Talk:Blockchain/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Amycastro (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Misleading statements

"The result is a robust workflow where participants' uncertainty regarding data security is marginal."

This statement isn't cited, but makes a very bold, generalized and highly questionable claim about the security of the ledger. 69.158.179.27 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Blockchain for Drones

Block Chain for Delivery Drones Fortune ROBERT HACKETT May 30, 2017 http://fortune.com/2017/05/30/walmart-blockchain-drones-patent/ kgrr ^talk 18:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Distributed ledger and Blockchain

The term Blockchain is often used to refer to distributed ledger. It does also refer to the Blockchain company.

There are other projects that are not related to the Blockchain company and are yet linked to the concept of a distributed ledger (e.g. Hyperledger).

What can be done:

1. Migrate what belongs to the distributed ledger technology to the distributed ledger page.
2. Make the Blockchain page about the Blockchain company and its technologies. Put a note "Do not confuse with distributed ledger" and explain the reasons that may lead to confusion.

Ricardo Biehl (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the term is generally used to refer to the technology, not the company. Λυδαcιτγ 02:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Network

The missing element in the intro is that blocks are linked over networks, unless its a moot point. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

- ! Type !! Course/Program/Resource !! University/Institute !! Founded/Launched/Established Blackrockcrypto (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

 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. DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

To add this table under "Academic research"

Here below are the list of current courses, programs, and resources, by various universities and institutes from across the world.

 Not done for now: These references should be supplemented with references from the institutions themselves which verify the existence of these courses.  Spintendo  08:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Academia

Type	Course/Program/Resource	University/Institute	Founded/Launched/Established
Program	Degree Program	Woolf University	March 2018
Course/Program	Blockchain Strategy programme	Saïd Business School, University of Oxford	November 2017
Resource	Library of Blockchain and Cryptocurrency research publications	BlockchainLibrary.org	June 2017
Course	Various courses	Cryptoversity.com	April 2016
Program	Master’s of Science in Digital Currency	University of Nicosia	May 2014
Course	Introduction to Digital Currencies	University Of Nicosia	May 2014
Program	Pre-accelerator Program in Silicon Valley	Draper University	April 2012
Program	Executive Blockchain Program	Draper University	April 2012
Resource	Repository of Blockchain and Cryptocurrency research publications	Crypto Chain University	February 2010

Blackrockcrypto (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Bias/Inaccuracy in Video Games Section

The video game industry is rapidly getting involved in blockchain, causing fierce competition between established players in the space. I suspect this is affecting the quality of the video game section of Wikipedia's blockchain article, and I therefore propose the addition of some text and some cited sources.

For reference, I have been writing and speaking about blockchain-based video games since 2014, and have previously been cited on the Bitcoin/blockchain pages on Wikipedia on this subject. My website, www.blockchaingaming.com, is not partnered with any one blockchain gaming project, but rather serves as a portal and source of information; I also do not currently own any tokens due to my focus on the aforementioned, so I am less biased than other authorities in our industry.

Huntercoin: first blockchain game?

The statement that Huntercoin was the first real blockchain game is partially true. It would be more accurate to say that it was the first blockchain game that worked--others, such as Motocoin and the Munne Project, were quickly either hacked or abandoned. It absolutely predates CryptoKitties by years, however.

I wrote on this subject in late 2014 for Bitcoin Magazine, one of the oldest and most reputable sources from within the blockchain industry (Vitalik Buterin used to write there). You can see that article online here. For a source other than myself you can see here a video of Huntercoin being played in March 2014.

CryptoKitties and game assets

CryptoKitties definitely deserves mention as the first blockchain game to achieve wide recognition in the mainstream. They also popularized the ERC-721 token standard, a notable trend in the blockchain gaming world.

However, they did not pioneer the concept of digital assets. A less biased article would also mention Spells of Genesis, which pre-dates CryptoKitties as you can see from this article on Bitcoinist (not mine). They called it "True Ownership," and I wrote about the subject back in 2015 for Bitcoin Magazine and NewsBTC.

Major Players

I was at the Blockchain Game Summit where they launched the Blockchain Game Alliance... I gave a presentation on the history of blockchain gaming, which can be seen here. They do indeed consist of most of the major players from within the blockchain industry, including Everdreamsoft (Spells of Genesis) B2Expand (Beyond the Void) and EnjinCoin, which is noteworthy especially with Ubisoft's backing.

However, Ubisoft is no longer the only major player involved from the traditional video game industry. Games are already being planned for all major consoles. For example, Mythical Games already raised $16 million USD for this purpose, and their founders worked formerly for Activision and Blizzard. Planet Digital Partners plans to raise $38 million and has team members from PlayStation, Nintendo, Take-Two and Rockstar.

Sirwagginston (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

These changes are all for the Video Games section

Changes regarding Huntercoin

Edit the statement regarding Huntercoin being the first blockchain game and add better sources. Instead of "The first such game, Huntercoin, was released in February, 2014." put "The first such functional game, Huntercoin, was released in February, 2014." Sources: 1 2

Changes regarding CryptoKitties

Where it says "Cryptokitties also demonstrated how blockchains can be used to catalog game assets (digital assets)." afterwards add the statement "The concept was originally pioneered by EverdreamSoft with Spells of Genesis, and is the basis of most blockchain games today." Following "Spells of Genesis," use these sources: 1 2. To show that most games are using this concept (as opposed to other blockchain gaming concepts like Provable Fairness and decentralized MMOs), you can cite the games section of Dapp Radar as a source.

Additions to final paragraph

After "The Blockchain Game Alliance was formed in September 2018 to explore alternative uses of blockchains in video gaming with support of Ubisoft and Fig, among others." add "Others are developing blockchain games for all major gaming consoles, such as Mythical Games, which raised $16 million with founders formerly from Activision and Blizzard." Cite TechCrunch as a source. Sirwagginston (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Crypto blogs are not acceptable as passing WP:RS. Was there any coverage outside those? - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Y 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

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 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Progress

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

"Please add the cititaion for for the private blockchains because the article explains the diffrences between public and private blockchain"

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Private blockchains

This type of blockchains can be considered a middle-ground for companies that are interested in the blockchain technology in general but are not comfortable with a level of control offered by public networks. Typically, they seek to incorporate blockchain into their accounting and record-keeping procedures without sacrificing autonomy and running the risk of exposing sensitive data to the public internet. Tempopueblo (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Updating the HunterCoin references sources and citations from a Forbes article that discusses the evolution of blockchain and gaming. Hotcatfool (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

 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. NiciVampireHeart 18:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019. Possible typo error.

Under the subheading blocks (in Structure), there is the following line in 2nd paragraph: "In addition to a secure hash-based history, any blockchain has a specified algorithm for scoring different versions of the history so that one with a higher value can be selected over others." Please change the word "scoring" to "storing" as it seems like a possible typo error and scoring does not make much sense. 203.199.205.25 (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

No, that is not a typo. It is scoring, and the history with a higher score is selected over others. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

In the Uses section, add this sentence to the end of the section. In July 2019, Dallas County Community College District worked with the Greenlight Credentials to create a distributed ledger application using blockchain technology to provide students access to their academic records and transcripts. Official transcripts can be shared with other education and workforce partners. Two other educational developmental partners will follow suit, in what may become a new approach for gaining access to and distributing academic and work records. Reference the web site https://greenlightlocker.com/ for more information. Dunkertim1 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm inclined to say that this needs to have a Wikipedia article written about it before it should be added to this article, but at the very least you'll have to provide some better sources. The site you've linked to doesn't really have any information on it - nothing about Dallas County Community College, or about what the site is used for, or that it uses blockchain, or really anything at all from your request (unless I'm missing some big information pages there somewhere). Provide those sources and reopen this request, and it can at least be considered. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Improving Video Games

The video games section has languished with little more than a mention of Cryptokitties and aggressive content deletions. Previous content with RS has been removed for "not RS", e.g. The University of Pittsburgh is "not RS"? The Ledger peer-reviewed journal (part of the University of Pittsburgh) is most certainly RS as per Scholarship. Other content with reliable sources has also been aggressively deleted. Bitcoin Magazine and many other mainstream crypto news sites have been around for a significant period of time and are well established in the space.

I've added a huge amount of content with plenty of RS citations and rewritten this section so that it's actually useful to some degree. The basic structure of the section is now:

• Basic introduction
• Explanation of platform vs. own blockchain
• World's first blockchain game
• Well known blockchain game, Cryptokitties
• In-game assets description, NFTs
• Adoption with examples

The article can certainly be expanded, e.g. a subsection on various methods of asset storage would be nice as would an explanation of how smart contracts fail to deliver scalability and cannot support very interesting games beyond extremely basic ones. Also, there are a fair number of RS articles on the various platforms, so it might make a nice addition to have more about the various platforms. A comparison table would make a nice visual.

The platform vs. own blockchain section sets out the distinct methods of putting games and/or in-games assets on a blockchain. This is a critical distinction. The vast majority of games are built on a platform.

Regarding Huntercoin, the first blockchain MMO game, it is very well known by everyone in the industry and is most certainly notable. For non-technical editors, Huntercoin is technically well ahead of the vast majority of blockchain games even now. To understand blockchain video games you need to understand the underlying technologies at work. Decentralization for asset storage on a blockchain is pretty trivial, e.g. ERC-20 tokens used for storage. A 100% blockchain game exists entirely on the blockchain even past any "end of life" and end of developer support for a game, which of released games only Huntercoin and Motocoin fulfill.

The section on in-game assets is quite short and doesn't get into much detail beyond the very basics. Further expansion requires more technical information, which can get added at a later date. That may require a subsection on game state processors and smart contracts as they're relevant for digital assets and how they're handled. Cross chain swaps are another issue relevant for digital assets, however there is no other information in the Blockchain article about that yet.

Also for the section on in-game assets, it would be good to add in different methods of creating tokens and NFTs, e.g. ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, and the Namecoin "name" method. Also for NFTs, a section on NFT usage in games would be nice, e.g. art, collectibles, virtual real estate in games, etc.

The section on adoption is mostly examples from well known companies for now.

Hopefully other editors can add to this article rather than hastily delete relevant information. The principle of inclusion should prevail, otherwise we'll be left with nothing but "Cryptokitties", which is shamefully deficient.

--RenegadeMinds (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I had to revert the edit - it was a sea of non-RS sources - Forbes contributor blogs (only staff or "print edition" is RS from Forbes), low-quality crypto blogs, personal blog posts, etc. I think that if you honestly think a Forbes contributor blog is a RS for Wikipedia, reviewing WP:RS and the archives of WP:RSN would be in order. Also, your edit appears related to your past efforts to promote Huntercoin on Wikipedia. I went to clean up the edit, and was eventually just deleting huge swathes of it. You say "relevant information", but I say "the information is relevant if it's in mainstream third-party RSes". I see you're aware of GS/Crypto [1] and have been informed of what a nightmarish headache crypto articles in Wikipedia have proven to be, and why these sanctions went into place - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I support David's removal. We have a big problem with promotional-ism on these articles and thus that trumps the concept of broad inclusion. We need this stuff to be clearly notable before we include the newest blockchain widget. These scholar articles can be sufficient, but I have also seen times when the supposed scholor article is written by the lead maintainer of a crypto project (thus just a glorified blog post from wikipedia's perspective). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf wrote "...just a glorified blog post from wikipedia's perspective..." about a scholar article. Let me introduce you to the publishing process of scholar articles: they are published only after a review process, in which all of the following are involved: one or several editors of the respective magazine and usually several reviewers independent on the author. Calling this a "glorified blog" is a severe misunderstanding of the process. And, BTW, there is no arbitrariness in the Wikipedia rules. They do not leave an option for anybody to call a scholar article "a glorified blog". Once the source is scholar, it is unambiguously called "reliable" by the Wikipedia rules, as you could easily find out if reading e.g. WP:IRS. That said, I am not a fan of video games, neither do I support use of unreliable sources, but we should not bend the rules as we see fit and call something "a glorified blog" with the goal to discredit it as a reliable source as long as it is scholar. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This [2] is the edit I was referring to in which a ledger source was in fact written by someone closely related to the crypto project. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"...written by someone closely related to the crypto project..." - and? It does not matter who the author is, as long as the article is published in a scholar journal and subject to the review by editors and independent reviewers verifying the accuracy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much Nikolai Hampton opinion

I understand he is some young journalist of Computer World and it is considered OK to quote such people, but I do find myself asking, just how much does he know, and that the article's overall quality deteriorates when we get too much of the pop press trying to sell sensation, especially when it is replicated several times in an article where is it clearly technical in nature, and so in my view falls short of Wikipedia's high academic standards.

I understand he gives his reasons, but all too often journalists take a side, and he appears to be knocking blockchains, when my intuition says that it is the kind of technology in its infancy and many perceived problems by the inexperienced will no doubt not be so in the future. It's bad form to take sides anyway. I would prefer to see references from those who work on the technology who are capable of taking the disinterested view. Indeed we saw the same soothsayers where the internet became mainstream and most were wrong. I just get he overall feeling I'm reading the output of a Luddite rather than someone who has a track record of solving problems in this field. For example this quote looks naff "Private blockchains have been proposed for business use. Sources such as Computerworld called the marketing of such blockchains without a proper security model "snake oil".[10]" It leaves you wondering what the Holy Grail of security models is!(proper?)51.6.25.182 (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Much muddlement.

The first paragraph uses the "small-b blockchain" definition: "a growing list of records, called blocks, which are linked using cryptography". Later it says: "The first work on a cryptographically secured chain of blocks was described in 1991 by Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta." Both the definition and the usage are consistent there.
However, often in the article "blockchain" is spoken of as by the "capital-B Blockchain" definition which includes all the extra fripperies (distributed, consensus algorithms, signing, etc) such as is employed by Bitcoin. Here are examples: "Blockchain was invented by ... Satoshi Nakamoto", and "The first blockchain was conceptualized by ... Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008." Both statements are inconsistent with the first definition and with the citation of the 1991 Haber-Stornetta paper.

Additionally, there's a consistent mixup between Blockchain and Bitcoin. For example: "Blocks hold batches of valid transactions that are hashed and encoded into a Merkle tree." That's an outright description of Bitcoin which doesn't not apply to blockchains generally, neither the "small-b" nor the "capital-B" definition. Blocks may hold any kind of data a designer chooses, not just "transactions", and they don't have to have a Merkle-tree at all.

Overall, the article comes off as pretty dumb, as if the "writer" knew almost nothing about blockchain. There has been some contentious editing (as seems apparent), maybe the massive muddlement of the article is the result of that. But, in any case, somebody needs to take the reigns, cull out the crud, and make things self-consistent. 73.253.126.162 (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The cause of this contention (which you've 100% correctly inferred) is that 'blockchain' is a buzzword right now and lots of companies are trying to claim their products use a 'blockchain' when all they have is secure hash based histories. In the past this page didn't even include a proper explanation of capital-B-Blockchain and putting it in was the subject of a contentious edit war. Not only the Haber-Stornetta work but also Git histories are examples of secure hash based histories which predate usage of the word 'blockchain' to mean anything like this at all. Probably the best approach to editing the page would be to use 'secure hash based history' for everything you're calling a 'small b blockchain' and 'blockchain' for everything you're calling a 'capital B blockchain' and add in Git histories as a clearly relevant example of a secure hash based history which is not a blockchain. There was a mention of Git on this page before which has been removed though, so any such edits are likely to get contentious. --Bramcohen (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You'd need an RS on that, because there are lots of things that are called "blockchain" in RSes that aren't even that. It's literally just a marketing term these days - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding another use?

Here is a Forbes article about putting blockchain to use for academic purposes - would it be a good addition to include a mention of this under "Other Uses," or even create a section for Academic Uses? https://www.forbes.com/sites/oracle/2018/07/12/edtech-startup-to-release-blockchain-based-lifelong-learning-ledger/#3cbc1e9d6e39

It could say: Brandman University and N2N Services, Inc., collaborated to build a competency-based learning platform using blockchain technology, that allows colleges and universities to test student competencies and then place those students within an academic program according to their skill level. N2N is also developing a blockchain “personal value ledger” that will take work experience listed in employment histories, officially vet them through a transcript and credential-evaluation service, and then make those certified "resumes" available to employers.Angelala3222 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

forbes.com/sites is a contributor blog. Essentially, it is a self-published source, not reliable for our purposes here. Please have a look at WP:RSP. Retimuko (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Would this link work to support the mentions of Dallas County Community Colleges using blockchain, above? https://www.gettingsmart.com/2019/02/how-blockchain-is-helping-dallas-students-tell-their-story/ (Sorry, I'm new here, trying to figure out how to do this right - and also, is this the right place to put this comment?)Angelala3222 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that gettingsmart.com is a reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Blockchain and Internal Audit

Internal auditors must begin to incorporate understanding of blockchain in their practice. The publication on new research is a new area that lays out concerns. The publisher is a reliable source. Thanks to Ladislav Mecir observation, and recognize the need to expand this section.Kmccook (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several problem with the current wording:

• The section title is not in a sentence case as required by WP:MOS.
• The first sentence of the section: "The need for internal audit to provide effective oversight of organizational efficiency will require a change in the way that information is accessed in new formats." is too general to be related to the article subject.
• The AICPA acronym used in the section is not recognizable by anybody outside of the US. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ladislav, this all needs to be redone to wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yet another problem with the section formulation is, that the cited sources appear reliable, but they do not look like academic sources, do they? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

Please add the following to the Financial Services sub-section of uses of blockchain technology:

The blockchain has also given rise to Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) as well as a new category of digital asset called Security Token Offerings (STOs), also sometimes referred to as Digital Security Offerings (DSOs). STO/DSOs may be conducted privately or on a public stock exchange and are used to tokenize traditional assets such as company shares as well as more innovative ones like intellectual property, real estate, art, or individual products. A number of companies are active in this space, including Securitize (private STOs), Polymath (compliant tokenization services) and Blockstation (public STOs on the stock exchange). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeintocan (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeintocan:, could you maybe point to a better source for this than TheTokenist.io? It appears to be self-published. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur:, I updated the link with a more journalistic source. – User:Mikeintocan (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Need a mainstream RS, not a crypto site. Do STOs have any mainstream notability? - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article from Forbes establishing that STOs are a genuine use of blockchain technology, including some use cases: . User:Mikeintocan (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a Forbes contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Both of these have security token offering comments. [3] and [4] . You can read the excerpt here in google [5] if you dont have a login for bloomberg. Bloomberg should be an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur:, could also use this Deloitte report on crypto assets. [6]. Mikeintocan (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

@Þjarkur:, I've updated the in-text reference with the Deloitte source. What are next steps for this edit request? – User:Mikeintocan (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Mikeintocan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Mikeintocan, you are now an autoconfirmed user, so you can now add this section in yourself. I think the sentence "a number of companies are active in this space including X" might be spam bait, also doesn't appear that the listed examples have articles here on Wikipedia. (Sorry, didn't get your previous pings since it is necessary to mention the user and sign with ~~~~ in the same edit for the ping to go through) – Thjarkur (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search For other uses, see Block chain (disambiguation).

Blockchain formation. The main chain (black) consists of the longest series of blocks from the genesis block (green) to the current block. Orphan blocks (purple) exist outside of the main chain.

Bitcoin network data A blockchain,[1][2][3] originally block chain,[4][5] is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked using cryptography.[1][6] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block,[6] a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree).

By design, a blockchain is resistant to modification of the data. It is "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way".[7] For use as a distributed ledger, a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for inter-node communication and validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without alteration of all subsequent blocks, which requires consensus of the network majority. Although blockchain records are not unalterable, blockchains may be considered secure by design and exemplify a distributed computing system with high Byzantine fault tolerance. Decentralized consensus has therefore been claimed with a blockchain.[8]

Blockchain was invented by a person (or group of people) using the name Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 to serve as the public transaction ledger of the cryptocurrency bitcoin.[1] The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. The invention of the blockchain for bitcoin made it the first digital currency to solve the double-spending problem without the need of a trusted authority or central server. The bitcoin design has inspired other applications,[1][3] and blockchains that are readable by the public are widely used by cryptocurrencies. Blockchain is considered a type of payment rail.[9] Private blockchains have been proposed for business use. Sources such as Computerworld called the marketing of such blockchains without a proper security model "snake oil".[ 114.143.52.110 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 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. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

Please add the below paragraph to the "Uses" section in the Blockchain Wikipedia page:

Blockchain may significantly increase interconnectivity, security, and data access across the manufacturing shop floor. A comprehensive study conducted by [1] has clarified these potential impacts and a three-layer blockchain architecture was proposed for smart manufacturing applications. It is believed that Blockchain technology would enhance automatic machine learning in manufacturing applications and create an open society for data share and networking.

[1] Lee, Jay, Moslem Azamfar, and Jaskaran Singh. "A blockchain enabled Cyber-Physical System architecture for Industry 4.0 manufacturing systems." Manufacturing Letters 20 (2019): 34-39. Cyrus Azamfar (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done and since you made the edit yourself,  Undone per the edit summary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverted as blatant WP:CRYSTAL - "may", "could", "in future" are all words meaning "doesn't", because the blockchain proponents in question couldn't find enough support for "does" - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

manufacturing

David Gerard I would suggest to blank this Blockchain#Manufacturing section entirely per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Last thing we need is this article to turn into the 'blockchain solves this' without actual evidence of a solution. If there are actual notable projects that are doing something (regardless if we think it will work) we can include such as the Blockchain#Supply_chain section, but for sections that are just theory we should apply a more WP:MEDRS-like policy to require secondary sources concepts that 'blockchain will solve this' just as a 'whatever quack theory will cure this'Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Preserve

I blanked and put it here per WP:PRESERVE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Blockchain is hypothesised to provide tamper-resistant transparent information about different stages of the product life cycle  which helps in tracing the materials. Blockchain may enhance security and privacy of manufacturing systems  and by using smart contracts, different tasks could be executed in an autonomous and decentralized way. It is speculated that Blockchain significantly contribute to interconnectivity, security, and data access across the manufacturing shop floor. A comprehensive study has clarified these potential impacts and a three-layer blockchain architecture was proposed for smart manufacturing applications.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

"Change The block time for Ethereum is set to between 14 and 15 seconds, while for bitcoin it is 10 minutes. to The block time for Ethereum is set to between 14 and 15 seconds, while for bitcoin the block creation rate with 10 minutes being the average.

Please add clarification on the time of generation of the block. In the version I proposed, it is indicated that the average block time is 10 minutes. In the current version there is a statement that 10 minutes are constant. However, 10 minutes is the average time, so clarification is needed. I also provided links to sources. Thanks! 7ilver (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. The text in question in the article is uncited so I didnt expand it. We dont use bitcoin.org as a WP:RS on these crypto articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

I have noticed that the area of "Open Science" is not mentioned in the third chapter, "Uses." This could be supplemented since numerous projects got started here for several years. For example, in the section "3.6 Other uses.”

I suggest to expand the following paragraph with one sentence:

"[...] The use of blockchain in libraries is being studied with a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services.[84] The open science movement also uses blockchains to improve research collaborations between scientists and even citizens (citizen science)."

Concerning "Proof of Existence", I suggest mentioning one or two websites that offer this service free of charge and without commercial thoughts. Example 1: OriginStamp (https://originstamp.org/home) Example 2: OpenTimestamps (https://opentimestamps.org/)

What do you think of these suggestions? Ceifers (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers is a publisher of predatory open access journals. Frontiers in Blockchain is not something I'd call a trustworthy RS. Apart from that, the claim is WP:CRYSTAL - it's a possible future use, not something it's actually being used for in production - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Marking this as  Not done, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. There was a second request regarding the examples of existing proof-of-existence services. In this article, several possible scenarios are described whose application is still in the stars (similar to open science). Therefore, I thought that this topic would fit as well. Ceifers (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020 - Suggested major fixes to the entry for "Blockchain"

As per the correct entry for Merkle Trees on Wikipedia, "blockchain" is a generic term for a category of data structures that were created by Ralph Merkle. Most of this page is obviously a very particular viewpoint and not an objective definition, history or description of blockchain. This article is therefore seriously flawed and tendentious. Certainly, the following should be removed in its entirety:

--begin citation-- Blockchain was invented by a person (or group of people) using the name Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 to serve as the public transaction ledger of the cryptocurrency bitcoin.[1] The identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. The invention of the blockchain for bitcoin made it the first digital currency to solve the double-spending problem without the need of a trusted authority or central server. The bitcoin design has inspired other applications,[1][3] and blockchains that are readable by the public are widely used by cryptocurrencies. Blockchain is considered a type of payment rail.[9] Private blockchains have been proposed for business use. Sources such as Computerworld called the marketing of such blockchains without a proper security model "snake oil".[10] --end citation--

At a minimum, the first sentence is entirely wrong and should be removed: --begin citation-- Blockchain was invented by a person (or group of people) using the name Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 to serve as the public transaction ledger of the cryptocurrency bitcoin.[1] --end citation--

Any further citation of "Satoshi Nakamoto" as an "inventor" or anything but an implementer of a type of blockchain should be removed. This article should be largely derived from the Wikipedia entry for Merkle Tree and refer to Bitcoin and Nakamoto, at most, with such an entry as follows: --begin citation-- The initial Bitcoin implementation of Merkle trees by Satoshi Nakamoto applies the compression step of the hash function to an excessive degree, which is mitigated by using Fast Merkle Trees.[10] --end citation-- Evodas (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree - the claims in the current wording of the article are based on citations of reliable sources. As opposed to that, the above proposal is not based on citations of reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree per Ladislav's comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As the objections above demonstrate, this is not an uncontroversial request. Edit Requests are specifically for uncontroversial changes. Please create a separate discussion to demonstrate a WP:CONSENSUS exists for making this change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Request that the following Use Case (see text below) be added under Use Cases for Supply Chain ->

Chainyard and IBM have launched a new blockchain network designed to improve supplier qualification, validation, onboarding and life cycle information management. The network is called Trust Your Supplier and includes global brands of Anheuser-Busch InBev, Cisco, GlaxoSmithKline, Lenovo, Nokia, Schneider Electric, GlaxoSmithKline and Vodafone as founding participants. IAKChainyard (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem this has gotten much attention outside of press releases yet. In my opinion this would need significant attention and impact to warrant inclusion. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thjarkur: Do you think the text can be anchored with this [7]? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, we already mention IBM was doing some preliminary blockchain work under that section, this is probably a continuation of that. Will reopen this request. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We generally like to use independent reliable sources as references. The ZDNet article and a similar ComputerWorld article are barely-rewritten versions of IBM press releases. If there is subsequent, truly independent reporting on this usage, then it may become appropriate for inclusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

File size convention

I added a sentence that updated the discussion of the Bitcoin ledger for 2020. It felt appropriate to give size in gibibytes rather than gigabytes, as the normal convention has changed in the last few years. For something that is changing daily, it doesn't really change substance to say "over 200 GB" vs "over 200 GiB", and past year figures are round numbers not precise as well. But this does leave a minor inconsistency in units in the article. I'm tempted to change the rest in same paragraph to 'GiB'. Memories of lost time (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

usage: blockchain phone, blockchain OS

World’s First True Blockchain Phone is “BOB,” which stands for “Blok On Blok.” -users will be able to switch between Android and blockchain modes on their phones. BOB has its own blockchain operating system or OS, called Function X or f(x). When BOB is set to blockchain mode, every bit of data sent through the phone is executed through a blockchain, which makes BOB the first truly blockchain-powered phone in the world. [8]

First blockchain phone call was made in 2018[9]

there were prior to that " blockchain-based" phones but were really more blockchain-focused phones starting with HTC. [10] [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.184.8 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020

Blockchain is a time-stamped series of digital ‘blocks’ where each block contains a record of valid transactions, i.e. a digital ledger. Each block of data is secured and bound to each other using cryptographic principles LUOLKW (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 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. Where and how does this go into the article? @LUOLKW: RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2020

Change "A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed, and oftentimes public, digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that any involved record cannot be altered retroactively, without the alteration of all subsequent blocks." to "A blockchain is a time-stamped series of unalterable blocks of data that are managed by a cluster of computers where the blockchain network has no central authority."

Description of the edit: The old version is obsolete

LUOLKW (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

blockgeeks.com is not a source that we want to rely on. Thank you very much. Retimuko (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The "unalterable blocks" wording is problematic and, as noted by Retimuko, not confirmed by a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2020

Please change "A blockchain is a decentralized, distributed, and oftentimes public, digital ledger that is used to record transactions across many computers so that any involved record cannot be altered retroactively, without the alteration of all subsequent blocks.[1][17] This allows the participants to verify and audit transactions independently and relatively inexpensively.[18] A blockchain database is managed autonomously using a peer-to-peer network and a distributed timestamping server. They are authenticated by mass collaboration powered by collective self-interests." to "Blockchain is a time-stamped series of digital ‘blocks’’ with each block contains a record of valid transactions. The blocks are encrypted and linked with one another using cryptographic principles. The core concept behind the blockchain network is that it is decentralised across peer-to-peer network allowing participants to confirm the transactions without the need of a central certifying authority. The information is open for the involved participants to see. "

218.212.63.198 (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Seems to me that these two versions say pretty much the same thing but that the current version is more descriptive. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The proposed change does not look like an improvement to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Blockchain-based database into Blockchain

The subject is not particularly notable to warrant a separate article of its own, and there are substantial overlaps between the two articles. Mopswade (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources referenced in the Blockchain article claim that a blockchain is a database. Thus, the "blockchain-based database" term is similarly meaningful as a "database-based database" term. Are you sure that the sources using this problematic term are reliable and independent? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@David Gerard: comments on this? The merge looks logical to me at first glance, as I thought that all blockchains were a database by definition. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, they're definitely a datastore, and I've never heard "blockchain-based database" used as a technical term. Looking at Blockchain-based database, it's not clear why anyone would do this ... but I'd say that article should be a section of this one - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked the text of the article proposed to be merged. As far as I can tell, the only source mentioning the "blockchain-based database" term is , while the source and other sources use the standard blockchain term instead. When merging, I think that we should use the standard blockchain term when referring to such databases exactly as, e.g. the source and many other sources do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Guys! This article somewhat mixing new blockchain tech with old database tech. And, we are looking at a very new application or an iteration. At present, I am not sure whether this topic deserves a separate article or not. But, it does have the potential to have one in the near future. - Hatchens (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For everyone's attention, this particular source is talking about Blockchain relational database. And, it is explaining the same concept as mentioned in the article (which we intend to merge). - Hatchens (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Normally we dont cover these 'new' concepts at wikipedia. I support merge as this content would be fine in the existing article. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Blockchain based databases, as listed in the article, seem to just be the databases used to store the chain of blocks that makes up a blockchain. To the best of my understanding, a blockchain is just a linked chain of data that’s secure because each piece of data references the last piece of data, making it impossible to tamper with, and all of these “blockchain databases” are just databases that are used to to create / store a blockchain. I agree these articles should be merged. Mattgallea (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Let’s distinguish between the blockchain Technology and one of its application like Databases. I do not support merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.248.75 (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020

Blockchain History section needs an addition: David Lee Chaum's (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum) 1982 dissertation "Computer Systems Established, Maintained, and Trusted by Mutually Suspicious Groups"(link: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8674176) is the first known proposal for a blockchain protocol. Wrc666 (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Ovinus (talk)

Ambiguous wording

"Blocks hold batches of valid transactions that are hashed and encoded into a Merkle tree."

Is it the batches or the transactions that are hashed?

2607:9880:1A18:10A:E869:B34B:3EFD:4A92 (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for checking the wording of the article. I am not sure that the wording is problematic in this case. Nevertheless, do you have any suggestion how to improve it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Testnets

I think there should be a new article and redirect here and under cryptocurrency concerning 'testnets,' which are the backbone of the developers who maintain thousands of chains in this space. While there is only one internet, there is not only one testnet, so testnets plural should be the heading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonSays321! (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bibliography

Investopedia [1] Blockchain Wikipedia [2] Cointelegraph [3]

Reiff, Nathan. "Blockchain Explained". Investopedia. Retrieved 2020-09-29.
"Blockchain", Wikipedia, 2020-09-28, retrieved 2020-09-29
"How Blockchain Technology Works". Cointelegraph. Retrieved 2020-09-29.

Potential articles to add information from: Will do more research and see if it is worth adding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenihalsingh (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review

The introduction details the original definition of block chain and also addresses the BitCoin currency, highlighting different definitions of the same term. Talked about the structures and types of blockchains. Employment of blockchain in supply chain management. Domain names. The article is concise and provides an overview of what a blockchain is and its components such as structure, applications, and types. The language directed is for a general audience with no background in the topic. Therefore, I believe the article doesn't need improvement with the already incorporated information. The author should include peoples' experiences using blockchain- Did they succeed or did they fail? How was their experience with blockchain? Cryptocurrencies are appealing to certain people, but why? More insight to the human process thought, in my opinion, would be good. I noticed the text body contained elements shared among equal sources, I have to work on introducing my topic with a nuetral point of view. Candreaangulo (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous Implementation

I think the real reason why this form of Blockchain DB hasn't been successful is that there is a disparity between where the authority lies. With any database, there's the data and the index. Without either they fail. You can't have both be blockchain. If you blockchain the index, it serves as a hinderance to access. If you blockchain the DB, the index exposes the chained data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlandrum (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Subsection on anti-counterfeiting

Hello, I believe the article would benefit from having a subsection on anti-counterfeiting, as this application of blockchain has been extensively investigated by institutions such as the EU as well as by several private companies. My previous edit on the topic has been removed, as I have a COI with company Scantrust. I copy below the original edit, and would appreciate if an adapted version of the edit could be added to the article.

---

There are efforts to use blockchain for detecting counterfeits through associating unique identifiers to products, documents and shipments, and storing records associated to transactions that cannot be forged or altered. It is however argued that blockchain technology needs to be supplemented with technologies that provide a strong binding between physical objects and blockchain systems. Two such technologies are the use of crypto-anchors, proposed by IBM, and the insertion of secure graphics into QR Codes proposed by Scantrust. The EUIPO established an Anti-Counterfeiting Blockathon Forum, with the objective of "defining, piloting and implementing" an anti-counterfeiting infrastructure at the European level. The Dutch Standardisation organisation NEN uses blockchain together with QR Codes to authenticate certificates.

References

Thanks, Factfox (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done with a slight modification to exclude the mentioning of specific company names. I don't see that the proposer is relevant to the topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Commercial Deployment of Blockchain Technology

In 2019, it was estimated that around $2.9B was invested in blockchain technology which represents an 89% increase from the year prior. Additionally, the International Data Corp estimated that corporate investment into blockchain technology will reach $12.4B by 2022. Furthermore, According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the second-largest professional services network in the world, blockchain technology has the potential to generate an annual business value of more than $3T by 2030. PwC's estimate is further augmented by a 2018 study that they conducted, in which PwC surveyed 600 business executives and determined that 84% has at least some exposure to utilizing blockchain technology. Which indicts a significant demand in blockchain technology.

1.

2. Dlevine1996 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Artificial Lawyer compared to International Data Group as reliable sources

The former is a one person news outlet by one Richard Tromans and the latter is a respected Massachusetts publisher and consulting group owned to a Chinese holding company. My choice for a reliable source in recent edits was the latter which were reverted in favor of "Artificial Lawyer". Gartner is somewhat like IDG as an IT industry publisher of pricey surveys and forecasts. The IDG reports have newer info that our readers are looking for in Wikipedia articles, some of which can be located in Deloitte publications. If you have objections to these as reliable, please state your case. Thanks. Church of the Rain (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional applications

Some other uses have been mentioned in this article. Especially the section on Guarantors, Notaries, Public Registrars, Title Companies, and on Real Estate Agents, Insurance Agents, Travel Agents seems interesting and needs to be looked into. Can this be covered here in this article ? --Genetics4good (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

A blockchain game Nine Chronicles launched in 2018 and became #1 decentralized Idle MMORPG with verifiable scarcity, public gaming networks, and complex economics within the game ecosystem. With its unique game logic, Nine Chronicles presents a totally new fantasy world introducing 9 different worlds, different monsters and an ability to govern the game within other peers. It is completely free of charge and gives the players an ability to indulge in a totally new adventure. 220.76.103.190 (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: We're not going to add a one paragraph advertisement for a non-notable game. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Nine Chronicles, presents the first decentralized idle MMORPG — verifiable scarcity, public gaming networks, and complex economics within a click. Free download, amazing adventure!

Dare to join our early access at nine-chronicles.com Said Willson (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you are trying to promote a game on Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia rules. Please see WP:NOTYOU and WP:COI. Please note that all your contributions so far were reverted. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021 (2)

Nine Chronicles presents the first decentralized idle MMORPG — verifiable scarcity, public gaming networks, and complex economics within a click. Free download, amazing adventure!

Dare to join our early access at nine-chronicles.com Said Willson (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I replied to your original section above. Please don't spam Wikipedia. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Unreadable to the uninitiated

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's good enough for someone who has no intention to use it. After reading that Palantir uses blockchain to store their data, I just compared dates of Palantir founding and Blockchain appearance, having believed that the Japanese origin looks like disinformation. Palantir was founded in 2004, Blockchain appeared 2008 - looks like a good sequence of events to me. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:593:1358:3E74:198F (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I worked on making the intro a bit more accessible. Hocus00 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Whither "51 percent attack"?

I was reading an article posted in Bruce Schneier's Cryptoblog and came across the term "51 percent attack", which presumably is common knowledge within the cryptography community. I searched for it here in Wikipedia, but though there is a redirection page (auto-generated) for the term, it points to this page, which mentions it not at all. Either this page, or the page it is redirected from, should contain the definition of the term, "51 percent attack".

Zvmphile (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Added. Hocus00 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Non sequitur or at least the article makes too strong a statement?

> Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block ... the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks.

This paragraph sounds over-confident and may need to be toned down.

We know that Stuxnet/Flamer malware developers were able to falsify an MD5 hash in a Microsoft driver's signature almost 15 years ago. We know that practical SHA-1 collisions now exist even in public / academia research (e.g. "evil twin" PDF files with same the checksum but different contents). No hash can ever be 100% theoretically secure, since hashes are shorter than the object they describe, thus any hash has an infinitely large number of other objects that reduce to it. If the attacker has enough computing power (traditional CPU or quantum) he may be able to replace the previous block in the blockchain with different content that still calculates to the same hash checksum, thereby making the blockchain untrustable! 188.143.6.238 (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

In section 3.6 Supply chain, change "insure that they were ethically mined" to "ensure that they were ethically mined". i.e. insure -> ensure 174.89.173.127 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. Factfox (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional referencing

Recommend adding this highly cited prolific academic reference to at least one of the following points, since it has become a lead authority on the subject of Bitcoin and Blockchain energy consumption.

1. "Inside the cryptocurrency industry, concern about high energy consumption" - can cite the reference here. 2. Academic references

Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.06.009

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disruptive Technologies (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

History inclusion

This would be too close to POV/NOR for me, but folks might be interested in https://www.w3.org/2002/03/key-free-trust.html as an anticipation of block chains. -Reagle (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)