Talk:Ethereum

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

Contentious editing[edit]

David Gerard, I don't believe your edit is supported by the policy guidelines. The lead only summarizes the "most important" content in the article. You are giving undue attention to a minority view point and lesser controversy that has no direct bearing on the subject at hand, which is Ethereum; not Ethereum Classic. You are running afoul of WP:NPV, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:PSCI. That is, by its very nature, the official fork of Ethereum represents the dominant consensus and majority viewpoint of the article. You are treating two separate viewpoints as being in effect equal to each other. They are not. This obfuscates the mainstream understanding of the Ethereum platform and incites unwarranted contention.

As I said, the DAO / ETC hard fork controversy has received fair and balanced coverage in the section on criticism. If you wish to expand on this issue, you should direct your edits to that particular section of the article. I'm prepared to discuss our respective points of view at length if you still disagree.

I have also restored the remark on gas as it is essential to the design of the Ethereum platform and intimately related to the topic of ether. What the article needs is an expanded description of the gas metering system in the features section. There is no reason to omit it from the lead. As it stands, the smart contracts section is the only part of the article that mentions gas. I suggest we further improve the article's content by adding these valuable details rather than cutting them out arbitrarily.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The DAO collapse got considerable news coverage mentioning Ethereum - it's part of the mainstream understanding IMO. The fact of a major fork being left out of the intro also leaves it incomplete. If it gets a whole section in the body, it warrants mention in the intro, per WP:LEDE. One really can't claim to be summarising the story of Ethereum without even a mention of ETC and the split that led to it - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is not an attempt provide "news coverage" on "the story of Ethereum". It is first and foremost an engineering and technology article. The lead paragraph has already identified the topic and established the context of the article in the opening:
"Ethereum is an open-source, public, blockchain-based distributed computing platform featuring smart contract (scripting) functionality."
We should be concerned with summarizing the most important points with respect to this technical description and avoid the careless introduction of ambiguous, largely peripheral, politically-charged, and potentially misleading issues.
The particular edit you wish to add reads like a "news-style" headline and scandal mongering public relations attempt. It does not merit the relevance or significance you attribute to it. You'll note that the issue has not received a "whole section in the body" but has rather been treated as a subtopic in an undeveloped section devoted to criticism. It has been assigned there largely because it has been marred in various conflicts of interest, ideological opinion pieces, and propaganda campaigns. A simple summary would not capture the required nuance of views on this subject. As such, it should not be carelessly or uncritically added to the lead. Doing so, as I argued in my previous remark, would violate WP:NPV, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:PSCI.
I do not believe you have addressed these concerns fairly or sufficiently to warrant your attempt to reintroduce the edit. I believe the reasons brought to your attention are stronger than the ones you have provided to this point. Accordingly, I must move again to override your contribution. It is not my intention to get into an edit war with you or any other editor. I would prefer to reach a mutual and reasonable consensus. However, I do think this issue carries sufficient weight to pursue dispute resolution if that need should arise. I suggest we seek a sensible agreement instead of engaging in this course of action. I'm very much prepared to hear out your standpoint.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the introduction is to summarize what Ethereum is and provide a basic overview, to ignore Ethereum classic or a dao fork, in which a 150 million dollars organization got hacked and leave it to the END of the article is being ignorant, ETC is the biggest thing to happen to Ethereum so far, nothing even comes close to it. To be so offended and off put of the mention of the dao hack and to leave it to the end, makes it appear that Aliensyntax has a personal interest in ethereum and that mention of ETC is against it.

Warzuckerberg22

I agree, it is a significant enough item to be mentioned in the lede and removing it rather than improving it is an odd editing choice. ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Warzuckerberg22 and ClareTheSharer, have either of you read and (actually understood) my concerns? Neither of you are addressing the points I brought to bear to support my point of view. I have explained to a reasonable extent why this particular issue is problematic. I have also explained, as clearly as possible, why the policy guidelines would recommend caution and sensitivity in this instance. Perhaps you did not think critically about what I said. I will aim to be more explicit.

As per WP:ROC, content pertaining to matters of history and public perception should be plainly apparent: "If they are not, additional context is needed". As per WP:NPV, the content should be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". In particular, one should be careful not to use "prominence of placement" (i.e. the lead), or what can be interpreted as an equivocal juxtaposition of statements, to displace the primary subject in a manner that amplifies the relevance or significance of minority views or fringe opinions, as per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI. Editors are also expected to exercise good judgment with respect to controversial material or potential conflicts of interest (WP:COI), including but not limited to covert advertising (WP:COVERT) and political campaigning WP:COIPOLITICAL.

I believe all these factors, and perhaps a number of others I have yet to consider, are in play with the proposed edit. In regards to the first factor, viz. relevance of content, no effort has been made to clarify the principle significance or implications of the fork or its widely perceived status among reliable sources. The statement is devoid of the most pertinent details. This ambiguous lack of context is liable to create a misleading impression of the severity and noteworthiness of the event. It is not "plainly apparent" what is being said. For example, stating there was a hack of The DAO could imply to some readers that Ethereum itself was the victim, that the platform itself is flawed, when in fact it was a badly designed contract that was at fault. Stating there was a separate blockchain created for those who rejected the fork says nothing about the proportion of users who rejected it. What exactly is the reader expected to infer here? Are they to be given the impression that the correct version of Ethereum is now Ethereum Classic? Should they be confused about which version of Ethereum is the real or legitimate one? As I said, the relevant context is non-existent and for that reason the edit itself could be very misleading.

This situation is further compounded by the failure to observe a neutral point of view. The proposed edit cannot be called "fair", "proportionate", and "without editorial bias" on account of the fact that it aims to assign undue significance and relevance to the pretensions of a disaffected ideological minority. It's well-known that Ethereum Classic broke off from the consensus majority of the official Ethereum network and its established ecosystem. According to most conventional metrics, they represent less than 7-10% of the original Ethereum community. They're a splinter group with dubious conflicting motivations. In part, these motivations are parasitic on the Ethereum project. The group is a hostile competitor with a demonstrable financial and political interest in conflating Ethereum with Ethereum Classic. They have a strong incentive to make Ethereum Classic appear larger and more important than it should otherwise be from a neutral point view. On these grounds, I have to contend that there is a fairly high probability that the current edit conflict is not the result of a simple disagreement over the reasonability of what should or should not be included in the lead paragraph, but is rather the result of a covert attempt to misdirect attention away from the primary subject in order to bring unjustified public visibility to Ethereum Classic.

In my view, the proposed edit exaggerates the significance of the DAO / ETC controversy by using the prominence of placement of the lead paragraph. The insistence that this disconnected peripheral topic should deserve pride of place in the lead is incongruent with a non-partisan technical description of the primary subject. The remark is jarring, detached, and evidently out of scope with the content of the lead. There is also a strong negative connotation being implied in terminating and overshadowing the lead with a mention of this issue. Why is it again that the section on criticism is insufficient for this discussion? Why exactly should a nuanced issue such as this one be foisted on the reader at the earliest opportunity? It doesn't make very much sense. Unless, of course, we assume there is a powerful bias at work.

Simply put, I believe this edit is a very WP:BADIDEA. I fail to see the intellectual merit in adding it.

Aliensyntax (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Counting the original editor who added it, it looks 4-1 in favour of it from here. Restoring - David Gerard (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONS: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals; i.e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

I've escalated this issue to dispute resolution as I've not observed an "effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines": link to DR noticeboard

Aliensyntax (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:ClareTheSharer - I appreciate you joining the dispute resolution process and being slightly more explicit about your view. You said: "I'm not especially involved, just a bystander, but did express the view that David_Gerard's reasonable addition to the lede is not as obviously toxic as Aliensyntax asserts and would be better improved than (repeatedly and rapidly) removed. I still hold that view." I understand and would like you to carefully consider my standpoint.

I did not assert the issue was "obvious". I provided an extended argument to explain why the issue was not "plainly apparent". What you say should be better improved is precisely what is obscuring the controversy. As I've said previously, the controversy is complex and cannot be easily summarized. To add the required level of detail would draw the lead out of focus and oversimplify the issue. I cannot fathom why you would think it rationally justifiable to expand on a complicated, highly politicized, controversial subject in the introduction. Given your objection, it would appear to me that you do not fully appreciate the nature of my concerns nor the disturbing scope of this controversy. I cannot do your research for you. I can only say that I've read most of the relevant literature and have concluded the following:

1. There is a profound difference in notability between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. In particular, Ethereum Classic has not contributed to the Ethereum ecosystem. They're merely a fork of the Ethereum protocol stack. In truth, they share none of the mining, investing, development, or social infrastructure with Ethereum. Their technical output and status is orders of magnitude below Ethereum. They have sub-zero notability, in this respect. This could be confusing and highly misleading to some readers. Sensationalist news articles and market price are no indication of exceptionalism. Their notoriety is a simple result of the excessive media coverage over the DAO. That does not make them intrinsically worthy of mention in the introduction. This leads naturally into the second point:

2. There is a perverse financial and political incentive involved in using Ethereum to promote Ethereum Classic. There is sufficient evidence to my mind to surmise that Ethereum Classic is the product of external interests seeking some form of parasitic hostile takeover of the Ethereum trademark and its innovations. Its financing and development are easily traced back to Ethereum's most natural competitors, i.e. Bitcoin and related cryptocurrency markets. These conflicts of interest are abundant and would be evident to anyone who did their research. I believe this may be clouding editorial judgment.

3. Most importantly, there is consistent and pervasive illicit behavior and manipulation with respect to Ethereum Classic. The Ethereum Classic community is responsible for enabling the theft of millions. They're responsible for producing biased media coverage, historical revisionism, social media propaganda, and various other marketing ploys to dupe investors. They could also be said to be involved in various trademark violations and open-licensing disputes. Their status is disgraceful and deserving of proper criticism. There is no legitimate reason to mention Ethereum Classic without also mentioning these other relevant details. Evading this content in the lead by trying to conceal and trivialize the issue is unacceptable. As I said, this is too controversial. The only responsible place to have this discussion is in the section on criticism. Even better would be to reassign this content to the Ethereum Classic article itself or possibly a completely separate article.

I'm mainly focusing my attention on the controversial nature of Ethereum Classic. There is clearly a controversy regarding the details of the DAO hack itself. My immediate concern, however, is not with this event as such, but with how this event has been used on Wikipedia and elsewhere to artificially inflate the public profile of Ethereum Classic. I've argued these concerns at length and have done what is my power to persuade you of their legitimacy. I recommend we leave the article as is without the offending edit. I see no reason for your opposition. There is strong evidence of an extensive controversy. Controversial issues demand critical judgment. The lead is an inappropriate place to expand on this form of criticism.

Aliensyntax (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Aliensyntax insists on repeatedly removing all mention of The DAO and Ethereum Classic from the article lede, on the basis that it is mentioned lower in the article (it's been shoved into a section titled "criticism", which is in itself inappropriate for history). Multiple editors have added it, he keeps removing it.

I believe this is inappropriate on the basis that, per WP:LEDE, the intro section should constitute a complete short article in itself, and The DAO achieved widespread mainstream press and caused a fork of the chain and breaking of the smart contract promise of immutability, which was discussed in RSes at length, so not mentioning them is excluding relevant information. It's one of the most important events in the history of Ethereum, and there's lots of RSes concerning it.

When I noted it was 4-1 against him, this was after also reiterating my points above; this is misrepresented by Aliensyntax in his summary of the dispute.

Aliensyntax's reasons for wanting to exclude Ethereum Classic are, per the talk page, his belief that it is immoral and mentioning it would blacken the good name of Ethereum:

there is consistent and pervasive illicit behavior and manipulation with respect to Ethereum Classic. The Ethereum Classic community is responsible for enabling the theft of millions

(there's several paragraphs more of this)

Of course, this is not a Wikipedia criterion - we document reprehensible people at length if they are relevant and in RSes, and his claims above are not documented in RSes present in the article. However, he wants to exclude Ethereum Classic from the lead contingent on his RS-less critique being added to the article:

There is no legitimate reason to mention Ethereum Classic without also mentioning these other relevant details.

I'm pretty sure that's not how our sourcing policies work.

He also advocates a WP:POVFORK:

Even better would be to reassign this content to the Ethereum Classic article itself or possibly a completely separate article.

Again, we don't do POV forks.

While I don't question his sincerity, I do believe he is slipping into advocacy rather than documentation. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs.

He also seems to take others' edits as evidence of hostility, but not his own similar editing. His lengthy posts about morality on the talk page should be read by all interested in this dispute. - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard - I welcome your participation in the dispute resolution process. This is the clearest statement of your views I've encountered to this point. Thank you. However, I must challenge a number of your claims:
1. You claim my basis to remove your edit is due to my moving it to criticism.
This isn't the basis for the removal, but a result of the argument I've presented about this issue. I summarize this argument in my opening statement. My proposal to use the criticism section is to ensure the neutrality of this article.
2. You claim "multiple editors" have introduced the offending edit.
There have been 2 editors who have explicitly added the offending edit since I've entered this discussion: yourself and 92.237.175.241. You have both done this repeatedly, for a total of three times each. I reverted 5 of these edits since May 7th. You'll note a 4th editor stepped in to support my decision: 129.15.41.148. So, in reality, the conflict was 2 editors-for and 2 editors-against discounting the number times we made our edits. You've claimed a greater degree of consensus on this tenuous basis and characterized my revisions as being extreme. The revision history would not support that interpretation. Regardless, a simple tally of "votes" is no ground to assume rational justification.
3. You claim the DAO and Ethereum Classic are vital to Ethereum's "history".
This is a minority view and also factually incorrect. The DAO was an application built on the Ethereum platform. Its relation to Ethereum is equivalent to pets.com to the internet. It wasn't created by the Foundation or the "Ethdev" consortium. Slock.it, an independent and for-profit business, created it. The "hack of the DAO" is no more relevant than the defacement of pets.com. Obviously, you aim to argue that the "DAO hard fork" is what is critically important to Ethereum's history. But again, I have to disagree. There have been several high-profile forks in the history of Ethereum. Why are these not also mentioned in the lead? They aren't in the lead because we all know they're irrelevant to the primary subject. The DAO controversy is only asserted as "relevant" because of the role this event plays in the Ethereum Classic community. It's only from their adversarial and non-representative point of view that this event would matter. The event carries very little actual relevance in the Ethereum ecosystem itself. Again the primary subject of the article is Ethereum; not the DAO, not the DAO hack, and not Ethereum Classic. Your assumption that it should be such is misguided.
4. You claim the lead should include the offending edit because "The DAO achieved widespread mainstream press".
As above, so below. You're equivocating the media coverage of an application with the platform it was hosted on. You're conflating this media coverage with the notability of the hard fork and the development of Ethereum Classic. But these are all separate events. Ethereum Classic wasn't covered as widely as the hard fork. The hard fork wasn't covered as widely as the hack of the DAO. The hack of the DAO wasn't covered as widely as the DAO itself. You're mistakenly imputing notability to a controversial issue on account of nothing more than hearsay and insinuation. WP:LEAD clearly advises against using the news-style -- "Tabloid, magazine and broadcast news leads may be 'teasers' that intentionally omit some crucial details to entice readers to read or watch the full story, and may even 'bury the lead' by hiding the most important fact. This style should never be used on Wikipedia." Your proposed edit is a scandal mongering news headline whose only effect is to cast a false light on the primary subject and further mislead the reader by deliberately burying the most critical details of the issue it mentions.
5. You claim that a "promise" was broken with respect to "immutability".
Well, this is precisely what I've been referring to. The fact that you'd bring up immutability is evidence of your bias for the minority view. This issue is only brought up by people who misunderstand the nature of Byzantine mining consensus. In particular, it's the talking point of the Ethereum Classic community. Your so-called RSes are heavily disputed by other RSes. It's an irrelevant and factually incorrect argument. No "promise" can be "broken" with respect to "immutability". In what possible world would that be the case? Immutability is only a property of blockchain systems on account of consensus. This property cannot be "promised" by anyone as it requires the collective social agreement of the network majority. Where did you ever get the idea that Ethereum can promise anything? You do realize Ethereum is a "decentralized" system, correct? It'll do whatever the community of users decides it should do in virtue of the consensus protocol. This is the mainstream view on the immutability debate. It's not based on opinion, but cold technical fact. I can provide you with a long list of RSes if that'll persuade you stop making these covert and biased edits in favor of Ethereum Classic.
6. You claim I misrepresent this dispute in my summary.
To my understanding, I have yet to misrepresent a single detail. As can be seen in the revision history, you said: "per talk page discussion, it looks 4-1 to include this". You assumed the support of "the original editor who added it" but who was the "original editor"? For all I know, you could've been the original editor. And even if you weren't, it's misleading for you to suggest that someone who wasn't privy to the talk page discussion should count as support. It's also misleading for you to claim the support of the two users who commented. They expressed a single short remark each and had not engaged in further discussion. You hastily assumed that this would be sufficient to support your view and that no other editor would agree with my side of the dispute. But in fact, there was another user who supported it: 129.15.41.148. There may very well be others who will express their position on this in the future. Clearly, you exaggerated the nature of your support to mislead others about the consensus. My summary was fairly accurate, in this respect.
7. You claim my concerns are invalidated because they are moralistic.
I've certainly argued we should be more explicit about the reprehensible moral, legal, and political issues involved in this discussion. I've provided more than a few paragraphs about this. However, nowhere have I said this content shouldn't be covered. My claim has always been that we should expand on this material in the relevant section. The policy guidelines don't discourage such topics, nor would I want them to; they emphasize caution and critical judgment, as have I.
8. You claim my critique is contingent on reliable sources being added to the article.
I'm more than willing to share my extensive references to support the claims I've made to this point. Would you care to tell me which claims in particular you think should be reliably sourced and linked to the article?
9. You claim that I advocate a WP:POVFORK.
This is yet another equivocation of Ethereum with Ethereum Classic. There is no WP:POVFORK. The primary subject has no reason to split into a separate article as that separate article already exists: it's called "Ethereum Classic". I fail to see why the lion's share of the criticism shouldn't be on the Ethereum Classic article itself. That's common sense. The Ethereum article, as the primary subject, is only required to outline the most relevant details. I don't expect the article to provide a lengthy exposé on Ethereum Classic.
10. You claim that I'm slipping into WP:ADVOCACY.
This is a highly ironic statement. Please elaborate on the nature of my "advocacy".
11. You claim that my concerns are an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
That's an interesting characterization. Do I believe there's a great wrong involved here? Not exactly. I simply believe your edit serves to undermine the integrity of the article and is not supported by the content policy guidelines you're so fond of citing. I also believe your evident bias has clouded your judgment about my motivations.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David here that it should be included in the intro. The largest news event relating to Ethereum was The DAO event, and the subsequent fork. Aliensyntax, your long winded answers here on this subject look like WP:OWNERSHIP and/or WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - You don't appear to be assuming WP:GOODFAITH. I've expressed a firm conviction that this edit is unbalanced and inappropriate and have supported that conviction with significant and legitimate argumentation.
Wouldn't you agree that it's dismissive to trivialize and brush aside my point of view by calling it "long-winded"? I've explained with abundant clarity why your side of this dispute is problematic. Have I been concise? Certainly not, but I have been explicit. This is a complex issue to communicate to the rest of you. I take no joy in being the only one to argue in favor of the revision, but I have to stand by my judgments.
It's not my intent talk over you with my extensive onesided comments. I have no wish to draw this dispute out ad nauseam. I simply think we should be taking this issue more seriously. You don't seem to be doing that when you ignore the concerns of other editors and evade your responsibility to engage in the process of forming a fair and reasonable consensus. With that said, if you feel strongly about opposing me you're welcome to express your position on the dispute resolution noticeboard.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
You write the same opinions repeatedly, several paragraphs each time. I'm afraid I concur with Jtbobwaysf on this. (And if we agree on something, that's remarkable enough it might be worth consideration ;-) ) More at the DR - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made a few changes:

1. I moved the content up into history, and deleted this section called controversy. I don't think there is any controversy on this subject, besides the controversies between editors.

2. I have moved the excess content out of the intro section into the same history section, and left a small statement that acknowledges The DAO and Classic (both important and required in my opinion in the intro).

3. I deleted the outrageous sentence that has 12 citations. Aliensyntax then reverted my edit. Rather than reverting your revert, please fix the sentence, or it will again be deleted as a violation of WP:OVERKILL. I also question if classic is really controversial, and if it is controversial the discussion of it being controversial probably belongs on the Ethereum Classic page. This page is about Ethereum, not classic, and the purpose of this page is to discuss Ethereum, not disparage Classic. Here is the sentence that needs to be fixed.

The project has been considered controversial in a number of respects[23][24][25][26][27][28] and is generally not supported[20][29][30][31] by the official post-fork blockchain[19][21] and its network of developers, business partners, miners, and users.

Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - I accept your moving the DAO fork into history. Unfortunately, this lengthy section was starting to overcrowd the primary subject. My rearrangement of the section order is a response to this lack of logical precedence.
I also accept your gutting of my lead edit. As I've said before, the issue is complex and cannot be easily summarized. The attempt to do so is likely to mislead the reader per WP:NPV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and so on. I've provided the relevant context and RSes for the disproportionate nature of the hard fork in the main article. This isn't a prejudice on my part, but a factual and relevant description of the consensus mechanics of the network. It can't be omitted from the lead without obscuring the fact that there's a profound difference in notability between the two networks. That said, I'm satisfied with my current edit to protect the NPV. I suggest we stop warring over this.
I further acknowledge your concern about WP:OVERKILL. This is the result of trying to collapse an extensive controversy into a single brief sentence. As such, I've rewritten the DAO section to elucidate the nature of the references in more accessible terms.
To respond to your question about whether Ethereum Classic is actually controversial. I obviously submit that it is. My conviction, to be perfectly honest, is based on direct and largely unsourceable knowledge of this controversy. I know all too well this can't serve as a sufficient ground for my claim that it is in fact highly controversial. Fortunately, there's enough coverage on this in RSes to support a lighter version of this claim. My only interest is to provide an objective account of the situation. I'm restricting myself to the role of documenting the most reliable and relevant facts. I'll be sure to add stronger sourcing as these enter the literature.
What I'm calling the "controversy" is highly relevant to the Ethereum Classic article. It's also directly relevant to Ethereum. These two communities are intertwined in a complex technical, economic, and psychological conflict. Their relative connection to each other should be explicit. The fact that they aren't supported by the Ethereum Foundation, for instance, is an important point. Many readers aren't aware of the basic differences that exist between the development, business, software, and social infrastructures of these two networks. I believe, for the sake of the reader, they should be informed about the nature of this relationship. I've updated the article to support this consideration.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
First, unless you can support some sort of controversy relating to Ethereum (this is the Ethereum article, not the Classic article) leave it out. Or a passing mention in one sentence since you think it is really important, but it can't have a dozen citations, otherwise it is WP:OVERKILL.
Second, it looks strange to me to see the history at the end of the article, dunno when this happened. I will move it up to the top, as that is the standard used by bitcoin, Microsoft, and Oracle Corporation.
Third, I have deleted for a second time your text that you stated Ethereum is the "majority chain" and Classic is the "minority chain," your citations do not support that claim. It is starting to appear the purpose of your edits is to slander Classic. Wikipedia is not the place for that, we just add content that has WP:RS, that's it...
Happy editing...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
To reiterate my statement on the dispute resolution noticeboard:
Jtbobwaysf - This is a technology and engineering article. It's about a platform, not a company or corporation. You're simply conflating "Ethereum" with the "Ethereum Foundation". If you take a look at the Bitcoin article, the most legitimate comparison for the current article, you'll notice that "design" is the the top-level section relative to "etymology and orthography". Stop fishing for reasons to prolong this conflict. The architecture and ecosystem of Ethereum dwarf the notability of "history." You have no logical basis or precedence to assume it should be otherwise.
On to your second point, the citations I've added refer to the hard fork chain. There was overwhelming consensus for the hard fork by the miners, coinholders, investors and users, as demonstrated in a wide variety of empirical metrics. I've added several citations establishing that fact and can provide more if necessary. You've exhibited a rather clear failure to understand the consensus mechanics and social nature of the two networks. You've also exhibited an unwillingness to accept the reliable sources I've offered on this issue, choosing instead to ignore and delete the relevant context. Your stance on this matter is demonstrably biased and is typical of my reason for seeking to establish consensus on the talk page and dispute resolution notice board.
I strongly oppose your most recent contentious edits and have reversed them. Your editing at this point, after all that's been said, is simply unreasonable. I'd like to open this dispute up to a request for comments, as suggested by the moderator. I advise that the page be protected until a neutral third-party can assess the situation.
Aliensyntax (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits have been every bit as, if not more, contentious, and you have followed it with contentiousness on the talk pages and in your interactions with other editors. Please stop, keep to the subject - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
David Gerard I think you mean "conscientiousness". Your opinion is noted.
Some basic references on the hard fork for those interested in this discussion:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
- Aliensyntax (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Aliensyntax, please provide WP:RS that support your claim that Classic is the minority and regular Ethereum is the majority. I have looked at all 4 sources you have listed in the content you reverted, and none of them support that claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In relation to Ethereum, the current citations establish 3 facts:
1. The miners voted "overwhelmingly" for the hard fork. It would be on this basis that the network split. The hard fork required a minimum of 51% of the hashing resources to establish the protocol update. A "conservative" estimate of the aggregate vote of the mining pools is that 85% of the miners supported the hard fork.
2. The Foundation has declared a commitment to support the community consensus; to "focus [its] resources and attention on the chain which is now called ETH (ie. the fork chain)". This support of the community consensus extends beyond the miners alone to include the developers, stakeholders, and business partners in the Ethereum ecosystem. This is explained further in the DAO hard fork references and clearly establishes the official nature of the post-fork Ethereum.
3. The result of the hard fork had little negative impact on sentiment. Most industry entrepreneurs and enterprise executives believed the Ethereum developers displayed better governance practices. It shows they continued their interest in the "post-fork" version of the network despite the split with Ethereum Classic. This further establishes the mainstream understanding and legitimacy of the Ethereum project and supports the fact that there's a very notable inequality between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.
These references provide the minimal reliable sourcing required to establish the incommensurate nature of the consensus at the time of the fork in addition to the dominant public perception of authority and legitimacy after the fork. Clearly, the very implication of these facts is that Ethereum Classic failed to secure the consensus, technical leadership, and public interest of the community. The market inequality between the price of Ethereum and Ethereum Classic merely reinforces these facts.
This doesn't necessarily have to imply that one is inherently superior or inferior to the other. However, it's clear the pre-fork Ethereum is still a "minority" in all these relevant senses with respect to Ethereum itself. The continued insistence and insinuation that these two networks are equivalent or identical is what breaks the WP:NPV. By analogy, this is nearly equivalent to saying that the heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe carry the same validity; or saying an elected official is on the same footing as their non-elected opponent. It doesn't make any sense. It appears very biased when the situation is painted this way.
To further allay your concerns, I've added one further reference regarding the informal and influential vote that took place on Carbonvote. This is forcing my hand on the WP:OVERKILL issue. You be the judge if this should be included.
I'd also appreciate an idea of where the other editors stand on all this before I make a request for comment. Are we still in contention? Do you all still think I'm crazy or are we ready to move on?
- Aliensyntax (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You have added the following text to the article: "The DAO incident created a schism between Ethereum and Ethereum Classic that has, according to some observers, spawned a bitter economic and psychological rivalry between the two networks." As far as I can tell is your edits are bringing this rivalry to wikipedia, where it has no place (assuming arguendo that this rivalry even exists). If this page is going to become a political rivalry page, then we need to implement a much stricter WP:RS on this Classic section. David was advocating this earlier to for the entire page, and I was opposed to it, but maybe he had more foresight than me of where this would lead to... BTW, the admin over at the dispute resolution board already asked us to stop editing, so I am going to leave it for now (as comical as the page now looks)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it entirely reasonable that ETC is the minority fork in any reasonable sense of the term - lower trading volume would be the obvious indicator of interest - but finding an RS to note it is another matter. ("Market cap" is a meaningless number that I dislike strongly, though again even the FT has mentioned "market cap" of cryptos as if it means something.) The mining power did vote for the DAO hard fork, pretty sure that's already in sources.
and yeah - nobody who's ever been quoted in the press could give anything other than a hollow laugh at the Wikipedia jargon term "reliable sources" (I've been flabbergasted in the past at some of the stuff attached to my name) and our epistemology is pretty shallow and easy to break on the edge cases, but it does give mostly usable results on most subjects, or enough for readers not to complain much, and does deal handily with a lot of editor arguments ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


Why is there a mention of the DAO in the very first part of this article on Ethereum when there is section designated for the DAO at the bottom of the article? The DAO is not "what' Ethereum is which is what the introductory paragraph of an encyclopedia should describe. History should go in a subsection. The following line should be removed and any information that isn't already provided in the DAO section should be added there: "Ethereum in 2016 was forked disproportionately into two blockchains, as a result of the collapse of The DAO project. The minority fork was renamed to Ethereum Classic,[3] while the majority fork has retained the name Ethereum (the subject of this article)." Dopamine soup (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

In active discussion, if you read the rest of this page - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard, You have not included any discussion in response to what I've said. As explained, you are placing a redundant sentence in the introductory paragraph of this article that is a historical note and belongs in the history section titled DAO. The introduction is to describe what Ethereum "is" succinctly. You should not be including this by default while an ongoing discussion is occuring. Historical details do not belong in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopamine soup (talkcontribs) 22:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard, you appear to have downvoted my editor rating which is abusive and by placing out of context historical details in the introductory paragraph of the article you appear to be vandalizing the article to emphasize a historical item for an unknown reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopamine soup (talkcontribs) 23:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

David is just helping you as you are disrupting the in-progress RfC process with your edit. Please do not make any further changes to the lede of this article until the RfC immediately below this section has concluded. Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on lede paragraph[edit]

Which of the following should be used in the lede paragraph of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Options[edit]

A. The hack of The DAO in July 2016 led to a hard fork in the blockchain to reverse the hack, with a separate blockchain, Ethereum Classic, for those who rejected the DAO fork.

A(2) The hack of The DAO in July 2016 led to a hard fork in the blockchain to reverse the hack, with those who rejected the fork renaming the existing chain Ethereum Classic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

B. In 2016, Ethereum was "hard forked" disproportionately into two blockchains, as a result of the collapse of The DAO project. A faction of the network continued their support of the pre-fork version of the Ethereum blockchain and dubbed it Ethereum Classic, while the vast majority chose to move onward with the official post-fork Ethereum blockchain (the subject of this article).

B(2) In 2016, Ethereum was "hard forked" into two blockchains, as a result of the collapse of The DAO project. A faction of the network continued their support of the pre-fork version of the Ethereum blockchain and dubbed it Ethereum Classic, while the vast majority chose to accept the post-fork Ethereum blockchain (the subject of this article). Hedgepigdaniel 02:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

C. In the summer of 2016, the Ethereum community decided to hard fork the Ethereum blockchain as a result of the hacking of The DAO project. A small minority portion of the community did not support the hard fork on ideological grounds and has continued the pre-forked chain, which acquired the name Ethereum Classic with the ticker symbol (ETC). Since the hard fork, Ethereum has consistently maintained a significantly higher price and hash rate than Ethereum Classic.

D. (None, no mention of Ethereum Classic in the lead) Hedgepigdaniel 01:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgepigdaniel (talkcontribs)

I would support D over B, obviously. I'm still very much opposed to the lead mention. Aliensyntax (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Instructions[edit]

Please provide your opinions, with a very brief justification, in the Survey. Do not reply to opinions in the Survey. You may provide a fourth option in the Survey, but do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  1. A. (Which I wrote.) It's as absolutely concise as possible, and notes the events for the lede, which is all that's needed there IMO - David Gerard (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    A2 is fine by me too - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. A. It's supported by all the sources I have read, leaves all the topics that need more nuanced discussion and consideration to later where they belong and avoids synthesis/POV/OR. it is also concise in the way a lede demands. ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC) → Updating to say I like A2 as well and am happy with whichever option is preferred. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. D-B-C. I wrote the description for B on account of the disagreement expressed by a few editors concerning the proposed exclusion of the lead mention (option D). As this sentiment seems to be shifting, I must reaffirm my original support for D over the other alternatives (currently 4 in favor of D at this time). If that option is deemed unacceptable, I reluctantly opt for B more strongly than C (which makes a similar, but slightly less relevant point). The description for B is widely covered by reliable sources and heavily supported in the article body. It seeks to provide a partial disclosure of the profound and highly misleading differences between the so-called "pre-fork" and "post-fork" versions of Ethereum. It has been offered as a minimal solution to redress the false equivalence / NPV violation that would be created by the negligent omission of this difference, i.e. option A. I consider this issue to be deserving of special attention because there are serious biases, conflicts of interest, and perverse incentives involved in this case to promote the interests of an adversarial, financially-motivated, and largely tangential project called Ethereum Classic. I've presented my arguments on this matter at length on the article talk page and dispute resolution noticeboard and have chosen this rather simplistic description to inoculate the article against this special case of prejudice and contentious editing. Aliensyntax (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) updated preferences Aliensyntax (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. B-C - I know nothing about the topic of this article, and A was too concise for me. Seraphim System (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. C While #A may be concise, it is not accurate. Ethereum Classic did not form a separate blockchain. The Ethereum community hard forked off the blockchain which became known as Ethereum Classic. I would be fine with a version of A that reflected this. --The 13th 4postle (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. A, noting I think A2 is slightly better, as it makes it clear that Classic did not fork. Making this change hoping that @The 13th 4postle: will join A votes with that tweak, as to my understanding Classic is the remainder of the users that were opposed to the hard fork, thus Classic didn't fork. A wording can be adjusted in some other way as well. If I have committed a foul by adding a tweak to the options above, apologize in advance Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  7. B. ETC and ETH both contain the original blockchain; ETH went back a few blocks and continued from there on with the sole intention to restore the stolen funds from the DAO leakage while ETC supporters found that action illegitimate and continued regardless of the fraud. Formally ETH forked off the ETC blockchain, but don't get too emotional on this! I would put things as nuanced as possible as long as a proper verification is available. Liechtenstein96 (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. I change my vote to A2 then. ETH did not go back a few blocks either. It was a state change. They basically added one (unnatural) transaction where they took the funds in control of the DAO hacker and moved into a smart contract for distribution. --The 13th 4postle (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  9. There should be no mention of Ethereum Classic in the lead. It has its own name and article. The fact that Ethereum and Ethereum Classic share the same ancestor chain is a historical detail for Ethereum and can be discussed elsewhere in the article. If there must be such a sentence in the lead, I would favour B2 Since it is accurate and does not exaggerate the notability of Ethereum Classic or contain any charged language. A (in the context of the lead) exaggerates the significant of Ethereum Classic (which has a very low level of support amongst users) to Ethereum (the subject of the article). The DAO hack and Ethereum Classic arose from Ethereum but neither is a primary aspect of what Ethereum is. Hedgepigdaniel 02:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Neither - I like the way it is now. Summoned by bot, and not expert, but any reason that can't be an option? It seems simple and concise, and non-judgemental. I do think that Ethereum Classic needs to be mentioned in the lede since it's an important part of Ethereum's history, and the similar names might lead to confusion otherwise. Timtempleton (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  11. Option D, with no mention in the lede of any of the Ethereum forks, seems the best to me. Rationale: Ethereum seems to have had at least four hard forks, and has another one planned for 2017 Seems low-level detail to mention in the lede, and especially mentioning only one of those seems to violate WP:POV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  12. D - (randomly invited by a bot, only now learning about ethereum) I understand that those in the throes of the controversy may view this as a critical topic of the project. However as an uninvolved outsider, I think this hack and its repercussions in the likely long life of the project are subject to WP:UNDUE. The matter is well covered in the body and if folks feel it needs emphasis then use headings in the body for that. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

Why are users from the dispute resolution thread commenting on this RfC? The comments should be coming from neutral parties with an understanding of the context of the dispute, not the disputants themselves. David Gerard and ClareTheSharer, you've both already expressed your views on this issue. Why are you interfering here? The entire point of this RfC is to get an outside opinion, not to front-load the results in your favor. Aliensyntax (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aliensyntax - They had expressed their opinions at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is not part of this RFC, although it originated the RFC. The purpose of this RFC is to obtain the views of the Wikipedia community, and they are members of the Wikipedia community, as are you and I. When this RFC is closed in 30 days by a neutral closer, consensus will be determined by this RFC, not by a combination of this RFC and opinions expressed in other forums also. They are not interfering, but are contributing properly to the RFC. If you have any complaints about the conduct of the RFC, please first read the boomerang essay and then take your concerns to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Call for POV on ethereum subreddit[edit]

Here htps://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/6dkc8w/why_do_we_keep_letting_david_gerard_who_obviously/ there was a called for editing this article in the way to please to ethereum lovers. Xavier Combelle (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't approve of this Reddit post. I've argued for my side of this dispute without external support. The last thing I want is to have my legitimate concerns undermined by tenuous suspicions. I believe this dispute should be resolved strictly on the strength of the arguments, evidence, and content guidelines.
With that said I don't think it's justified to treat the thread as a POV conflict to please "ethereum lovers". This is a rather uncharitable and lopsided interpretation. The thread is clearly an attempt to bring more visibility to the lack of neutrality with respect to Ethereum Classic in the present article. If you read through my remarks, you'll see I've carefully supported this position from the beginning. I firmly believe the users of the Ethereum subreddit are merely trying to express the facts of the matter. Their point of view should be carefully taken into account, not uncritically dismissed with suspicion.
It goes without saying that there are potential biases and conflicts of interest on both sides of this dispute. It's very difficult to discern who is truly acting from a neutral point of view. I've certainly focused my attention on the prejudice coming from Ethereum Classic and so it could very well appear like I'm being partisan to Ethereum. That shouldn't suggest the absence of similar prejudices in the Ethereum community. I'm very conscious of these as well. However, I've yet to observe an indisputable instance of this prejudice in the main article. What I've observed, to be perfectly frank, is the rather conspicuous lack of understanding of the contentious nature of this situation and a powerful unwillingness to fairly address the legitimate concerns which have been routinely brought up by myself and others.
While I don't agree with the creation of the thread, I do firmly support its contents. Aliensyntax (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
You totally don't support a personal attack thread with a call for brigading, you just support it? ok - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
David Gerard - The thread is calling you out for being a disruptive influence with respect to the neutrality of the article. Framing this as a personal attack and call for brigading does not make it so - nor does it invalidate the claim that you do in fact have a long history of disruptive editing.
It is this "claim" that I firmly support. My considered judgment is that your editing is not done in the spirit of a free encyclopedia. There is no "personal attack" here. Such criticisms are not based on ad hominems, prejudice, doxxing, or anything of the sort. They're based on reasoned evidence in relation to your heavy-handed mistreatment of the relevant content. I'm not concerned with you personally as an editor, I'm concerned with the extreme editing practices which have been carried out in your name. Playing the victim card in this case will likely backfire.
To be perfectly clear, I've analyzed your revision history in depth and concluded - based on all the available evidence - that you 1) lack competence in treating the subject-matter of the article, 2) have a very pronounced and non-representative negative bias, and 3) distort the content guidelines for the purpose of carrying out an illegitimate personal crusade against Ethereum. The vast majority of your edits are highly destructive and non-objective in nature. They could very well be interpreted as vandalism. I can support these particular claims at length.
I've tried to be civil with you. I've tried to assume good faith. However, you have tested my patience with your intransigence and obvious personal and ideological agenda. You should know that I've reviewed my options to have you locked-out of the article and am prepared to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee and Administrator's noticeboard if necessary. I would rather not go down that road. I would suggest we cooperate. Aliensyntax (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I think insinuating threats to another editor like that is probably not prima facie evidence of wanting to work with others. You've been similarly combative on this page at length. Have you considered addressing the issues and not the editor? - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
At wikpedia we (all of us as volunteers) address the content, not the other editors. Sure we have differences of opinion, but us finding consensus is part of the process of building something great. Ethereum is just one article on wikipedia, and no more important than another. Wikipedia is not a place for editors to promote why Microsoft stock is better than Oracle, nor why Microsoft's ERP is better than Oracle's ERP. That same thinking also applies for Ethereum, Ethereum Classic, Counterparty, etc. Let's focus on building good content and leave the discussions of which token/blockchain is better/faster/bigger/strong/original/etc for reddit... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Another Reddit brigade cooking[edit]

with personal attack! I've tried to be as helpful as possible, with actual guideline/policy links. But regular editors should keep an eye out both here and on Ethereum Classic and The DAO for overenthusiastic new editors. Previous brigading was covered in Talk:Ethereum/Archive 1 - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It's always unfortunate when this happens as it leads to a lot of unnecessary negativity towards Wikipedia as a whole. The discussion could have been great and might have lead to great contributions if only they had a basic understanding of WP:POLICY and not an isolated interest in this article. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Apparently I'm also another user, or perhaps two other users, and totally have a huge COI which they can't quite find in WP:COI at present - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Add news? Enterprise Ethereum Alliance grows in size[edit]

"Corporate support for the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA) is growing after 86 firms including State Street, Toyota, Merck, ING, Broadridge and Rabobank joined the collective that is seeking to use blockchain technology to run smart contracts at Fortune 500 companies", cnbc.com/2017/05/23 --Krauss (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Remember:
  • ETC forking Ethereum = WORST AND MOST EVIL OCCURRENCE POSSIBLE, delete from article
  • Companies forking Ethereum = CORPORATE ACCEPTANCE, WORLD DOMINATION IMMINENT, include at length
 ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with both of you, it is useful content and we will see how the partisan's like this addition given that it doesn't run on public ETH, hence no need for the token. Couldn't find an RS to state it doesn't use the ETH token, maybe one will show up in time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely rates at least a mention, particularly having made mainstream press - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aliensyntax:, your recent edits about EEA inputting a large amount of promotional text that you used a citation from a press release wont fly. This violates Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. I appreciate your attempt to expand the enterprise ethereum section, but you have to do it with RS. Second, you replaced some content I had added (fine) but then replaced a citation that was discussed in this talk page section that is more recent (May 2017) with an earlier citation from the NYT (Feb 2017). CNBC on May 23 said there were 86 members of EEA. I also note that you are using 3 citations when only one is needed, and in some cases it appears the claim is not supported by the citation. I can't find in your citations (I didn't bother to look at the press release), support for the claim of 116 members. Be aware of WP:OVERKILL in use of citations and let's keep the PR out of this Ethereum article, it doesn't help wikipedia, or the reader. Please edit your content and remove the content that doesn't comply with wikipedia policies. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - Please explain what you believe is "promotional" about the edit. I included a press release from ConsenSys; the primary source in relation to the EEA. The citation provides the relevant context to support the claims of the secondary source, i.e. the Forbes article by Shin. The reference is more or less to confirm the factuality and notability of the preceding statement. What is your objection to it?
I included one further press release from Market Wire for fact-checking purposes at the end of the paragraph. The claim at the end of this paragraph has two accompanying secondary RSs that establish the EEA's interest in pursuing interoperability between the public and private Ethereum implementations. I think this detail is often overlooked and misrepresented, which is why I've sought to reference its factuality with three independent sources. I fail to see why it would constitute WP:OVERKILL / WP:ADVERTISING.
I replaced the content you added as it was worded incorrectly. You said: "Ethereum has a project called the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance". Ethereum is not the creator of the EEA. The EEA was established independently by many independent parties. I also object to how you framed the content in order to emphasize an exclusive concern with the private Ethereum implementations on behalf of the EEA. The stated mission of the EEA is to cooperate on Enterprise solutions with the Ethereum community and to investigate points of interoperability with the public network. In relation to your CNBC citation, it was removed as it was redundant and added no new information to the paragraph. I had no particular problem with it. Factually speaking, it was simply weaker than the references I selected. Likewise with the CoinDesk article by Hertig.
There are a total of 5 unique references in the EEA section. We could use less if you truly insist, but I don't see why the current sourcing would be excessive given the notability and potential for disagreement over this content. I must also point out that there are certain claims in the paragraph which are synthetic. For example, the claim about there being 116 members is based on sources 85/86 + 87/88. According to 85 or 86, the EEA was formed with 30 members. According to 87 or 88, the EEA added 86 new members: thus, there are at least 116 members.
If you have a legitimate objection that I cannot adequately respond to, I will, of course, be more than happy to alter my contributions. I have no intention to make factually incorrect statements or to work around the content policies. I'm trying to be fair and reasonable with you and the other editors to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances. I hope you don't take my judgments or editing decisions personally. I'm not here to irritate you. I'm here to contribute what I can to improve the objective quality of the article.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
How would a CNBC article be weaker than a press release? Press releases are WP:PRIMARY, and your math about the number of members is WP:ORIGINAL. None of this is kosher. Delete it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - I didn't say it was weaker than the "press release" in particular. I said it was weaker than the "references I selected", which would include the New York Times and Forbes articles. Again, the "primary sources", as you call it, which is only the primary source in relation to the EEA, and not Ethereum itself, are corroborated by reliable secondary sources. Your objection that they should be deleted is invalidated by the fact that they are 1. authoritative and 2. non-exclusive. Please read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and reread WP:PRIMARY. As for your accusation of WP:ORIGINAL, are you even serious? Basic arithmetic is not ""original research". You're simply being confrontational and disruptive for no good reason at this point. - Aliensyntax (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, your math is in fact original research. We let the reliable sources do the math and we add it after. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - You're splitting hairs about a trivial issue. At any rate, it doesn't matter, the Shin reference does indeed provide an explicit quote for the 116 figure. - Aliensyntax (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Smart contract question[edit]

I asked this over at Talk:Smart_contract#Examples_with_running_code_that_people_use.3F as well, but ... as far as I can tell ... Ethereum is actually the first smart contract system that isn't just hypotheticals that people actually use at all. I recall there was XCP/Counterparty on the Bitcoin blockchain, and a few other things on Bitcoin, but they seem to have seen negligible use.

Monax is apparently Ethereum, or uses chunks of Ethereum. (primary source)

What non-hypothetical smart contract systems were there before Ethereum? Is there a list?

To be clear: I don't mean taking past things and saying "well, it's sort of a smart contract system if you squint right" - I mean something that wore the label "smart contract" and was running code used by parties other than its authors - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The DAO hard fork section[edit]

I propose to delete content in the DAO hardfork section that doesn't comply with WP:RS, given the prejudicial nature of the content and the resulting failure to comply with WP:IMPARTIAL. I know this will be controversial, given the discussions above, so discussing here first. The content is often identified by with WP:OVERKILL citations (most or all of which don't comply with RS). I also added a little bit of content with major RS if the comparison section needs to stand, to keep NPOV. Maybe the rest of the primary sourced content needs to be deleted, especially where it contradicts more mainstream sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: - The number of references could probably be trimmed and I would have no problem with that insofar as the content is accurately and objectively portrayed. The number of references is a simple consequence of the controversial (not "prejudicial") nature of the content. It complies with RSs to the highest degree. All primary sources (a total of 3) are backed by reliable secondary sources (a total of 26). The only bias here is your continual assumption that Ethereum Classic deserves some special non-objective marketing treatment to artificially boost its profile in the Ethereum article.
The section is quite balanced as it stands. It provides a factual pro-versus-con stance to discuss both projects in the context of the DAO hard fork event and it further supports that stance with significant, reliable, and largely secondary sources. If you want to trim out certain references, that's fine with me so long as aren't doing it to deliberately twist, remove, or obfuscate factual claims. At any rate, this seems like a pointless discussion. The section provides an objective critical summary of a notable event and conforms to the relevant content guidelines. The fact it disagrees with your personal values and/or beliefs wouldn't make it false or inappropriate. It goes without saying that I strongly object to your proposal. Again, nothing personal, but you're not demonstrating your common sense or competence when you make these sorts of suggestions.
` Aliensyntax (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
There is no need for the primary sources, if they are backed as you say by a secondary source. Citations must comply with WP:OVERKILL and WP:PRIMARY. Do you want to delete the extra citations, and unsupported content (if it exists), or do you want other editors to do it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - I don't believe WP:OVERKILL would apply in this case. Most of the sources are unique to the claims they support; they aren't "redundant"; nor are they overly reliant on primary sources. As I said, there are only 3 primary sources in this section. Their relevance to the paragraph has been very well corroborated by secondary sources and serves to further establish the validity of claims made.
My application of the primary sources is minimalistic and perfectly legitimate per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. You're simply assuming the primary sources are inherently "unreliable" or "unusable". In this situation, to the contrary, the sources provide an authoritative, fact-checked, high-quality, and necessary account of the event. Consider, for instance, the claim that Ethereum Classic is not officially supported by the Ethereum Foundation. The primary source (citation #9) provides a direct statement from the primary source stating why this is the case. On that ground, it's the "best possible source". The secondary sources only corroborate this fact.
I don't think you understand the primary sources policy or the overkill policy. As I see it, you're merely grasping at straws to promote your personal agenda.
You've spoken in generalities and assumed the guidelines are on your side, but you have yet to provide a specific and legitimate content objection. What are the particular references you have a problem with? And what would be your rationale for removing them? Does that rationale respect the content guidelines? That's all I want to know. With that said, you're free to edit out any citation or material you want, just be sure you have a proper justification for doing it. You should realize I've made every effort to prevent biased coverage and ensure all relevant claims are supported. If you doubt that, the burden proof is on you to demonstrate it.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Source, with a lot of detail about the status of Ethereum as of 1Q2017[edit]

Proposal for section re-structuring[edit]

@N2e: - The Groundwork section was to provide an overview of the preliminary work that has gone into the formation and planning of the Ethereum project. Logically, this content should be at the top to provide context for the technical underpinnings of the architecture and ecosystem sections. The historical aspect is relevant, but not as relevant as the engineering aspect. There are many other contingent historical details that could be included to this section, which would extend its length considerably. This will force the article out of focus and promote a digression from the more notable technical content. I recommend we remove the history section entirely and rework the historical details into the relevant section content, e.g. I think the DAO hard fork should go under "Politics".

For clarification, this is the section structure I have in mind:

  • Groundwork, e.g. etymology, inception, milestones, principles.
  • Architecture, e.g. blockchain design, consensus mechanics, protocol economics, the virtual machine, base-layer services, smart contract model, programming interfaces, formal verification.
  • Development, e.g. methodology, frameworks, programming languages, design principles, constructs, interface design.
  • Ecosystem, e.g. Web3 interfaces, blockchain analytics, scaling solutions, privacy solutions, storage solutions, database solutions, computing solutions, information sources, recognition / identity systems, financial processes, business processes, primary industries, service industries, culture industries, Internet of Things, social networks.
  • Community, e.g. the Ethereum Foundation, the EthDev consortium, institutional uptake, contributor diversity, stakeholders, user adoption.
  • Economics, e.g. classification / regulatory status, supply / distribution, in-protocol cryptocurrencies, exchange infrastructure, miner infrastructure, investment and trading, price and volatility, market penetration.
  • Politics, e.g. schools of thought, governance / decision-making processes, the DAO hard fork, contentions / controversies.
  • Security, e.g. third-party platform audits, vulnerabilities, security research / criticism, security guarantees, security-related forks.
  • Impact, e.g. in popular media, in academia, in the arts, in business, in government.

These are only examples, of course. I'm not wedded to this particular section structure or its details. That said, I do think the present article could use some work. The content at this point is largely inadequate / disorganized in my opinion. There are many notable inconsistencies that require attention. It would be beneficial for us to discuss the section titles and their ordering before moving on to the specifics. If the other editors care to weigh in with their opinions on this matter that would be a good start. I'll refrain from making any further alterations until I can get a better sense of everyone's concerns, objections, and preferences; or lack thereof.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I like the broad thinking about how to organize an article, and hope others will weigh in. Yes, this article can definitely use some work to be improved.
I'll just leave a bit of initial feedback here. I don't think "Groundwork" really works, at least not for that mix of topics you specified. You could have a section on etymology (but not sure how encyclopedic that is, since this is not Wiktionary), etc. I think the historical stuff (inception, and milestones as claimed by any organization at some point in time) are plain and simple history, and thus belong in the History section. History is always, of course, messy. For example, the Ethereum Foundation might, as of some date, publish it's milestones (that is an historical statement, and if sourced, should be fine in the article); but those cannot ever and always be the actual milestones of a project. In this case, I read sources in early 2016 that the Metropolis release was anticipated by the EF sometime in 2016; but reality intervenes. There was that whole June/July 2016 hack of The DAO (even though just an application, ... a hard fork ensued), then spam attacks on the network in Sep/Oct 2016 (two hard forks ensued), then who knows what else. But in short, like all software development projects I've ever been associated with, projects have trouble achieving their "planned" milestones; reality happens, not necessarily the plan. What some editor has labeled "Milestones" at present is more of an early release plan or roadmap of the EF, but missing the dates that were originally forecast. We explicate knowledge here, and they aren't milestones for us until they are achieved.
Our job as editors trying to improve the article is to explicate the sourced set of knowledge about a topic in a way that makes it readable and informative to our readers. I think over-reliance on the foundation developer's "milestone's" plan from early 2016, is missing a lot of the real action. It is all history, however. The foundation did claim xyz were their milestones on such and such a date, the hacks and attacks did happen, as did the (extra, unplanned) hard forks of their code base. N2e (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your feedback. There's clearly an issue with the labelling and content of the top-level section. I'm prepared to work around the term "Groundwork" if you find it ambiguous, although I still disagree with the use of "History" to frame the content of this section. Admittedly, "Groundwork" is a rather arcane / philosophical term. It's meant to describe content that is preliminary and/or foundational in nature. As such, the term seems broad enough to include logical as well as historical precedence but narrow enough to exclude the convoluted historical details. While the set of topics I specified do have this property, I can recognize why that might not be immediately obvious. Perhaps it would be better to redesign the section to emphasize a more conceptual ordering? For instance:
— Background
—— Precursors
—— White Paper
—— Yellow Paper
—— The Crowdsale
—— The Foundation
—— The Web3 vision
—— Design rationale
—— Proofs-of-concept
—— Platform roadmap
There's no reason to delve into the excessive development details regarding the different releases of the Ethereum protocol. The platform roadmap (milestones) are distinct from the history of soft and hard-forks. They refer to the dynasties, epochs, or phases of the network. Their significance level in terms of software versioning is much greater than the individual releases, i.e. Frontier is version 1.0, Homestead is version 2.0, Metropolis is version 3.0, and so on. Each version can include a subset of additional minor features or significant fixes as part of the revision history.
For example, in terms of the Geth client history, The DAO hard-fork implementation ("Return of the ETH") is the 13th release of the Homestead dynasty. It's a standard practice to separate releases by affixing their versioning number with a punctuated suffix such as 2.1.0, 2.3.9, 2.6.7, 2.8.8, 2.9.4, and so on. Ethereum didn't suddenly break off from the Homestead branch when the DAO hard-fork happened. The DAO hard-fork was simply included as an unanticipated protocol upgrade in Homestead's development. What I recommend we do is re-assign the more notable fork details to their proper section, e.g. consensus-related forks go under "Consensus Mechanics", security-related forks go under "Security", contentious forks go under "Politics", etc. In this way, we can explicate the forks in their most logical and intelligible contexts and resolve the issue of overloading the top-level section.
- Aliensyntax (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Aliensyntax, I suggest you do sections and the content in your sandbox, we used this approach previously on other articles. Then we can comment on it. In general, I think this wikipedia page is meant to be a good overview of what has received coverage in the press, at least things such as history (both of your suggestions on re-org omit history) as well as controversy, products running on it, etc. Basically you can use a standard section layout from another article like Bitcoin, Microsoft, etc. Also relating to sections on whitepaper, yellowpaper, etc, I can't imagine are going to get developed into full sections, as we won't have RS on it. WP:CRYSTALBALL could apply to the following proposed sections ( White Paper, Yellow Paper, The Web3 vision, Design rationale, Proofs-of-concept, Platform roadmap.)" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing references to immutability[edit]

I am missing a key concept. The idea of Ethereum is to provide an immutable storage. This is mentioned nowhere in the article. Without this attribute, there is no meaning with Ethereum. You could as well use a centralized SQL DB, and it would have been cheaper. The immutability principle is the reason for using a distributed ledger. Without that principle, a distributed ledger is just very costly and ineffective (which is pointed out, without mentioning the benefit). I know the word immutable has political ramifications, but suffice to say that it is not a question of only black or white. It is a question of being immutable enough. The ETC split was to a large extent motivated by immutability principles, which looks strange if Ethereum itself would have no such aspiration. LarsPensjo (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There are significant inconsistencies in the article presently. Immutability is one of them and I agree it should be discussed. I think this principle should be featured in the Design Rationale of the platform (a section that still doesn't exist). Do you have any thoughts about how this material should be treated? - Aliensyntax (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A Design Rationale would be good! The problem with the immutability aspect is that I couldn't find good sources for it. The same goes for some other of Ethereum's heritage from Bitcoin, e.g. consensus mechanisms. It seems this is less well understood or of less interest "out there". LarsPensjo (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
And immutability being broken was why The DAO fork was controversial ... we should have sources to talk about it - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree, would think there are sources out there for it. Lot's of discussion and coverage around the DAO event. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
As the article states Ethereum is blockchain based, it would inherit those design goals. If so, maybe there is no need to explicitly reiterate the same things for Ethereum? The blockchain article doesn't explicitly mention immutability, but it states "By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data". LarsPensjo (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Tag DAO Section[edit]

I have tagged the DAO section for cleanup. Multiple issues, WP:NPOV, WP:OVERTAG and WP:PRIMARY are the main ones. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - Reverting your edit because:
1. I've already explained to you why WP:PRIMARY is non-applicable.
2. You can't claim WP:OVERTAG when there are no tags in the section.
3. You haven't provided sufficient reasoning to justify the use of WP:NPV.
Do you understand the guidelines? - Aliensyntax (talk) 13:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I have re-added the section tag deleted by Aliensyntax. Yes, you are correct, WP:OVERTAG was a brainfart, I meant to tag WP:OVERKILL. Look at the citations. This section does not comply with WP:MOS, specifically it needs WP:BUNDLING.
About NPOV there are multiple NPOV issues relating to the discussion of Ethereum and Ethereum classic in this section, some of the citations are WP:PRIMARY, and the WP:OVERKILL is possibly a result of earlier edit warring on this page.
Last, Aliensyntax it is not up to you to decide the content on this article. our previous discussion about classic. This section requires cleanup. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't claim to know which WP:XYZ tag is appropriate for this section so I haven't changed anything, but it seems obvious to me that there is too much stuff in the section. For example, "Various critics of Ethereum Classic have denounced it as a scam[45][46] and a potential theft of intellectual property,[47] with similar controversial remarks being made on behalf of the opposing camp.". A similar statement could be made of many topics, because people tend to publish over-the-top attacks on things they don't agree with nowadays. If it's appropriate here, it's appropriate in several million other Wikipedia articles. I think it should be dropped. Sayitclearly (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I came to this article looking to learn something about Etherium, which has been in the news lately, and I found the DAO section reasonably neutral and not over cited. I got the impression that both sides had principled reasons for their stances that were not reconcilable. A brief summary of the controversy, such as the "Various critics..." sentence, is totally appropriate here, though I'd like a source or two for the second half of the sentence. Yes, a "similar statement could be made of many topics," and often is, preferably with cites so readers who want to know more about the controversy can delve further. I think I got a good neutral sense of what happened, which is what I expect from a Wikipedia article. WP:OVERKILL is talking about situations far more egregious that the DAO section, see the examples in that essay.--agr (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Absent additional justification, I've removed the tag.--agr (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Buzzwords tag[edit]

What are the buzzwords that concern you? Please do not tag without actually trying to explain the issues. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure, I didn't add the buzzwords tag. I re-added the tag today, thinking maybe a discussion this talk page might like to involve whoever added the tag. If the tag is incorrect, feel free to delete it again, won't bother me. @AtlasDuane: please add some explanation to the buzzwords tag you added, otherwise other editors here on this page want to delete it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Since it looks like no discussion has ensued, I will delete the tag. If that annoys anyone, please feel free to let me know :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

IOTA[edit]

Has nothing that I know to do with Ethereum, but there is a new article going through its normal growing pains with NPOV and edit warring. Crypto lovers and others might want to have a look at IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) Certainly the article could use a few more eyeballs on it... Happy editing... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

users[edit]

@David Gerard:, the claim you reverted today about the number of users being different between classic and regular ethereum is not supported in that source. No mention in that source of users when I looked today. Furthermore, that source is a long set of what looks like two people be quoted, that is not an RS. Did you revert it thinking the claim was supported, or was it because I broke a link later in the article (I just noticed that now as i comment). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Spam deletion of Supported Wallets section[edit]

The classic ethereum page has been in a lengthy discussion regarding the presence of our supported wallet section. It has been repeated many times that the section equates to spam. The supported wallets section has been deleted on the ETC page, also on Bitcoin (dedicated page submitted for deletion). This is the official notice that this section here will be deleted. Moderators wishing to voice their opinions please feel free. Bobbtheman (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A common definition of Spam is that it is unsolicited or undesired messages. In this case, information about wallets is not a message. It is a common question of interest on what wallet to use. So I claim it is not undesired. Therefore, the section is not equating to Spam. It is not a proper motivation for removal. Of course, there still need to be a proper source. If the section eventually becomes lengthy and too big for the article, it can be moved to a page of its own. LarsPensjo (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Lars, this section has a short list of wallets and appears to be properly cited. This content is not controversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

/* Criticism */[edit]

The section currently reads: "The main Ethereum public blockchain and the "ether" cryptocurrency have been criticized for enabling ponzi schemes". This statement does not make sense. It is similar to saying that dollar enables Ponzi schemes, or cars enable robberies. Definition from WP: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities". What does this have to do with Ehereum or any other currency or exchange mechanisms? Retimuko (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe an NPOV issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The source link (ref 100) leads to log-in page, but I found a slightly different link, which leads to the article (not anymore, log-in again, go figure...): https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/06/01/2189634/its-not-just-a-ponzi-its-a-smart-ponzi/ I read the article, and my impression is that there is no criticism of Ethereum or blockchain technology. The article is referring to a paper by a group of researchers at University of Calgary called "Dissecting Ponzi schemes on Ethereum: identification, analysis, and impact". So the article is about researchers looking at a phenomenon. Issues with ICOs are discussed. Benefits of decentralization are questioned. Lack of action by SEC is mentioned. But where is criticism of Ethereum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retimuko (talkcontribs) 18:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Decentralized applications[edit]

This needs working through and sorting what are actual products/services and things in development. It is a mash of both now. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)