User talk:Rbreakle

IOTA draft

Hi @Jtbobwaysf:, would you be willing to go over the references in my sandbox, before I start merging in the IOTA draft? I re-inserted the criticism from your sandbox, and selected better mainstream and academic sources. Ratio is about 10:90 academic:mainstream as you suggested. Sources were selected mainly based on WP:RSP, and academic papers mostly based on impact factor.

Thanks.Rbreakle (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please send me a link to your sandbox? I tried your username/sandbox and I couldn't find it. (maybe my own incompetence). @David Gerard: FYI of this discussion, maybe an WP:SPA for IOTA. I would suggest starting with 0% of content from so called academic unless the academic is in a reliable journal and clearly the source has been peer reviewed (if your primary goal is to have the IOTA article be restarted), we have been seeing a lot of garbage academic recently. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

My sandbox. I do not have a COI: as I mentioned before, there have been quite some editing wars before that seem to be the result of a lack of understanding wikipedia policies and guidelines. My intention is to provide better sources and to get the article a bit more structured, to help avoid new editing wars if and when it would hit mainspace @Jtbobwaysf:.--Rbreakle (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Somehow in error I made comments on the talk page of your sandbox. Not sure how that works, so I blanked it and moved those here.

• We are not using coindesk anymore as an RS.
• Second, please ensure that each sentence is cited. In some cases it appears you are more citing paragraphs, which will quickly be objected to in the crypto space.
• Last, where possible try to just use one or two cites per sentence, unless you think something is really controverial and likely to be challenged. If you want to use 3+ cites, or certainly 4+, then I suggest WP:CITEBUNDLE. You can see a citebundle is used on the Bitcoin Cash page on the bcash altname, as that is highly controversial, that will show you how to do it easily.

All in all looks quite good in overview, I think likely to be approved if you make a few cleanups. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I tried to follow your recommendations in My sandbox:

• I have cited in-line; limited the citations to mostly 1 per line, except in 3. applications and testbeds (max 2) and 5. criticism (max 3).
• Coindesk references (including opinions that were cited from these references) were removed and replaced where possible.
• I listed the impact factor and other metrics of the academic papers in my own notes (paragraph 6), will move those to the talk discussion in the draft.

Remaining issues (which probably can be discussed in the articles draft talk page):

• 13/M attack only reached coindesk as mainstream media AFAIK, and now is cited as a paragraph from academic paper ref 32 (Heilman et al. on Curl-P vulnerability). Do I have to rephrase?
• Ref 41 (security firm lekkertech on 13/M attack) is a (company) blog of a security researcher

Apart from these issues, I think it is ready to be merged. Can I replace the draft, so that others can start reviewing and improving? What would be best practice? Contributer @Kutkraft: is aware and ok, but I would not prefer wiping the draft without some form of green light/guidance from an editor. Should I comment in talk? @Jtbobwaysf:

--Rbreakle (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose this 13M issue can be left out of the article unless there is a clear academic source. What I suggest is to get it approved as draft and later discuss if the 13M sources are sufficient on the article after it makes it to the mainspace. We dont need to cover everything about iota (including non notable hacking events) on wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Modified from original draft

Removed sources

reason: conference paper

reason: conference paper

reason: replaced with mainstream media source

reason: hardly mentions IOTA

reason:conference paper

reason:conference paper

reason: replaced with better reference (IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IF:22)

reason: replaced with better reference

reason: it references powerpoint slides. replaced with reference to the actual paper (not peer-reviewed)

Lines removed from original draft

• Summary

"It stores transactions in a directed acyclic graph structure." -> removed due to bad source

• History

"IOTA was founded in 2015" -> mixed up IOTA ledger and IOTA foundation

• Design

renamed to "Characteristics" to be able to add markets section

• Design (Coordinator)

"IOTA is a centralized by design" -> Incorrecty cited from reference (which in turn is non-peer reviewed). Corrected and replaced with better reference. "A consequence of using the coordinator node is that it creates a bottleneck for transaction confirmations, lowering the number of confirmed transactions per second (TPS) the Tangle can currently process." -> Removed due to weak reference. There may be better references, but they would be academic and I am not sure this is a notable addition to the discussion (coordinator is centralized and a single point of failure).

Added sections

• Applications and testbeds

Examples of early proof of concepts and testbeds using the IOTA network that hit mainstream media

• Attacks and vulnerabilities

Dedicated section towards disclosed vulnerabilities that hit mainstream media

Largely rewritten sections

• Criticism

Added criticism section on IOTA technology, instead of solely focusing criticism on a single incident and the IOTA foundation. Criticism on the handeling of incidents by the IOTA foundation, e.g. data marketplace and DCI were moved to dedicated sections (Applications and Vulnerabilities, respectively)