Talk:Blockchain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The lack of commercial deployments[edit]

I was going to add the following however I note that it was written 10 months ago. Include or not? The lack of commercial deployments for blockchains has been attributed to their expense, complexity and inefficient energy use.[1]

References

  1. ^ Saifedean Ammous (4 February 2016). "Blockchain Won't Make Banks Any Nimbler". American Banker. SourceMedia. Retrieved 8 December 2016.


Unreadable to the uninitiated[edit]

For someone uninformed about the general subject matter who, say, simply wants to understand what blockchains are sufficiently to comprehend the text in which they first saw it used, this article is useless. It gives no actual explanation of what they actually are, and only confuses further by using a plethora of what some might call additional technical mumbo jumbo. There's plenty of room for that stuff, but the introduction should at least in part be used to give context to the topic, explain the very basics and give a small number of tangible, comprehensible facts which help readers place blockchains in a sort of mental category, before the article delves into rattling off all the theoretical specifications, history and various uses of blockchains.

Reply to  Spintendo  of 19-May-2018 Comments, by Anoop Bungay on January 31, 2019[edit]

Green tickY A message to: the Global General Public, Consumers, Customers, Prospective Customers, Industry, Regulators, Regulatees, Investors, Shareholders, Stakeholders, Legislators & Government; and User: Spintendo and Talk Members of this Wikipedia page re: "blockchain".

Hello  Spintendo 

Happy 2019 to you.

Thank you for your commentary on 19-May-2018. Please note; regrettably - and while it may not have been your intent - you have made claims that are not supported by any references by you, which leads to some complications. Further, your written expression of your understanding of what your's sincerely was "positing", is, - regrettably - deceptively misdescriptive. Without getting further entangled with one another, might you please consider the following clarification so the historians of the world and future generations of readers, forever into the future, will understand my personal response to your comments.

  1. 1 - In future, please remember to "cite your sources"; ie: please provide reference to evidence that MQCC is an "extra-provincial corporation". Which jurisdiction? What is the incorporation date? What is the implication of being incorporated and how does this affect any claims, as you see it. Not to mention, the readers need to know your source of knowledge.
  2. 2 - In future, please remember to "cite your sources"; ie: please understand that your assertion that MortgageQuote Canada Corporation "uses a form of record keeping" is deceptively misdescriptive. Please provide the readers the source of your information and how you arrived at your conclusion; the readers need to know your source of knowledge.
  3. 3 - Please note, a public "Journalistic Correction" is issued to some major university professors (Harvard University), journals (the Economist Magazine), newspaper firms (Financial Times Newspaper) and interested parties; you may find the "Journalistic Correction" at blog.mortgagequote.ca for your reference.
  4. 3.1 - As explained in the "Journalistic Correction", development of an ontology for a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" [the word 'finance' embodies all characteristics: equity, debt (loan or mortgage), asset, liabilities, currency, securities]; development of the underlying "principles of 'blockchain'"; and development of the related science and mathematics, resulted in the identification of a new field of study (academic discipline) namely, "conformity science"; visit www.conformity.org to learn more. The study of Conformity science is important because in some cases, the absence of much-needed conformity may result in loss, not only of financial or natural resources, of human life.
  5. 4 - While the following may constitute as "primary research", please note: of all the financial (including securities) regulators, legal regulators, assurance regulators, policy makers, legislators and related persons in the world (or the lawyers and consultants employed by these bodies) who are "looking into" the 19 years of history, including: over 13 years of empirically proven, public sector and private sector benefits of the MQCC™.org System and Technology which is built on the seminal "Principles of 'blockchain'" -['principles' that are defined by your's sincerely pursuant to research (commencing at least before 2001)] - have no objections with your's sincerely's claims.
  6. 5 the phrase: "principles of 'blockchain'" are in quotations because the technical title is: "Bungay Unification of Quantum Processes Algorithm"; each quantum process consists of a "block" and the unification of each block, creates a "chain".
  7. 6 - Any yes, the MQCC™ ontology is quantum-computing ready. Just waiting for the correct programming language; and right computing environment; and the right team of good, sincere, trustworthy people.
  8. 7 - In conclusion, instead of ending on a negative note; prosecuting wikipedia for its inherent weaknesses, potential for editor bias, distinction between "C" class articles and "FA" class articles, the requirement for differing points of view and so forth (including initiating formal dispute resolution - someone else can do that); might I please end on the following; for those of you who are current or future students of quantum philosophy/quantum computing/quantum anything, imagine two states of existence:
  • (a) a world where a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" - in a commercially deliverable state - was introduced to the world (without disclosure of the underlying knowledge-base/algorithm, ie. intellectual property, principles, science and math) on April 9, 2005 at the www.privatelender.org website. (Analogy: a world where a cat is alive, in a sealed box)
  • (b) a world where a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" [the 'electronic cash system' being merely a sub-system - a "payments delivery" function - within the overarching 'finance system'] - in a non-commercially deliverable, alpha and experimental state (see reference below) - was introduced to the world (with partial disclosure of the underlying knowledge-base/algorithm ie.: intellectual property, principles, science and math) on Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009 at the www.Metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list. (Analogy: a world where a cat is dead, in a sealed box)
  1. 7.1 - At any given time, both states (a) and (b) existed at the SAME TIME - there is superposition - but the observer (you), will only know which (a) OR (b) came first, only after you fairly "look into the matter". (Analogy: the cat is both alive and dead until you (the observer) open the box and look into the box to see the actual state of the cat).
  2. 7.2 - Conclusion: The day that you (wikipedia) first heard from your's sincerely (Anoop Bungay), is the day that it was decided to introduce your's sincerely; and the Money Quality Conformity Control Organization (MQCC™) incorporated as MortgageQuote Canada Corp. (mqcc.org); and PrivateLender.org (Bungay International Inc.) and a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" that is litigation-tested, regulator-audited, regulatory-recognized, in continual operation and continually improving, since April 9, 2005. (Analogy Conclusion: the "cat pre-empted the observer and decided to jump out of the box" and say: "Hello world, I am alive".)

No need to respond, just wanted to share this with you.

Best to all,

Enjoy a healthy and prosperous 2019.

/s/

A. K. (Anoop) Bungay

reference: http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2009-January/014994.html

Anoop Bungay (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding more accuracy to different types of blockchains[edit]

My first intention was to add a section about hybrid blockchains. However, since I am new to Wikipedia, I can not make edits to the blockchain Wiki article. It states that currently, there are three types of blockchain networks — public blockchains, private blockchains and consortium blockchains. This is incorrect, as hybrid blockchains are a fourth addition and it's not something new. Some references here even refer to IBM and Walmart. And they also use hybrid blockchain partners, simply because their supply chain solutions would not work without hybrid blockchain infrastructure that is needed with so many stakeholders involved. This led me to creating a first initial draft for hybrid blockchain instead, because that is what I am allowed to do. Basically I have two requests. The first one would be to add hybrid blockchain in the main blockchain wiki, as there are plenty of reputable references that can be found. And secondly, requesting anyone who would like to help to improve the hybrid blockchain draft because this ideally requires input from more contributors, as with all Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyDutch (talkcontribs) 12:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Progress[edit]

Hello, not sure if there are many active contributors here? I'm making quite a bit of progress on the hybrid blockchain draft. I would like to know if anyone would like to join forces with me and also create articles specifically for private, public, consortium, permissioned blockchain? What are the general thoughts here? I don't want to rapidly make big changes on the blockchain article, but I do believe there are valuable contributions that I can make. My intention is to start small though, and just improve bits and pieces first on what is build here so far. One other small thing I noticed above the contents is that the article refers to Satoshi Nakamoto as a person. Blockchain was invented by a person using the name[...] And in another paragraph as a person or group. The facts are that Satoshi Nakamoto is the original inventor, whether it is a group or a person. But also, that he or the group were not working on Bitcoin alone. There is email documentation available that Satoshi Nakamoto allowed contributions from others on a voluntary base only. Is there consensus here on this? JeffreyDutch (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)