Ethereum, instead of registered names. We also want to move away from WP:NOTDIR. My suggestions is to keep the current information and references, but make it more readable and group it around functionality instead. E.g. for Digix A value token, called DigixDAO has also been created... the emphasize is currently on the name Digix, but the emphasize should instead be on Value token. There are other implementations of value tokens, which would then be grouped into the same line, instead of adding another line for every one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 06:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This list has been vetted as a list of ethereum use cases to my recollection. Note that in many cases these use cases are running on private blockchains (R3, etc) so there is no distinction between Ethereum and Classic. This isn't a list of value tokens based on ethereum, but I would like to hear your suggestions. Are you suggesting making a new list called value tokens based upon ethereum? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

None of these use cases are running on a private blockchain, all of them are running on the current Ethereum blockchain. There is a distinction to Ethereum Classic, in such a way that the corresponding contracts and tokens on classic are not accepted. Take Digix gold tokens, for example. After the fork, there were two sets of gold tokens. But obviously there is only one stack of gold. Digix that operates the business, only accepts tokens from the Ethereum blockchain, making the corresponding tokens on ETC worthless. Many of the applications use special Ethereum tokens to signify owner control. Instead of listing them as Augur, Digix, FreeMyVunk, slock.it, I suggest listing them as "Decentralized prediction market", "Tokens pegged to gold", "Trading video game assets", "Smart locks", etc.LarsPensjo (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have now done the change as I proposed, feedback is welcome. The main idea is to show for readers what is possible first, and then a link to an actual product as second priority (also to show that it is indeed an application that is in use). LarsPensjo (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Lars, nice changes. I like how it explains clearly what each application use case is, gives an example in the form of a company, and when a second application/company comes about, then we can add that to the relevant group, rather than just make a longer list. I heard gnosis is coming out with a second prediction market, like auger, so I guess when we get a RS for that we can add that too. There might even be an RS around already. Great edits though!Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Chronicled and requirements on the Applications section

I added an application here (Chronicled IoT Registry). The reference I used was from Coindesk, which was rejected as it was a future project. But there are products using this technology, so I added a reference to a review of such a product (http://www.kicksonfire.com/major-x-reebok-phase-one-stars-stripes-official-images). Now the entry was removed again with the comment Coin desk is bitcoin promo site. Not a good source. Primary. The Reebok is promo advert. Do not re add please. Wikipedia is not an advert site.. As a better source than Coindesk, I found one from Yahoo finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chronicled-launches-first-kind-open-120000262.html . So now there is a better source than Coindesk, and we know the technology is not a future project as it is currently in use. Is there anything missing that should reject this from fulfilling the requirements to be added as an Application of Ethereum? LarsPensjo (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lars, there is nothing wrong with the content you added, there are just some over zealous editors on a few of these crypto pages that like to delete content (FYI, they have even referred previously to NYT, WSJ, etc as non reliable sources ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, per discussions elsewhere on this page, and WP:NOTDIR. Bitcoin blogs don't do critical journalistic coverage at all, there are endless announcements in the cryptocurrency space that don't eventuate - this stuff shouldn't be covered here without good third-party WP:RS coverage that it is actually a thing that actually happened. Filling the section with planned things that haven't actually happened comes across as WP:PUFFERY to make Ethereum look more important than it is - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I take back what I said above and I agree with David here, unless there is some RS to show this is a real live project (not a press release, which is what the yahoo link is), nor the Primary Source, and like David said we are looking for things to backup the content is noteworthy in bigger news sources than only CoinDesk. CoinDesk and other industry specific sources are great for filling in content, but for adding a particular project to this page that lacks any significant news coverage would encourage this section to become a list of 100 projects that might not ever happen, and nobody in the press seems to care about.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean, I appreciate that a standard objection to cryptos (that I've made myself) is "the only real life use case is selling drugs", so people want to show otherwise, particularly given Ethereum has all sorts of more interesting technical possibilities, so there's a balance to keep here. The main thing is the problems in estimating the likelihood that a given project is pure vapor .... - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There is evidence this is technology actually being used for some shoes: http://sneakerbardetroit.com/major-reebok-phase-1-pro-usa-stars-and-stripes/, http://coinjournal.net/ethereums-blockchain-secure-sneakers-honor-kanye-west/, http://www.kicksonfire.com/major-x-reebok-phase-one-stars-stripes-official-images/. However WP:NOTDIR, is still relevant. That is why I started a parallel discussion on how to refactor the Applications section.LarsPensjo (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I see Lars and David are doing some reverts of each other's edits relating to the shoes. I really like the new categories and examples of the types of tech enabled as it improves readability. Lars, maybe remove the word 'can' from the sentence about the shoes if it is already doing it. Otherwise if this is crystalball stuff, it is right to delete it. David and Lars, maybe you guys can explain here what is going on? ThanksJtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The NasdaQ article refers to Chonicled as a "New Registry". From that POV, WP:CRYSTAL should apply. But there are already products on the market that use this technology from Chronicled (the Reebok shoes). Referring to those, I say that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as a reason to remove the entry. I agree that the word "can" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Traded on exchanges

The fact that the token(s) are listed on exchanges are documented at 4 different places. Why repeat the same fact several times? I removed some of them, but the change was reverted by David Gerard. LarsPensjo (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lars, I think this issue is mostly related to the fact that we are having challenges dealing with the fact that this page now covers 2-3 subjects (Ethereum the platform/software, Ethereum (ETH) the coin, and Ethereum Classic (ETC) the coin). So I think we might be erring in the side of prudence in giving classic as much play as ETH. Your suggestions on how to improve the page are welcome. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

More sources

• Ethereum Announces “Unlimited” Scalability Roadmap, CCN.LA, 6 June 2016. N2e (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• This citation seems pretty good [1] for more cited info. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• ... and another: A $50 Million Hack Just Showed That the DAO Was All Too Human, Wired, 18 June 2016. N2e (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• one the unfolding response/cleanup of The DAO after the hack: Bid to Blacklist The DAO Attacker Moves Ahead With Ethereum Soft Fork Vote, CoinDesk, 27 June 2016. N2e (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• another: Why Corporations Love Ethereum, Huffington Post, 6 July 2016. N2e (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• first offchain payments facilitated by Ethereum. Raiden is in alpha now. More generally, off-chain tracking of "state" for intermediate states is possible, which is another non-payment use of the Ethereum blockchain. Ethereum Scaling Advances With 'First' Off-Blockchain Payments, 11 August 2016. N2e (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Attack on The DAO

Apparently my changes were deemed editorializing. OK, let's discuss the changes I'd still like to keep, piece by piece:

1. The article currently says:

"On June 17, 2016 The DAO, which had been hailed as a revolutionary use of Ethereum that demonstrated the potential for the platform, was hacked and $50 million in Ether was stolen."

"Stolen" is probably a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, and almost certainly a violation of WP:NPOV (and if it's not, it should be). I am not trolling, I promise - there is a serious debate going on online about whether it was a theft or (as logically implied by the repeated claims that "the code is the contract") a legitimate contractual outcome. "Hacked" is probably a violation too, but I'll let that slide since it's probably necessary to use that word so that non-technical people will understand what actually happened.

So let's change "stolen" to "misappropriated", which is more neutral and not a BLPCRIME-violation.

2. It currently says, in the next sentence:

"Stephen Tual, COO of Slock.it, the company that had worked on the development of The DAO, proposed a rollback or hard fork of the Ethereum blockchain to reverse the transactions, and also said that the DAO would be wound up as a result"

There are in fact several proposals being discussed in the Ethereum community. We have reliable sources mentioning two of them - the one from Buterin, and the one from Tual. So this sentence is misleading in three respects: it gives undue weight to Tual's proposal, doesn't acknowledge the very serious proposal to do nothing at all (there are good reasons for that proposal, by the way), and also can be misread as saying that Tual or Slock.it have unilateral authority to wind up The DAO, which they don't, as I understand it. So I propose:

"Buterin and Tual each made proposals for forks of the Ethereum blockchain to stop the hacker and reverse the transactions. In both of the proposals, The DAO would be dissolved and all its ethereum funds recaptured and returned to investors. Like all proposed Ethereum blockchain forks, the forks would need to be approved by miners controlling a majority of mining nodes."

which makes it a bit clearer that (a) there were multiple proposals, (b) they would actually get all the ETH back, (c) the funds are ETH, not actual fiat money, so the investors could still lose money due to the crash in value of ETH, (d) no-one can unilaterally impose any of these fork proposals. These facts are all very weird and counterintuitive from the perspective of traditional finance and so on, so I think it's worth spelling out and being really clear what's going on.--greenrd (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

How "unilaterally" they can do it is a bit of a red herring. AIUI, at this moment the proposal is for the Ethereum Foundation to change the actual Ethereum code to deal with the questionably-appropriated funds in some manner, and frankly everyone just runs their code - it'll be unilateral for all practical purposes, approximately nobody is going to run a fork behaving otherwise.

The actual problem is that this is a current event, and everything about it is confusing and contentious - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Talk. I made changes here to address the key concerns ("stolen", not mentioning Buterin, and the whole others). Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Our sources are saying it was hacked and stolen. What is the point of saying 'diverted'? Not accurate and original research. Its fraud plain and simple. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So David about this - and this responds to Earl above too. The Ether was diverted into another user account where it was locked for 27 days. This is a really important fact here; this is not like a bank robber who physically removes cash from a bank and vanishes into the night, nor like stealing someone's credit card info and committing fraud with it completely anonymously. We know where the "missing" Ether is and the person who took it can't do anything with it. I changed to "diverted" because apparently a serious number of Ethereum users are saying that the move was terrible but a legit use under the "smart" contracts. This is discussed in the sources cited. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources say "stolen" (which is the big one), the Ethereum Foundation and slock.it are behaving as though the transaction was utterly illegitimate, they're planning to literally rewind or soft-fork the whole Ethereum blockchain to revert this transaction ... I'm not seeing a good reason to euphemise this to "diverted". That this was a legitimate transaction appears to be a fringe (and in many cases trolling) view, not one to put in Wikipedia's voice - David Gerard (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually the strongest source, the NYT never says "stolen": it says "theft" once and "thief" once and mentions "theft" again in the context of Bitcoin incidents. It uses "removed", "moved", "siphoned away", "gain control", and calls it an "attack" or a "hack". As for the view that the transaction was legit and should not be reversed, see what Buterin says in the last pargraphs of the NYT article; apparently the transaction ~may~ be left standing. Thanks for having the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not about to dive in and change it :-) As I said above, the main problem is that it's a current event and a controversial one and stuff is still washing out (and later sources will often be much more considered than earlier ones, as is generally the case with current events). But thankfully we don't have to finish Wikipedia tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I dove in a cleaned up a little. I didn't touch the thief word, as that word is in the sources. I did remove repeated use of the word 'account' which is wrong (as the hacker didn't move any funds to his account, or any other account for that matter. He did move some ETH to some sort of clone of the The DAO. This article doesn't need to be summarizing things incorrectly, even if (and especially) we don't really understand it. I think we can do with killing all the content associated with The DAO except for the first sentence. This is enough "On June 17, 2016 The DAO, which had been hailed as a revolutionary use of Ethereum that demonstrated the potential for the platform, was hacked and around a third of the ether held by The DAO, worth about $50 million at the time, was moved." The rest of this issue should be addressed on the The DAO article page, as it really doesn't have much to do with Ethereum (at this point in time at least). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does - it immediately crashed the price, and there are/were serious and controversial plans to fork Ethereum to deal with the problems in this specific smart contract - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Time to start collecting sources on how the events unfolded with the hard fork on circa 20 July, and the event of the following days, including the startup of an alternative blockchain on the non-forked chain (apparently called Ether Classic, but I'm a bit unclear on that) A couple of sources are already used in the article, here are a couple others, including one from after the events of 24 July where the alternative chain got listed on some major digital exchange.

N2e (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• https://medium.com/@peaceloverevolution/good-forking-job-metaprinciples-of-blockchain-based-technology-c358558413eb#.wf1qocr81, 20 July 2016.
• http://coinjournal.net/ethereum-passes-defining-test-flying-colors/, 25 July 2016.

• and now, one month later, looks like the situation is still yet unwinding: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/millions-of-dollars-worth-of-etc-may-soon-be-dumped-on-the-market-1472567361, 30 August 2016.

Founders

The founders of Ethereum entities, both the orginal Swiss for-profit entity, and the Ethereum Foundation, are not clear in the article.

The article as it stands today lists only "Original author(s): Vitalik Buterin, Gavin Wood" and "Developer(s): Gavin Wood, Jeffrey Wilcke, Vitalik Buterin, et al." in the infobox. Not clear if "developers" would make the founders cut, or under what circumstances; as well as what sources might support it.

The article is fairly clear that Buterin is an inventor and founder from early on. Others would seem to be Charles Hoskinson (see Talk page section above) and Joseph Lubin who is identified in his Wikipedia article as the COO of the original Swiss for-profit company, with a source. There are no doubt others; I believe I may have read somewhere that there were originally some seven involved, but I don't have that source or know how to find it.

In order to make article improvement possible, let's start collecting any sources where a "founder" or initial executive/company officer of one of the Ethereum entities is identified.

• Found this one just today. Anthony Di Iorio, "founder". http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/06/21/ethereum-foundation-get-priorities-right-founder/, June 2016. N2e (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Crap source but probably accurate Founded Ethereum with Vitalik, Mihai, Charles and Amir Chetrit (The initial founding team) [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Earl. Indeed. But useful to help future searches where all this is perhaps put together with secondary sources for who are the founders. Interestingly, these "first person" recollections (like the one you found on the reddit AMA from Di Iorio) can often be quite at odds with other first person accounts from the same founders. I was formerly involved in the unfortunate war on the Tesla Motors article over who was, and who was not, a founder of Tesla Motors, and specifically, if Elon Musk was or was not. In short, different founders, and various secondary sources, said differing things on the matter. Not fun. N2e (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Mihai Alisie — taking the lead Earl posted from the Di Iorio AMA, I did a google search on "Mihai founder ethereum" and came up with the last name Alisie, as well as a slew of other potential sources, some listing Joseph Lubin (previously mentioned, above) and others. https://www.google.com/#q=Mihai+founder+ethereum Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the sources that came up there was a Dutch De Week van Bitcoin web media interview with four folks from Ethereum recorded on 5 June 2014. This was prior to the creation of the non-profit Ethereum Foundation entity, when the Ethereum Switzerland GmbH (EthSuisse) was still around, and the Ethereum developers were still working for the for-profit entity. The four folks (and what they were doing for Ethereum GmbH) are: Stephan Tual ("in charge of communications"), Taylor Gering ("focus on infrastructure work around the website and tools for the development team" moving to more operations of the organization, working effectively, ...), Mihai Alisie (focus on the social side of the project; transitioning into interface) and Joseph Lubin (in charge of operations). Interestingly, they refer in the interview to being influenced by the Wikipedia article on Collective intelligence. Notably, at the time, they were planning a 4Q2014 rollout of version 1 of the Ethereum software (actual was July 2015) but caveated the plan with 'only if it is ready...'.

Here is a bio on Alisie. While a primary source, terms there could be used to search for other sources. http://blog.akasha.world/2016/07/18/moving-forward-on-all-fronts/ 17:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have removed the content from the Founders and Developers fields for now, until we have solid sourcing on which to base claims. This kind of thing also becomes a fount of endless debate; let's fill that in when we have very good sources upon which to list names and include the citation when the content is added to the infobox. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I started a collection of data, names, sources on the Talk page. When we have sufficient info to make for sourced prose on the founders or execs, it will go into the article. That's all. N2e (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with N2e's approach here. We can discuss and then add the content when we have some consensus and good sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• This source identifies Charles Hoskinson as early CEO. http://www.coindesk.com/former-ethereum-ceo-foundation-not-gotten-involved-dao-crisis/. Unfortunately, says only " former CEO of the ethereum project" and doesn't clarify when, or of what entity. Based on the other interview (above on this Talk page), it would appear Hoskinson was CEO of the for-profit Ethereum GmbH (EthSuisse), since CH left Ethereum prior to mid-summer 2015 when Eth Foundation was set up. But more good sources needed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Staying clear of coin desk is probably a good idea. Perhaps a tiny bit of sourcing to it but no large scale information ideas. Too primary, too promotional. It is a big advert site for the subject in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• This source identifies Dr. Gavin Wood as a "co-founder and lead developer" of the Ethereum Foundation, at an EF development conference in November 2015. Ethereum for Dummies. N2e (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"programmable transaction" versus "smart contract" in lead

I strongly suggest the generally accepted term smart contract, that being what they're called. "programmable transaction" is used in one article, and the term itself (in quotes) gets approx. 7280 hits on Google compared to about 153,000 for "smart contract". We should use the proper term, not something that sounds like a euphemistic attempt to avoid the proper term.

BTW, the claim that this is the term the NYT uses fails verification - the quote is "In addition to the virtual currency, the software provides a way to create online markets and programmable transactions known as smart contracts." That is, "programmable transactions" is used in the article as an explanation of the term "smart contract", and the article itself says these things are "known as smart contracts" - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll note also that I couldn't find usage of "The Ethereum Project" (all three words capitalised) in RSes - when the phrase "the Ethereum project" is used, it's in that capitalisation, which is clearly a descriptive noun phrase rather than a compound proper noun - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

rm passing Bloomberg mention

I removed "In March 2014, Bloomberg described Ethereum as part of a group of projects it called "Bitcoin 2.0", with the potential to extend blockchain use beyond Bitcoin's peer-to-peer money system." sourced to Kharif, Olga. "Bitcoin 2.0 Shows Technology Evolving Beyond Use as Money". Bloomberg. Retrieved 21 March 2016. - if you look at the source, the word "Ethereum" is used precisely once. It's a passing mention, not something providing substantial usable information about Ethereum specifically. It's bare evidence of notability, but that's not in question - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a good source of information, not notable enough to include. While some of the Bitcoin 2.0 startups are using the existing Bitcoin network, many are creating alternate versions that work in the same way to provide verification. The most well-known projects are Mastercoin, Ethereum, Colored Coins, Counterparty, Ripple and BitShares. This is an aside statement in a Bitcoin article and has no flesh on its bones for this Ethereum article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. @N2e: you blindly reverted, invoking discussion you have yet to actually participate in. Could you please address the above objections? There's a reason my edit summary specifically said "see talk" - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I missed your "See talk" comment David. Sorry about that. So I did simply kick off a WP:BRD with my edit and edit comment so it could be discussed here on the talk page. Had I seen your "see talk", I would have of course commented here right away. Since I did not, I usually let the editor wanting to make a change decide if they want a particular Bold edit enough to come here and comment. Very pleased to see you discussing it here.

As for the second edit reverting my edit by Earl: my opinion is that, per WP:BRD, it is usually best to allow a Talk page discussion to ensue for a few days or more before edit warring and adding back again a reverted edit. In any case, I'm happy to join the discussion on the substantive point.

On the substantive points made:

• There is no notability standard for sentences. Notability applies to articles, and whether or not there is sufficient notability for an article to exist. There may be reasons to have the info included, or not; but notability is not the standard to use.
• It appeared a bit odd to me to remove that initial sentence in a paragraph in the Ethereum article, at least in part, because it leaves a disconnected "While there was early ..." phrase at the beginning of the second paragraph of the History section. That is still present in the article, and appears a weird locution, but is probably okay to stay while the discussion of the deletion is ongoing here on the Talk page for a bit.
• Overall, the Bloomberg source that was deleted is quite clear about the big idea that blockchain technology is (at that time, in 2014) beginning to support more than just money transfers. It goes on to explicate that various projects in the space are doing that, discussing principally Bitcoin 2.0 projects that are on the existing Bitcoin network, but it also supports that some projects are not on Bitcoin, and it mentions Ethereum as is a part of that. In fact, it even mentions Ethereum as one of the "most well-known projects" that are off the bitcoin blockchain. Now that doesn't make it a slam dunk to be in the article, which is why we are having this discussion, but it not beyond the pale to say that the movement of blockchains from money transfer to more-than-money-transfer was noted by Bloomberg in 2014, and that Ethereum was noted in this Historical context. It seems sufficiently important to me to be mentioned.
• On Earl's point in his edit removing my revert, he said: "Misleading as a source for this especially as written. This bitcoin article mentioned Ethe. only in passing in a remote unconnected way to the article subject." Let me address his point about "as written" I'm certainly not making an argument that the text as written was the "right" or "best" prose. It is clear to both Earl and me that prose could be better written to support the main point that is relevant to this article on Ethereum. That's why I support the discussion here, and not second reverts.

I would think that that exercise to improve the article by improving the History section prose is the most productive way forward, rather than more reverts without discussion (by either N2e or by Earl). Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

And yet, the Bloomberg reference still only mentions Ethereum in passing and cannot, in fact, be used as a basis for strong statements specifically about Ethereum - that fails source verification. The article wording may end up awkward, but the source still fails verification and shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk 12:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

On what policy basis do you argue that the Bloomberg source cannot, in fact, be used to support any statement about Ethereum?

It rather clearly is a reliable source, and it of course could only ever support what the source makes clear. But it does cover non-money uses of the blockchain, and that Ethereum is one of the non-bitcoin examples of a blockchain (as of 2014) with these non-money uses.

I'm really at a loss as to the opposition on this; just don't grok where it is coming from. But I'm very happy to understand better, and to understand what wikipolicy makes it impossible to source such rather minimal statements with a Bloomberg source. N2e (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a passing mention that only includes the word "Ethereum" at all in a list of various related things, so is a bad source to make substantive claims about Ethereum about. This applies even if it's from Bloomberg. Just because it's from an RS and contains the word "Ethereum" doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. (A problem I've noted quite a bit in the past on this very talk page.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your logic on that David. So it seems to me we just have a difference of opinion here on existing citation policy. I did not get from your answer that you had any particular reliable source policy that was different from what I've previously understood, through the many tens of thousands of edits we have each made to Wikipedia over the past decade.

I think that the Bloomberg source is adequate for supporting the idea that, by mid-2014, Ethereum was recognized as one of a set of technologies that was coming along to extend blockchains beyond monetary transactions; that the article is mostly focused on coming bitcoin-specific projects that extend blockchains beyond money transactions does not make it a poor source for Ethereum, since Ethereum is mentioned in the article "one of the most well-known projects" that were doing in on non-Bitcoin networks. That is not to say that some even better source might not be found somewhere; just that the Bloomberg source is adequate for this very limited sort of statement. N2e (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with N2e here, there are plenty of other sources that are referring to Ethereum as a bitcoin 2.0 concept. Here are two other RSs for that http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/business/dealbook/ethereum-a-virtual-currency-enables-transactions-that-rival-bitcoins.html "Microsoft and IBM, which have described it as a sort of Bitcoin 2.0" and https://techcrunch.com/2014/10/25/bitcoin-2-0-sidechains-and-zerocash-and-ethereum-oh-my/ says "Bitcoin 2.0: Sidechains And Ethereum And Zerocash, Oh My!" I think we might as well leave the Bloomberg source. Has the content already been deleted? I see other sources here that are also calling it the same, I don't see how us covering mainstream media's description honestly is a problem. I also agree with N2e that notability has no bearing on anything in this article, as notability is not in question. If it is a RS, then there should be no issue in using it, especially given that there are multiple other sources confirming the use of the 2.0 description Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You're literally claiming that better sources are a reason to keep a bad source? There's something wrong with that logic - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It sounds to me that you and Earl are advocating deleting of content and or sources because of a passing mention. However, if there are other sources that can easily be found (I found in a 2 minute google search) by putting in "ethereum bitcoin 2.0" and got half a dozen hits (2 being strong RSs) it shows that it is pointless to quibble over a source, when you could instead just add a second better RS to the content in question. It is sometimes amazing to me the long discussions that start on this talk page by editors who seek to delete content that they object to stating that the sources are weak, when in fact the sources are fine. It's a passing comment on ethereum being bitcoin 2.0 as it is a common description used in the press, hence the large number of hits i get when I do the google search. Here is the search I did: https://www.google.co.th/search?q=bitcoin+2.0+ethereum&oq=bitcoin+2.0+ethereum&aqs=chrome..69i57.4422j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Happy Editing :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line. There is a source. It is a Bloomberg news article and counts as a reliable source. That source does support the minimal two points I summarized above on 19 July. Those two statements can certainly remain in the prose. The fact that it is a "passing mention" doesn't matter for purposes of sourcing these two minimal claims in this article.

I just don't get the heavy and regualar Wiki-lawyering going on by some editors off this article. There are something like 4 million or more Wikpedia articles and at least a million of them have statements made that are not in any way supported by any source, whatsover, passing or otherwise, and certainly not from a Bloomberg-quality news source. Why the WP:DRAMA here? Just don't get it. N2e (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pretty much never a good argument. Your "bottom line" ignores the passing mention nature - seriously, the word is in once as part of a list, that's just not enough to start a paragraph on as if the source is making a strong claim - and that it reads like a bare mention of the sort that routinely gets put into spammy articles to pump up dubious notability. Ethereum isn't in need of such notability life-support - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Its just not significant as it is mentioned somewhere in passing in relation to something else. Judgement call in editing. As to Why the WP:DRAMA here? I think that probably is in your imagination. While it could be that some editors have a 'horse in the race' or feel close to this subject I don't care about it at all except stumbling on the article a while back and seeing how awful it was put together just made me feel sorry for it so I have hung around a little. BTW, just about all the 'Coindesk' stuff should be taken out of the article plus what ever blog like links from coin sites are still there also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Hypthetically is spelled wrong.

Sorryasshere154 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

d'oh! (or The DOH!) Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

New page for Ethereum Classic?

An IP put in a link to Ethereum Classic (which redirects back here), saying this was their way of asking for a separate page on Ethereum Classic. So, how does everyone feel about this idea?

• Oppose for now - I don't think there's reason to do that as yet - there's not enough material distinct from the official hard-forked Ethereum, and this is a current event that's still playing out - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I also will oppose this, for now. There seems to be insufficient sourced material that indicates a second article is warranted. However, the recent changes to reflect two blockchains that are now running, does suggest a discussion on the article scope might be useful. I'll try to start that convo, below. N2e (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with above and suggest that the details of both chains be added to this article for the time being and take a wait and see approach. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral Each fork now has its own code base that will likely start to diverge more significantly over time, so it may eventually warrant its own page. The current "Classic" portions of the article are very haphazard and confusing though, primarily referencing blogs and questionable sources. Rileyjt (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Support We are faced with a pragmatic choice between the two factions fighting a turf war on this single page, or we can just let each faction have their own page. Wikipedia is not paper Giving the ETCians their own page will make all of our lives substantially easier. As to whether Ethereum Classic can stand on its own as a page, I have complete confidence the ETCians will meet the challenge with gusto. Romanpoet (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • So far it's been driveby IPs who are quickly reverted. I see you started a fork page, but it was tiny and unsourced. Consensus above doesn't seem to think it's time yet - David Gerard (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made my argument that creating this page will make our lives easier. I suppose this argument will have to be better empirically demonstrated. I can wait. Romanpoet (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the mean time, I would propose Ethereum Classic have less relevance on the Ethereum page. For example, the Ethereum Classic logo is different. Moreover, so are the release dates, founders, etc. Putting them into as is currently done in the Infobox is misleading. Romanpoet (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Roman, if we can find evidence in reliable sources that Classic has a different logo, a different ideology, ect then I think it makes sense to make a new page. Issue is we can discuss making a new page here, but as soon as the page gets made, then it will get nominated for AfD. I am not fixed as Oppose, I just would like to see some evidence that it is ready to make a new page right now. I understand they are different, the issue is do we have enough evidence from RS that supports the second page? In the meantime, let's add the new logo and some details about classic to this page. Agree? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree completely. I added an Ethereum Classic section and moved the Declaration of Independence to it. I'm not sure how to handle the copyright for the logo, http://i.imgur.com/wZIJe9n.jpg . Romanpoet (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Moving Ethereum Classic to a section of its own is good. That means the article is consistent, not having uncertain commonality with applications etc.LarsPensjo (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, new section is good. About the logo, would be nice to add it. I know there are rules related to adding logos. Maybe David could comment here, or someone else who knows? Normally, I only add logos that I have found in a RS, as I think it also affects the license issues (but I do that as I am not sure on the rules and I try to be careful).Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos is our friend (which I found by guessing that WP:LOGO would be helpful). tl;dr I don't see any barrier to including a logo as long as it can reasonably be treated as the official or accepted logo, which is easy with ETH (centralised Foundation), less easy with ETC (more consensus-like), but if there is in fact a standardish ETC logo already that should be fine IMO. We might even be good on copyright to put it on Commons if it's under a proper free licence, but even then fair-use logos uploaded locally are acceptable - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral Ethereum And Ethereum classic are two different blockchains. They share most of the software, but not the blockchain. It is not possible to take one without the other. That means that many facts listed for Ethereum are simply not valid for Ethereum Classic. E.g. the whole Applications is wrong. E.g., You can't use Digix tokens on ETC.LarsPensjo (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now that ETC has its own section, my main objection is no longer a problem, so I changed to Neutral.LarsPensjo (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that Digix's association with Ethereum is that Digix is running ethereum software. I am not clear if Digix is running on the ETC or the ETH blockchains. I think unless there is RS on this, we are opening up a whole can of worms to try to separate this. We can't start doing original research to determine which is running on ETC, which is on ETH, and which is on private enterprise blockchains. I think we can only wait a while and see how this all plays out. One of these (or both) might flame out and solve the problems for us editors, or at least in the meantime maybe we will get more RS that cover the issues and then we cover it here. Certainly is going to be interesting.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• Romanpoet's edit to put ETC in its own section is good. I added it to the intro again per WP:LEDE (the intro should summarise the whole article), as a mention - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree, good to have its own section. Just need to develop a bit more now.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin connected?

This link possibly could have some pertinence here [3]] as ethereum is mentioned in the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

What I have read is that these are unrelated events. Both the DAO and Bitfinex were hit by hackers, but I haven't read anything that these events were in any way related. In fact they were different in nature. Bitfinex was a hack where Bitfinex left user's personal details exposed (like a security breach on at a bank) and the DAO hack was where a user found a different way to withdraw or gain control of funds that was not anticipated by the DAO's creators. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Article scope

Seems a good time to have a discussion of the scope of this article. The article might be about any or all of six or eight different things.

Which of the following things is this article about?

• Ethereum, the software, of multiple versions by many (it seems) different outfits and groups of developers, most or all of which appear to be open source and on Github at present.
• Ethereum, the formally named organizational entity(ies) that go by, or have gone by, that name. I'm aware of at least two:
  • Ethereum GmbH, a Swiss for-profit entity that existed in 2014 for a while (and may still exist; have not seen sources for it beyond 2014).
  • Ethereum Foundation, aka Stiftung Ethereum, a Swiss non-profit organization that seems to have come into being in mid-2014, pushed the token sale forward, and still exists as a (funded?) research arm of some sort. One source calls it an industry group.
  • Some sources seem to refer to possibly other company entities, possibly one in Berlin, or London, or Florida back during the early days of Ethereum in 2014; but I've not seen clear names on those or clear cites that show they were full-fedged companies.
  • Is this article about all of these organizations?
• Ethereum the ETH blockchain; the one that went one direction after the recent "hard fork", and is traded on various exchanges, and has a market value that varies over time, etc.
• Ethereum Classic, the ETC blockchain; the one that has gone a somewhat differ direction after the recent "hard fork", and is traded on various exchanges, and has a market value that varies over time, etc.
• Ethereum, the "protocol". The technical standard that builds a blockchain available on the internet, and now it seems two different blockchains are growing up. At present, it appears that both of the blockchains seem to use/adhere to the same protocol standard.

I don't know the answer, but it seems that that article is a bit hard to write cogently at least in part because it is not explicit what is in scope and what is out of scope. As written today, it is clearly about both blockchains (although needs copyediting to clear that all up), and seems to be about (some?) of the Ethereum software, and maybe about the protocol, but not (very) much about the company(ies) or non-profit organization. But your mileage may vary on that, and many other views about what the current article scope is are quite possible.

Questions about article improvement arise. For example, if it were to be about organizational entities, then those have founders, and currentBLP-type people active in running them, and might have a company or organization infobox profitably applied. If about software, then a different infobox. Ditto if about the protocol.

Anyway, I think this is worth discussing. Perhaps it is about "all of the above" and we just trudge through endeavoring to encyclopedically cover all of these various aspects. Or not, leaving some for other articles or redirect pages. What do others think? N2e (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

At present I'd say it should cover all of these things. They're all hopelessly entwined in a lot of the available sources. (Solidity should arguably be culled of its WP:OR and essaylike content and merged in too.)

ETC vs ETH is still a current event, we can wait for the sources to happen.

None of the particular things this article is/can be about seem large enough to me to make the article feel like it's lumpy and ready to bud right now. They may do later of course - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we start to add content based on those vary subjects that you have proposed N2e. (SW, backers/foundation, different chains, and the SW). I think we can start with section stubs. SW/Solidity is covered, maybe the jargon can be reduced like David said. But I think the biggest issue is it seems the ETC chain hasn't died the death that some suggested it would. So now that there are two chains (with significant capital and hash rate behind them) & have been in existence for a month or so (if my memory serves), I think it would be useful to at least cover that there is a split subject to some controversy. There must be a lot of readers coming to read about the DAO flameout and click over to Ethereum to read about the two different chains and what the difference between them might be Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there hasn't been a lot of coverage yet except that ETC is a thing. But note that, e.g., the Ethereum Foundation is not necessarily the official entity for all Ethereum any more, ETH is a forked chain but ETC technically isn't, etc ... it's a complicated mess and there's a lot of semantics that could be argued surrounding the whole issue and how to describe it. So Wikipedia needs to wait for the sources to catch up and give a description of the situation that we can cite rater than having to synthesise - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well i added that both ETH and ETC exist in the Ether section per a WSJ Blogs citation (good enough for this purpose). I think it might be useful to add infoboxes that have both of ETC and ETH price quotes. Is this implemented in some sort of automated fashion on the bitcoin and other stock quotation pages? I think it would be useful to show the users that at least two things exist and have different prices. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good source that goes over the current drama. Might be useful in the future. http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/07/21/a-painful-lesson-for-the-ethereum-community/#681727d45714 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

oops, noticed this is a guest writer piece. Anyhow, interesting reading... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've started to do a bit of work on that. Have updated the statements about the for-profit entity (Ethereum Gmbh) that was used to start work in early 2014, and moved it to the Origin section of the article. It seems that by mid-2014, they decided to go with a foundation (non-profit) setup, and used the Ethereum Foundation to run the sale of the value tokens in July 2014. Still looking for better sources on the for-profit to non-profit transition. N2e (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I read today that there is another blockchain running on Ethereum called Expanse. This makes 3, if we also count ETC and ETH. I think we might have an issue with the article coming soon once we can find RS for Expanse (I haven't found yet) in that maybe Ethereum might be a software platform that has multiple blockchains running on it and multiple cryptocurriences associated with it. I have also read that many of the enterprise implementations of Ethereum (such as ConsenSys' R3) are running on private blockchains (not on the public chain). My point in this is that I think we need to get away from the article scope that in the past has focused on this being an article about ETC (the cryptocurrency) as the scope has widened a bit (maybe the article is more like a general linux article pointing to the different linux flavors of the month). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, Expanse is a fork of the code base, but not of the blockchain as they started with an empty genesis block. So while it might be worth mentioning other networks such as this one and others (there are a few), I don't think this is really comparable to the ETC fork. Rileyjt (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

BRD discussion: SingularDTV

The following was added to the article:

Singular, a science fiction TV series on the Ethereum blockchain, set in the epoch 2021–2045, begins production in October 2016.

User:Jytdog removed it, edit comment said only WP:CRYSTALBALL. So I'm requesting a discussion, per WP:BRD

This is a TV series that is starting production in October, and has an ordinary secondary source that is, as far as I know, not on any suspect list of sources at WP:RSN. So my view is that this is fine for the article, as long as the article only states what is sourced, and doesn't say that the thing is already operating.

There are literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that reference film and TV projects that are scheduled to start production in the coming six months. As I understand it, that's pretty much how TV series and film production projects work. Funding is raised, eventually secured, contracts are signed with expensive production resources, and the project is "underway", even though filming has not yet started.

Really seems perfectly ordinary sourced content about a development project that is underway.

References

N2e (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. Citing other articles isn't helpful - see WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS. WP is full of bad content (along side the good).

For me it is about our mission: WP exists to provide accepted knowledge to the public. Adding content hyping some TV show in development (that may never be broadcast) has nothing to do with teaching people about Ethereum in my view. And in my view in general "X in popular culture" sections are just spam magnets that almost always distract from the matter at hand - just People Magazine gossip or promotion and not substantial. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Wikipedia pop culture mentions on Wikipedia are out of control. I have made significant multi-year efforts to get only well-sourced and more notable stuff left in those areas. One of my largest successes that I am most proud of was in an article-length Russian roulette in popular culture article which, over a period of four years starting in 2009, was shrunk and shrunk until, finally just the small bit was put into the Russian Roulette article (by other editors) where we've been able to restrict it to sourced mentions only for three years now. I've done substantial multi-year editing efforts to improve this encyclopedia on other fictional-universe book series as well; so we are in agreement on that. (In fact, I'd love to find other editors with interest in improving Wikipedia by eliminating a lot of the extraneous synthesis and un-notable original research that is done to make entire large sets of fictional-universe articles with nary a source from outside the fictional-universe for most of what is stated. If interested in such things, ping me on my Talk page.)

But that is not this case. This is about an active TV series project, that is in progress, and is themed around Ethereum. According to the source, it appears that Singular DTV is also doing a broader "rights management platform for the entertainment industry and a world-wide video-on-demand portal through Ethereum’s blockchain." ... as distributed using an Ethereum blockchain-based system. Bottom line, this is not about a "pop culture" mention of Ethereum; it seems to be a notable use of Ethereum, and should quite ordinarily be permitted to be in the Ethereum article, as long as the source is a standard secondary source. N2e (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

thanks for replying. Let's see what others think. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should see what others think. However, I'll add one bit of perspective from the discussion between just the two of us above. If I were to suggest an edit be added to the article now, it would be more like the following, rather than the particular blockquoted text that started this discussion (after that Bold edit had been Reverted for Discussion):

Singular DTV is building a rights management platform for the entertainment industry and a world-wide video-on-demand portal on the Ethereum blockchain. In addition, Singular has developed a science fiction TV series on the Ethereum blockchain, set in the epoch 2021–2045, which begins production in October 2016.

References

Rationale: the item is in the "Applications" section of the article, so the application is the more important part of the statement. The advanced state of the TV series project is, however, also notable and deserves mention, with the secondary source provided. N2e (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've actually been looking into SingularDTV in depth for an opinionated blog post (and I am totally not in any way a citable reliable source myself!) that I posted last night. There's a lot of press releases, there's a lot of future-looking statements, there's some coverage in the bitcoin press and blogs, there's very little in the way of third-party verification of any of their more questionable claims, of which there are a lot.

At present we can probably say they've announced a future planned project. But even the best available third-party sources don't say they've produced anything more than plans for their technologies.

As for the TV show: principal filming has not been verified as starting. That's a firm barrier to having a separate article on the series, per WP:NFF; it wouldn't preclude mention in a related article, but for me it invokes WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." ... "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors."

Frankly, the cryptocurrency space is full of forward-looking forthcoming announcements that don't eventuate on time. I don't think we should add SingularDTV or Singular to this to the article until there's firmer evidence that any of it's actually happened - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of the MED articles have a society and culture section. I think the fact that a television show is being planned, and if that planning has meets the RS test, then the planning of the TV show is noteworthy in itself. Bitcoin also has a significant section on the Arts. I think we might as well create a small section for Arts, and start to build it. Likely other coverage will follow. I think crystalball only applies to the extent that we imply that the show *will* happen. As long as we cover it as per the facts (it is being planned), then it is kosher to add. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't arts yet, it's just an announcement of future arts. The relevant section in Bitcoin covers works and events that actually happened, with no future announcements. I'd say when principal filming is verified to have started, it should be mentioned - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove it for now. These phoney promotion bitcoin ether sites should not be used for information in the article [Blockchain Entertainment: 'Singular' To Become First TV Series On Ethereum Adventures". CoinTelegraph.], those are not news information sites they are self promotion sites. If this subject is reported on in one of the real media sites then sure use it. Other wise it is projection and empty information or cheap free Google advert information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to let this discussion continue, and see what consensus forms on Singular DTV; but it would appear that, with three editors arguing against, there is no consensus to add it now, with its current limited sourcing. While the single source is a bit weak for now, if this (apparently funded, script-complete, and contracts-in-place for filming) project continues to production, there will no doubt be more sources in the coming few months, and that would clarify the issue with respect to Singular DTV.

However, I take exception to the general idea that opinions of editors expressed on this Talk page have certainty about which news sources are or or not considered reliable sources. Not because what Earl thinks about that source may (or may not) be true. I'm agnostic on that wrt to CoinTelegraph; and I certainly don't know. But simply because this Talk page is not the place to resolve that. If Earl wants to endeavor to get any particular source on the unreliable source list, or not-suitable-for-Wikipedia list, then there is a place for that: the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where such discussions are held. Until Earl has a call from them, then there is no reason for editors of this page not to accept CoinTelegraph, or any other particular news website about this industry. N2e (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Promotional primary sources with people with a horse in the race, biased promoting of concepts connected with crypto currency stuff is not the way forward. Real news not from vested special interests is better and it looks like some editors are promoting crypto currency things and adding these fake coin sites. Its like adding Kitco the gold site to source gold on Wikipedia. The idea sucks big time. It is irresponsible to Wikipedia readers to serve them warmed over bullshit instead of actual news stories. Do not add those kind of sites. Right now the consensus is against adding them here by the neutral editors. You bring those crap sites to the drama boards if you really want to waste everyones time. Lets have an outing here also of who is involved commercially in these cryto currency things. Has not someone already admitted to being a part of the cryto currency cult and admitted being involved heavily and are they not some of the same people pushing those crap commercial sales sites for bitcoin and Ether? Yes. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well Earl, on this point, we obviously disagree. This talk page is not the place to determine whether a general media source is, or is not, a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

Moreover, I can see that about the same time I was writing my comment on the 29 Aug above, you did start a new section below to discuss that source. The new section was a good idea, as your argument to the effect that the source is a bad source is much more general claim than just about any one use of that source to support a claim, as this section is about. Having said that, two days on, it does not appear that your argument below has gained consensus, since now three editors not including me have explicitly disagreed with your argument. N2e (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Coin desk

Removing most Coin desk references as unworthy of much consideration. Promo rah rah sites for crypto currencies. Also the last revert? Pleade read the 1st. Edit summary. The info was already in the info box right next to it. Is ther some reason to load up Coin Desk? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added the content (reverted your changes) and added two more citations. I think you need to find consensus here before just deleting things you deem to be non-RS. Here is the content you are claiming is offending

"Ethereum's live blockchain was launched on 30 July 2015." The content sure doesnt look to controversial to me. Now there are three industry news source citations. Good enough in my book.

I think if it is your assertion that any/all CoinDesk content must be removed, then we need to have a larger review of your personal opinion relating to this source. Maybe make your a point on the RS noticeboard and see if you can find consensus. Obviously I disagree that CoinDesk is not-RS. So see if you can find a majority who is on your side...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Number one without really trying to be insulting you are profoundly ignorant, I noticed you were before also about how Wikipedia works. Please educate yourself. Coindesk has been gone over and over in previous threads. There has been promotional special interest groups that have tried to use the article to advertise CoinDesk and other publications. Those publication are not news sources they are buy and sell commodity or in this case 'imaginary' commodities or imaginary stores of value. Understand? Why in gods name do you need to source something three times?!!!!. That does not even make sense. Yes, I have noticed in the past you had a lot of really badly cobbled information strings of Coindesk type non news. Also it not a democracy. A few buddies can not pour in and change the article because they love Coindesk. What happened to the fact that the start date is in the information box right in front of everything? Its redundant. I also think your attitude is pretty close to not really making sense about using the word offensive. Its not offensive, its just not a good source to further pad the article with lots of washed up on the shore meaningless trivia to make the article look important. The article is still pretty bad and needs a lot of further trimming. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I won't address your personal attack on me, wikipedia is not a venue for that. You mean adding RS to an article is advertising the RS? Do you think editors on this page are advertising CoinDesk. You have any evidence of those statements? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree that CoinDesk is a promotional site. In fact, CoinDesk is a news source with editorial board and independent policies in place. There are also citations of CoinDesk news in other independent sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree that CoinDesk is a promotional site. It is according to my understanding a leading industry publication. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree to treat CoinDesk with great caution. There are quite a lot of these bitcoin blogs that act like news sites. CoinDesk is probably the least worst, but these sites constitute a walled garden - WP:FRIND definitely applies. They need the greatest of editorial caution. There is no scale on which they should be treated with anything like the reliability of NYT, Bloomberg or FT - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi David, walled garden is an essay (not a policy) and furthermore cryptocurrency articles are referred to by a broad set of press today. Your mention of WP:FRIND suggests you are claiming that cryptocurrency articles are fringe. 100+ articles link in to Bitcoin, that doesn't sound like fringe to me. Do you haven evidence that crypto articles are fringe, or just your personal opinion?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a creative reading of what I wrote. I linked "walled garden" because it's the Wikipedia term for such things. FRIND applies to self-referencing walled gardens of sources, like the Bitcoin blogs. I would suggest that CoinDesk et al be applied with great caution for factual verification (e.g. there is a controversy with a miner threating ETC with a 51% attack) and not as evidence of notability in the real world, because they totally don't work for the latter purpose at all - we already have actual RSes if we want that - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case we are talking about the launch date of Ethereum... Is this date controversial? What is the bitcoin blog you are referring to? Coindesk is not a blog. Are you questioning the notability of this Ethereum article? What does notability have to do with this?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You misrepresent the walled garden article, David Gerard. According to the article, "On many wikis, Wikipedia included, a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group." CoinDesk is neither the Wikipedia, nor a wiki. Moreover, the history of Ethereum is not a fringe theory, to which WP:FRIND could apply. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• No in my opinion. Using promotional advert sites is just a gateway to the crypto currency world. They are primary promotional. It would be like using Kitco [4] to source our gold articles. Kitco is only a buying and selling information site that promotes the buying of gold as do these coin sites. Stick with actual news worthy sources not promo rah rah sites. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Earl, Your explanation is a Straw man argument. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You are not kidding. Jtbobwaysf, I see you are very much in the dark on this. Walled garden also means a little group tries to control information in a slanted way. Coin desk and the other two sources are pathetic. It ain't mainstream. I hate to use stronger words but let me say you have almost no sense of the value and weight of these nearly worthless sale pitch sites. I have to conclude that an editor selling that sh*t is acting out as a representitive of this subject or just super ignorant and thinks without critical judgement. As said you can vote but promoing those sites and promoting a special interest group with crypto coin cult members is part of the problem here that no one cares to ralk about. So its rhetorical tendentiois editing to put three of those promo sites on this question that is already answered in the top box. Its just a rather stupid promo. Wake up or not.

Hi Earl (I think it was you who wrote this, your signature seems to have disappeared). Is your position that using crypto currency news sites as citations is not ok as the citation is promoting the the news site?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree that CoinDesk is a promotional site. CoinDesk is about other blockchains than Ethereum. They are not payed by the Ethereum Foundation. They also publish articles that are negative from the POV of Ethereum. LarsPensjo (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you are heavily involved in this subject [5] Your public persona is that of a explanation man for that blog. Scroll down to read your CoinDesk comments. Its a glorified blog. You are a publicity person involved in their site and now you want to advertise your blog comments here. Your handle is all over the internet in regard to this subject on the crypto coin sites. Too close to advertising your views or promoting your blog views Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Earl, there are policies on wikipedia relating to cordial editing, in this case it appears to me you are violating prohibitions on WP:OUTING. If you have some evidence that Lars has a conflict of interest and should be prohibited from editing this page, bring it forth. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've already said, above in the section prior to this one, that I am agnostic on whether CoinDesk is or is not a RS. I just don't know. But I would say that establishment that it is, in general, for Wikipedia not a reliable source cannot be done on this page. This discussion on the source, as a general reliable source or not, should be done on the reliable sources noticeboard. And I'll add to Earl King Jr. this: let's talk about improving the article. You have at least twice now attacked an editor, their state of knowledge, or character. This should stop, and ought not to have started. Let's discuss content, and sources, and improving this article, without the ad hominem personal attacks. Your arguments are not strengthened by your resort to this rhetorical fallacy. N2e (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agreed Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have created a RS and Fringe noticeboard discussions. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ethereum. If I haven't added the right tags, please also let me know (or messed up some other protocol). Thank youJtbobwaysf (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jtbobwaysf for discussing the sources at the Reliable sources Noticeboard. However, the fringe theory discussion - how can a launch date of Ethereum, an undisputed fact, be a "fringe theory"? - was unnecessary. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav, I did both of the noticeboards as WP:FRIND was put forth above by David Gerard as justification for deleting the content with a CoinDesk source. There is a long running dispute on this Ethereum page (and also The DAO) about sources, and this is only the latest manifestation. It is my position that industry news cites (coindesk, etc), general news (such as NYT, etc) should all be ok to use. However, other editors often delete this content suggesting that since this Ethereum topic is fringe, a higher standard of sources must be met (and then they delete wide ranges of content). Thus I felt this particular very uncontroversial content (the launch date) was just as good a manifestation as any to have a broader discussion about sources. Make sense now? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough the launch date is not really newsworthy and parts and bits were launched at different times. All the controversial pro cryto coin sites should really be removed. Now there are four of them sourcing this non event which the mainstream though so little of that it barely created a blip. Because there are a few people above that are directly involved in these endeavors extreme caution is better, not a scatter gun shoot out of documentation with barely any real import but for these crypto sites. The launch date stuff should be restructured a bit and this source can be used for giving an idea of when this thing started and how it started [6] Lets not make Wikipedia into a promotion contraption for all these industry non news sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As a part of the history, I think the genesis block of the Ethereum blockchain is one of the biggest milestones. Compare with Bitcoin, where there is a lot of references to the genesis block, and the "age" of Bitcoin is considered to be the time since the genesis block. It has the same significance as the birth date of a person.LarsPensjo (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Answer to Jtbobwaysf: yes, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King Jr.: You now just deleted the CoinDesk references that were/are the exact subject of this discussion, and now a larger discussion (You have an administrator noticeboard, and there is another RfC in place to study the industry rag publications relating to this subject. [[7]] How about you allow a discussion on the talk page to come to a conclusion rather than just deleting whatever you don't like. Wikipedia is a platform for collaboration, discussion, consensus... (the opposite of edit warring). I am going to revert your changes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest

Maybe we need a fess up here of the level some of the more aggressive editors are at in these crypto currency sites. Just googling editors names brings out lots of editors being heavily involved and that could mean financial involvement in these subjects. I am not involved in these cyber currencies. I seem to remember one person explaining how they had bought into them in the past. Some editors on these articles may be involved financially, and have Wikipedia:Conflict of interests. Thoughts?

Neutral editing is fine no matter what the involvement but all these editors coming up on these connected information sites starts some bells ringing. I have to assume these pages have had troubled problems looking at the top of this page with its broad warning There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there's quite a few edits to this article from people who have an Ethereum holding and/or are involved with the Ethereum Foundation. These constitute a WP:COI.

Let me remind everyone of WMF terms of service #4: you can edit, but you are required to disclose your affiliation - and you may be banned if administrators consider that you are persisting in editing with an undisclosed COI after a warning such as this. I strongly urge editors to disclose if they have in fact anything that would count as a WP:COI - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically which editor is associated with the Ethereum Foundation? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

As you know, it would violate outing rules for me to post it publicly. But if you looked through the edit history and the Ethereum Foundation people, you'd see more than a few coincidences - David Gerard (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you also prohibited from opening a COI investigation? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, this particular thread is about something else. Please stick with the subject at hand, dislosure. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another issue of conflicted interest is these coin sites which in my opinion should be treated gingerly as source. Several current editors come up on the internet as being more than casually involved in these sites and it can easily appear as a conflict of interest as these positions are given in these blogs and these are the same coin sites promoted by editors here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC RS/Fringe Re:Ethereum

Hello, I created two different discussions (maybe should have made one in retrospect) over on the noticeboards relating to a long standing (ad nauseam) discussion on this talk page (and archives) relating to if this page is WP:FRINGE (as is claimed by @David Gerard: and thus higher standards WP:FRIND sources must be used (largely excluding industry rag publications such as CoinDesk and CoinTelegraph). This ongoing dispute relating to sources results in possibly biased editors (see above talk page comments) such as @Earl King Jr.: deleting all sorts of content, down even to the the launch date of Ethereum (a non-controversial fact). Please comment on these noticeboards, or here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ethereum and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#CoinDesk_and_CoinTelegraph_on_the_article_Ethereum Thank you Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Right now the people 'out of the immediate loop' or so I will call it are mostly saying these are not good sourced. That is the reason I removed the four coin cyber sites and replaced that excessive blast of industry non news sites with one good reference which I would guess people might be pleased with. Source [8] So how is it that the good source was removed by an editor and replaced with the over sourcing of four of those coindesk type citations? Third party over site is saying on these boards that the iffy sources are iffy and should be either not used or used very very sparsely, as in virtually never. Does not the NewYork Times trump four special interest coin cyber sites. So lets return that edit. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)