Talk:Blockchain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Separate article

This ought to be its own article talking about non-Bitcoin implementations Deku-shrub (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The basis of all

The article states:

The technology forms the basis of all cryptocurrencies

This is problematic because a source may not be available. The current source only asserts the weaker, the block chain is an important technology and the block chain could out live Bitcoin. Maybe something like: the block chain was an important step in the development of cryptocurrencies would be better?Jonpatterns (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I was a little bold with my choice of wording. Ironically, cryptocurrency says 'Cryptocurrencies typically feature ... a public ledger (such as bitcoin's block chain) which records transactions' - but also doesn't give a citation! Deku-shrub (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Blockchain"

The usage and primary topic of Blockchain is under discussion, see talk:Blockchain -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: procedurally closed. This is a mess, I'm going to close the two concurrent discussions and open up a new multi-move RM. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


note: the latter has been redirected to Bar-link chain Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

– This subject looks like the primary topic after a Google web search, along with the relevant books and news searches. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC) ʬʬ (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Notice of move and an alternative - Sorry to kind of derail this thread, but I noticed a couple issues with this proposal and also saw what looked like a good solution.
  • The main issues with the move proposal are first that it proposes two moves without tagging the other page (not a big deal, but you need to tag the article itself, not just mention it on the talk page). And second, it seems premised on WP:RECENTISM (a mechanical device that has been around for as long as this has is the sort of thing that requires more work to find sources, but which shouldn't be marginalized by a recent flurry of popular press attention (a more extreme example would be to ask how much coverage we've seen about "gears" lately in comparison to Gears the comic book, the Transformer, the general sense of "equipment", the video game, etc.?). I wouldn't argue that block chain is more notable, necessarily, because Wikipedia necessarily skews recent due to availability of sources, but I would certainly oppose the argument that this article should be the default topic.
  • But those issues are, in a way, moot. The one source used at the block chain article calls it a "bar-link chain". Since the source is authoritative and there seems to be fairly wide use of "bar-link chain", I've boldly moved that article to bar-link chain and updated the disambiguation page and inbound links accordingly. I've also redirected Block chain to the disambiguation page Blockchain, as I still don't think any one of those subjects is more significant than the others. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The bar-link chain article has been a single-paragraph single-source stub article since 2009 when it was created; the term "block chain" is not used to refer to CBC in cryptography literature — the acronym CBC is primarily used. Blockchain.info was named after Bitcoin's block chain, making this one WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- intgr [talk] 08:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


– I've closed two RMs that were largely discussing the same issue (here and here) so we can have a single discussion and come to a clear consensus. The questions is whether Block chain (database) is the primary topic of "Block chain", or whether the disambiguation page should be located at the base location. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not having the requisite engineering background, I'm entirely unfamiliar with Block chain as it pertains to Bar-link chain
It does appear that "Block chaining" is the same technology used in the Block Chain itself, but I don't know enough about the crypto to confirm or deny this. Should these be the same technologies at play, I would happy to make this the primary article. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the face of a Google Book search "a block chain is" "block chains are" a dab seems required. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the dual move requests just prior; this all revolved around WP:RECENTISM due to the rise of bitcoin. The historic uses are also quite notable. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments above — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment in previous discussion. --Claw of Slime (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The other notions mentioned in the disambiguation page are either sufficiently discernible, like the bar-link chain, which, as noted by another editor, has been a single-paragraph single-source stub article since 2000, or the block cipher mode of operation, which is never referred to as the "block chain" in the sources. Moreover, the last alternative meaning, blockchain.info is a term derived from the "block chain" name of the distributed transaction database. Thus, the "block chain" as the name for the distributed transaction database is demonstrably primary. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Ladislav's arguments, which were also pointed out by myself in the original discussion. -- intgr [talk] 12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cryptocurrency task force/Invite

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Block chain vs Blockchain

So Block chain has more hits, but blockchain gets the top news stories

The bitcoin wiki uses block chain

Personally I'm a fan of the one-word blockchain. Thoughts? 20:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • block chain is used by the majority of sources
  • the bitcoin white paper introducing bitcoin and block chain uses separate words block and chain
  • block chain is less likely confused with company names like blockchain.info
That is why I prefer the block chain orthography Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Small point: the bitcoin white paper mentions neither blockchain nor block chain, so I don't think it's relevant here. -- Yablochko (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"the bitcoin white paper mentions neither blockchain nor block chain" - that is false. The white paper defines the block chain, it is the first source mentioning it, using both the word block and the word chain quite often. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The only orthographical definition in the white paper is for an "electronic coin", there is no mention of block chain and certainly no definition. If you believe otherwise please quote the text you have in mind. -- Yablochko (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it might be worth revisiting this now:

  • The Oxford English Dictionary has just defined the term as "blockchain" with no space.
  • I think blockchain is now used by the vast majority of sources, Google News currently reports 2,350 results for "block chain" and 52,900 for "blockchain". I appreciate the results are distorted by mentions of "blockchain.info" the company, but a quick check of the reports suggests most are not referring to the company.

-- Yablochko (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is more relevant what Google finds than it is what the reliable sources mention. And there, the results are in favour of the "block chain" orthography. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Today's article in the NY Times uses "blockchain."[1] We could add some info from this article about how banks are exploring the use of blockchain technology. TimidGuy (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav what numbers are you getting on a search? I'm seeing 411,000 for "block chain" and 3.6 million for "blockchain". -- Yablochko (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am counting the reliable sources used/usable in the article. I am not interested in unreliable results. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Does the New York Times count as a reliable source? Seems like if the Times uses "blockchain," that means it's become pretty standard. TimidGuy (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course, New York Times does count as a reliable source. As one reliable source, to be exact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It hardly gets more authoritative than the Oxford English Dictionary and the New York Times. Note that spelling typically changes over time, and two-word combinations often evolve to become a single word if they're often used in conjunction. That seems to have now happened with blockchain. The white paper you refer to is interesting historically, but once something enters the lexicon, usage can change. There's no reason why this historical document should determine usage. The best guide are the most authoritative sources. TimidGuy (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:IRS "academic and peer-reviewed publications" are the most reliable sources. Such sources are available for bitcoin and block chain, and, as a rule, all I found use the block chain orthography. The New York Times is not one of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
When I search Google Scholar on the phrase "bitcoin block chain," it asks me, "Did you mean: 'blockchain'?"[2] That, of course, tells us that "blockchain" is much more common than "block chain" in the Google Scholar database. TimidGuy (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

From what research I've done this past month-ish on blockchain related stuff, the industry and press is going with Blockchain. I agree. This article should be at Blockchain, and then the disambig Blockchain (disambiguation) should list everything related. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Take into account, please, that the informations in Wikipedia should not be based on WP:OR and that the most reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The vast majority of academic and peer-reviewed publications use "blockchain," as evidenced by a search in Google Scholar. Every time I see the term used now in the mainstream media, it's always "blockchain." TimidGuy (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I see the vast majority of peer-reviewed publications using "block chain". Your data don't look accurate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Even the new academic journal Ledger uses "blockchain" in describing what subjects it covers[3]. While there may have been diversity in usage of 'block chain' v. 'blockchain' a few years ago, it is not so anymore. Academics are going with "blockchain" also. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you read any "Ledger" article yet? (Otherwise it is premature to mention it here.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
We can all go around and around on this, but better to create a new neutrally-worded RFC and let the broader community decide. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. Ladislav, note that a search in Google Scholar on "bitcoin 'block chain'" gives 739 results and "bitcoin 'block chain'" gets 1,110 results. Plus, publications such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the NY Times wouldn't use "blockchain" unless that spelling had become standard. TimidGuy (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's a great article in The Economist.[4] Would make an excellent source. Of course, it uses "blockchain." We not only need to change the spelling of this article, but add more content about how this technology is being embraced by regulators and financial institutions. TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
And a good book from O'Reilly Media published early this year: Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy[5] Lots of good info in there. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Is 'distributed ledger' a synonym for blockchain?

Edit #688808663, adding a statement that 'distributed ledger' was used as another notion for block chain to the lead section, had a justification stating "Included terminology commonly and interchangeably used to describe all inclusive essence of a blockchain." To support the statement, it cited only one source discussing just the case of bitcoin. However, other sources, discussing other use cases of block chain, like, e.g., the Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger systems, explicitly mention that the blockchain and distributed ledger are not synonyms. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. This has been in the backlog for well over a week and discussion has died, it's pretty clear that there is no consensus. I don't mean to sound critical because the nomination was clearly in good faith with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, but we seem to have been forced into a no consensus result at this article because the nomination has tried to address two issues. When this inevitably gets renominated, please focus on either the issue of spacing or the issue of primary topic but not both. Jenks24 (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


– As per above discussions Deku-shrub (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Previous discussions seem to already establish that google is showing 'blockchain' more in normal results and scholar results. Plus the latest books, like the 2015 Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy[6] are really showing the way we should go. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And a note: simple searches on google books for 'block chain' have many results from biology/chemistry papers that have nothing to do with cryptographic blockchain databases. What was your exact search strings that made you decide to oppose? I just did google book searches on "Blockchain" bitcoin and "Block chain" bitcoin" and blockchain is clearly the more used term. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)
  • Support per overwhelming evidence from: google scholar, google books, google web results, news media reports, Oxford English Dictionary, and usage by industry players and companies. A clear and easy to see results: Blockchain is the preferred wording. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Oxford English Dictionary, New York Times, The Economist, and Google Scholar results (per above). Plus, Google Books gives 1,120 results for "block chain" and 3,410 for "blockchain." TimidGuy (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I concur that it should be the primary topic. TimidGuy (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The use of google searches and the wording of the latest article is basing the name of the article on WP:recentism, not on a serious approach to editing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In what sense are searches of Google Scholar and Google Books recentism? Neither search was date limited. TimidGuy (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: The "recentism" word gets thrown around a lot with little justification. What common meaning has the term "block chain" had in the past? Please display any evidence at all that the other meaning was common at all. -- intgr [talk] 23:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Intgr:"Please display any evidence at all that the other meaning was common at all." - the Bitcoin article uses lots of sources mentioning the block chain. Especially, all peer-reviewed sources to the article use this orthography, as it is easy to verify, and that is not a consequence of any editor bias. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: Oh OK, sorry, I thought you were opposing the move to replace the disambiguation page. Personally I have no opinion on the issue between "block chain" or "blockchain". -- intgr [talk] 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per /Archive 1 -- this is the third move discussion this year for this request. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The first about removing the space though Deku-shrub (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of permissioned systems / Referring to distinguishing characteristic of a blockchain as the timestamp server rather than the "permissionless" consensus aspect

It is clear that the edits on this page are geared towards the "bitcoin maximalist" view that unless a blockchain involves Nakamoto consensus - and is therefore "permissionless" - it is not a blockchain. This is referred to by Ladislav Mecir as the "status quo" position.

This argument is not sustainable. Most of the world's major banks are exploring permissioned blockchains, as are Microsoft, IBM, and major software development/integration houses like Deloitte.

Recent edits on this page have excluded entirely reference to these new technologies on the basis of being advertising/spam. I would suggest that this article is long overdue an update to show the state of the art, which has moved well past Bitcoin and is reflected in the newer technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleissuevoter (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I removed the statements is that the statements cited Microsoft Azure article, which is not a WP:RS. As confirmed by reliable sources, the "new technology" does not bring anything new compared to conventional databases and it is just a marketing buzz. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
That's your opinion. WP:FAPO. I trust (new) footnotes 2-14, 20, and 40 through 54 (including references from Tim Swanson, the Economist, CoinDesk, the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times, among others) provide sufficient, objective evidence that these databases do innovate over prior designs and establish notability. Singleissuevoter (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(Commercial References) shall be deleted

There is an edit war, in which a new editor (or editors) are trying to mention ErisDB in the article together with its purported properties, characterizing it as an "enterprise-optimised system". The problem with their edits is that they did not refer to a reliable source mentioning the product, the sources they cite mention only its producer, Eris. Thus, the ErisDB product is not notable enough, and there is no need to promote it here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose This article is woefully out of date. Referring to new technologies which are actually in use in a business context (unlike Omni/Mastercoin, which is defunct, and Billon, which is not known to exist as anything more than a pitch deck) is an entirely appropriate approach for a wikipedia article. These would include Ripple, Multichain, Openchain/OpenAssets, and ErisDB. IMore than one of these protocols was listed during the edit war, each time with citations, including to Microsoft's website which is a fairly reliable indication of which platforms are obtaining industry acceptance. References to American Banker, the Wall Street Journal, and other periodicals which make express reference to several of these technologies are already footnotes to this article, and these are objectively far stronger indications of notability than references to cryptocoinsnews which support the inclusion of, e.g., the Liquid Sidechain. I suggest actually reading the source material. If you prefer we can use this exercise here to go through the reams of mainstream press coverage these "blockchain 2.0" platforms have obtained over the last six months. However if you take an honest approach you'll accept that all of the above-named tech developments are worthy of inclusion in this article. (talk) 22:54 PM EST 16 Dec 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
It's very suspicious that this new user suddenly turns up now, not even 24 hours after the previous user account that tried to promote ErisDB got blocked for sock puppetry (User talk:Rt665j4). As for being "out of date", Wikipedia follows reliable source coverage. It may be simply WP:too soon to cover some topics. -- intgr [talk] 08:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
We live in a mysterious world. I have written a fairly comprehensive update of the page, including many relevant "2.0" technologies which is well-supported by secondary source material. This will be of considerable assistance in furthering this discussion -- singleissuevoter
Appears WP:SOAP WP:SALT WP:APPARENTCOI WP:NOTFORUM. Additionally user did not contribute to the article, instead the user replaced the article with WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT.OnePercent (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
If the fact is wrong, prove it wrong with better references. Right now this just your opinion. Singleissuevoter (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no opinion stated and nobody said anything was wrong. What was stated was that the edits were controversial. Secondly, commercial promotion does not belong here. After researching this, it is clear that this is controversial and the only arguments supporting the bulk of Singleissuevoter edits are those of commercial companies. That is the only thing that can be proven. It looks like the revisions have been removed and I support that decision.OnePercent (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The current form of the article does not promote any one platform unduly and is much more well-cited than before I reviewed it. It refers to multiple blockchains from several providers including Openchain, Ripple, IBM, Multichain, ErisDB, and ConsenSys. This is supported by primary source references to Microsoft and the Linux Foundation and secondary source references from industry periodicals such as Coindesk and financial periodicals of record including the Economist, the Financial Times and many others. WP:too soon clearly overridden by WP:NN given the quality of the citations, which range from 1 to 10 months old. An exclusive focus on Bitcoin shows that the article is out of date, not that it is too soon to be mentioning the new technologies. Seeing as the original complaint about "not having a reliable source" pointing to the several products named above is now well and truly resolved (if the Economist, the FT, Microsoft and CoinDesk are not good enough, what is?) , this issue should also be resolved in favour of their inclusion. Singleissuevoter (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not for advertising or opinion, it is not a forum. Articles integrity has been replaced by one users opinion without notable historic reference to actual fact WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT. It is one thing to contribute and help mold an article, it is another to completely replace the article overwriting all of its historic content and contributions in this manner. Especially when accompanied with WP:SOAP. References provided for new content either have WP:NOTABILITY issues or are of recent announcements about commercial products or initiatives. WP:ADVERT. OnePercent (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't misread my objective here - it is to make a better Wikipedia article. This is an article about blockchains. The version of the article in existence at the beginning of this week made absolutely no reference to any of the "2.0" tehc and was purely Bitcoin-focused, which ignores entirely the bulk of commercial development in the space. As to the material itself, I write what I can prove with external sources. WP:FAPO. I have attempted to write my assessment of that source material as WP:NPOV. Your edits so far have been to reverse (and blank entirely a section which has, in various forms, been in this article for several months) on the basis that these edits are not WP:NN. However, the strength of the citations far exceeds those which were in the article before and would under any circumstances point towards notability. This indicates that historic content was wrong and needed to be updated. As a separate note, we should decide whether we list any commercial products in this article, or none of them - given that there are many different interpretations of the technology it makes sense to reference these within the article and list them at the end. Ladislav Mecir I have suggested re-naming this discussion in light of OnePercent's edits. Singleissuevoter (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Singleissuevoter, I do not mind renaming. However, there still are citations of Azure blog that don't satisfy the WP:RS policy and should be replaced by more reliable citations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir Give me 24 hours, I'll dig 'em up? Singleissuevoter (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Block chain" vs. "Blockchain"

Seems the 31 October 2015 discussion on moving this article to "Bitcoin" was closed with "no consensus". If / when this comes up for discussion again, please count me in as supporting the move. As far as I can see, nearly all writing on the subject uses a single word (which I think is also much less ambiguous). Would be happy to help research further.

-- JonathanCross (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Token-less block chain debate"

This section refers to the idea of a "native token" without defining it. The word token is not mentioned elsewhere in this article, nor in the articles cited. Is a token synonymous with block, as defined in the Basic Principles section? Please make terminology consistent throughout this article, or provide clarification in the "Token-less block chain debate" section.

173.176.75.121 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Block chain examples

@Satoshlong: The various examples of block chains were removed today. I understand that it may be inappropriate to bloat the article, but in the absence of e.g. List of block chains types I see no better place for it than here. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No time like the present. Will start the work here. Satoshlong (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Satoshlong was blocked as a sockpuppet. Reverting his changes to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Deku-shrub (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Permissioned vs permissionless

Blockchains are both permissioned and permissionless. Large body of evidence supports this, including most of the references contained in the article. Additionally, the concept of "permissionless" is confusing to ordinary readers/is a term of art and should not be used. The revert is not justified. Satoshlong (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the edit #708795627:
  • It constitutes WP:EDITWAR reverting the reinstatement of the first paragraph to the WP:STATUSQUO.
  • The sources confirm, and the article text mentions that there is a dispute whether permissioned designs can be classified "block chain designs". As opposed to that, the classification of permissionless designs is undisputed.
  • The edit capitalizes the word Bitcoin; the standard here is to use lowercase bitcoin.
  • The edit tries to introduce a new "blockchain network" term; consult the WP:NOR policy, please.
The sum of the problems makes the reinstatement of the first paragraph to the WP:STATUSQUO justified until a better and consensual wording becomes available. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
In defence of the the edit #708795627:
  • It does not constitute WP:EDITWAR. WP:STATUSQUO is factually incorrect and this constitutes a correction.
  • The sources confirm that multiple designs exist. The "dispute" over permissioned vs permissionless designs is not in fact a dispute over whether permissioned designs can be classified as "block chain designs" but rather whether those block chain designs are commercially useful. That they are block chains (and are referred to as "blockchains" in every single citation) is without doubt.
  • Will agree to "blockchain network" objection per WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satoshlong (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Satoshlong, you should read WP:STATUSQUO, in particular, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." I do not doubt your motives when making the edit were honest, but edit war is not how content disputes are resolved, so, please, refrain from reverting the status quo until a consensus is reached. I see that you already admit that your edit does not meet Wikipedia standards. To not participate in edit war, I am not going to revert to the status quo for the second time. I hope that, being informed, you will now try to handle the dispute properly.
To your statement "That they are block chains (and are referred to as "blockchains" in every single citation) is without doubt." - That is just your original opinion. As opposed to that, a source in the article says: "blockchain technology, properly understood, is decentralized", PaymentsSource informs that the opponents of the classification "have taken issue with associating blockchain to the private distributed ledger systems, such as Eris Industries and Hyperledger", The Wall Street Journal asks "Can you actually have a blockchain without a cryptocurrency at its core?" and claims that "many of the impassioned enthusiasts who populate bitcoin talk forums often recoil with disdain at that suggestion", Dinbits article claims "Go forth and build whatever you guys want to on the peer-to-peer front, but don't call it anything Blockchain related. Just call it what it is, a peer-to-peer developer tool, network, or whatever you folks are fiddling with." This demonstrates that your opinion "That they are block chains is without doubt." contradicts independent sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You must not read much. 40 banks are trialling "blockchains" - all permissioned. The Hyperledger Project at the Linux Foundation features only permissioned designs. The definition of "blockchain," in any reasonable sense and as the world understands it, now includes datastructures with permissioning.
Primary source and secondary source material is in ample supply, and I have added additional citations which are up to date. The citations in this article are somewhat dated, in no small part, because of your own reversions to this article which have prevented new information from being included or corrections being made. Just because you ignore what's happening outside of the world of this Wikipedia article doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Re WP:STATUSQUO I would respond that what's happening here is a clear example of WP:STONEWALLING: "an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists." I hope that, being informed, you will now be willing to accept the change. Satoshlong (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The sources already present in the article prove the existence of a dispute to this matter. There are other sources I did not mention that confirm the dispute too. You want to ignore them, but that is not WP:NPOV.
WP:STONEWALLING: "an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo)" - that is exactly what you are doing in the article as described above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Per discussion below a consensus is emerging that Ladislav Mecir's Bitcoin-centric view is no longer WP:STATUSQUO. The only article he can point to is a Dinbits blogpost - standing against him he has American Banker and the Wall Street Journal. Accordingly the "permissioned vs permissionless" dispute should be resolved in favor of including reference to permissioned chains and the article should discuss these designs and their functionality. Alpacahats (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Satoshlong was blocked as a sockpuppet. Reverting his changes to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit 711729801 violates NPOV

Edit #711729801 made by Alpacahats violates WP:NPOV, because:

  • It ignores 5 sources confirming the existence of a debate.
  • It contradicts the additional 6-th source that specifically mentions "a test", misrepresenting and misinterpreting it as confirming that 'so-called "permissioned" blockchains are found in increasingly frequent use'.

I revert the edit to remove this violation of WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary-sourced material

I've removed the following material from the article, because it makes claims which are not sourced to third-party reliable sources, but rather directly to patents, which are primary sources:

Other uses

Cooperative storage cloud solutions sometimes employ block chain technology to regulate exchange of data or actual payments for storage space.

Establishing easily provable date-of-existence for website pages. [1][2] This opens up the

possibility that internet search engines can offer verifiable age as a search criteria, and also that

claimed dates for website revision histories can be established.

Verifying the authenticity of important legal documents that might be subjected to tampering

(forgery) or accusations of tampering or backdating. [3][4] For example, if one party to a contract

alters its copy, and then sues the other party while claiming that the altered version is the true

copy, there may be a non-negligible risk that a court proceeding could make an incorrect

determination. However, had the original contract been entered into a properly-implemented

block chain scheme, and the block chain entry attested to by the contracting parties, the authentic

copy of the contract could be easily identified by a neutral third party at the time of the dispute.

Prior Invention

Block chaining had actually been invented prior to the appearance of the Nakamoto paper, which

was published 31 October 2008. US Patent No. 7,904,450, the first in a series of patents on the

Public Electronic Document Dating List™ (PEDDaL®) system, was filed more than six months

prior to the publication of the Nakamoto paper, on 25 April 2008 and publicly disclosed as US

Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0100041 on 16 April 2009. [5][6]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

  1. ^ a b "US Patent No. 8,903,839".
  2. ^ a b "US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0254459".
  3. ^ a b "See http://www.peddal.com".
  4. ^ a b "US Patent No.8,135,714".
  5. ^ a b "US Patent No. 7,904,450".
  6. ^ a b "US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0100041".

-- The Anome (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources don't appear to be forbidden by Wiki policy. I think this removal should be reverted. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Agree with the removal - while the Wikipedia policy does allow the use of primary sources, it also disallows their use for interpretation: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", which is what the removed text was doing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Are block chain designs based on the bitcoin protocol?

Consensus appears to be the following: This article's scope is "block chains based on the concept of Bitcoin", but that is distinct from "block chains based on the code of Bitcoin". This entire discussion and the communication difficulties surrounding "concept vs. code" go to show that the original phrasing of "based on Bitcoin" was ambiguous. The current lead text ("introduced by Bitcoin") appears to be clear and matches the consensus from this discussion. ~ RobTalk 05:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

N2e added the following text to the lead section:

... is this still true, in all cases, in 2016? The usage I see nowadays is more that a blockchain database is the more general case, and the specific bitcoin protocol is just one (perhaps, the first?) instance of a block chain database protocol.

My answer: According to reliable sources, the newest block chain designs are based on the original bitcoin concept and/or code published by Satoshi Nakamoto. It is a misunderstanding to think that because they add new functionality to the original concept, they are not based on it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you directly addressing the matter here on the talk page. But I take some exception with the edit comment relative to the change you removed (which I had made) to the article. Also, I did not actually add the text to the lede section in the way you asserted, I added a hidden comment, to try to gain clarification, and to invite discussion.
I added the following hidden comment to the lede sentence, shown in bold text below to make it easier for all to see my addition. Note that, since the question I asked was a hidden comment, readers of the encyclopedia would not see the question, they would see only the {{clarify}} tag I added, no prose was changed in what the reader could see, except for the tag asking that the prose be clarified. It still needs clarified.
A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database, based on the bitcoin protocol,{{clarify|date=March 2016}}<!-- is this still true, in all cases, in 2016? The usage I see nowadays is more that a blockchain database is the more general case, and the specific bitcoin protocol is just one (perhaps, the first?) instance of a block chain database protocol. --> that maintains a continuously growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision, even by its operators.
In my view, that prose still needs to be clarified in the lede sentence, or if the claim "based on the bitcoin protocol" is always and forever true, for all blockchain databases that could be conceived of in the way the term is ordinarily used in computer science, then it needs a citation that supports the claim.
For example, if it is the case, and I do not know that it is (that's why I asked the question), that all blockchain databases are "based on the bitcoin protocol", even then, the statement in the prose could be improved for clarity to the global audience who reads this article. For example, it could become "A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database, derived from the original bitcoin protocol of 2008, ...", or, "A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database that maintains a continuously growing list of data records hardened against tampering and revision, even by its operators. All blockchain databases today are derived from the original bitcoin protocol of 2008." Either one would be clearer than what the prose in the first sentence of the lede reads today.
So the sentence still needs clarified for readers. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
N2e "if the claim ... is always and forever true" - I do neither think that sources claim that anything is "forever true", nor do I see such a claim in the article. The references present in the article confirm that the (newer or older) block chain designs are based on the original bitcoin concept and/or code published by Satoshi Nakamoto. That is the essence. To your proposed changes of the text: "derived from the original bitcoin protocol of 2008" - I do not see any clarification. The text just adds a year that does not look necessary, especially it does not clarify whether anything may be "forever true". What can be found in the existing sources is that, as opposed to the white paper published in 2008, bitcoin code is open source for anybody to see, copy, and derive from, originally published in 2009 and that the code is still evolving. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me say this a different way. First off, I used the words "always and forever true" to illustrate that the the statement in the current lede sentence is a strong statement ("A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database, based on the bitcoin protocol, ...". It is a broad statement that the scope of this article, which is about this thing called a blockchain database, "is based on the bitcoin protocol". The statement itself thus does not allow for blockchain databases that might be based on any other protocol. That seems a bit limiting to the more general concept of what a blockchain is, and would make this article really about "bitcoin protocol derived blockchains" rather than blockchains more generally. I think that is a mistake, and this article ought to be about blockchains more generally.
I'm going to step away from this discussion for a few days to allow other voices to enter the discussion. Don't think it will be helpful to have just the two of us discussing, and potentially talking past each other. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No one disputes that idea of a blockchain was introduced by Bitcoin. But the words 'based on bitcoin' could either mean this idea of the blockchain being introduced by Bitcoin (definitely true), or it could mean that the source code is explicitly based on one of the many codebases of Bitcoin source code (not always true). I changed the lede to say that Blockchain was 'introduced by Bitcoin'. Sanpitch (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Disagree 'Introduced by bitcoin' implies prior existence of 'blockchain' which is clearly an inaccurate statement. Blockchain by definition (bitcoin white paper) states in its abstract that the bitcoin network, of which came to be known as the blockchain in 2009, is a peer-to-peer network (of linked software capable of storing transaction data) that would not require a trust and concludes with 'We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.' (directly quoted) thus anything not meeting this criteria would not be a blockchain and anything meeting this criteria would be based on the blockchain's technology and thus bitcoin. Alternately, networks have been constructed based on the blockchains actual codebase, but not necessarily with any trust theory in mind at all. This would also be based on bitcoin regardless of the intention of its creator to overcome the 3rd party trust limitation since it is directly based off of the codebase itself. By theory or codebase, any system such as this would be based on bitcoin and the wording 'based on bitcoin' is accurate and in accordance with reliable resources. 'Based on bitcoin' is the best, most reliable, and accurate wording based on research and available material dating back to 2008 through 2016. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Disagree Your idea that block chain is not based on bitcoin protocol contradicts the available sources. In case you introduce a new definition, anything is possible, but WP:NOR applies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who disagrees with my characterization of the blockchain and bitcoin above (including my benign edit) and justifies it with "Your idea that block chain is not based on bitcoin protocol contradicts the available sources" should not be an editor of this page. I'm sure there's a Wikipedia standard that effectively says 'know your shit'. Sanpitch (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
A protocol is the specific way, in terms of procedure and communications, in which a thing works. It is not just the general idea. Therefore, a given blockchain is always based on the idea of a blockchain that was first developed by Bitcoin, but may or may not be based on the actual, specific Bitcoin protocol. That would be a very peculiar claim to make - and yet the article makes it. Ladislav Mecir repeatedly asserts that all blockchains are based on the "original bitcoin concept and/or code": well, which is it of the two? The ones that are based on the code are derived from the bitcoin protocol, but the ones that merely borrow the concept need not be. I trust reliable sources do not assert otherwise. LjL (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Let me also add that the citation you added that purportedly shows that "a blockchain" is based on the "bitcoin protocol" is flawed, for the simple reason that it really just refers to the bitcoin blockchain specifically, as it starts out by saying "A blockchain is a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have ever been executed". Not by "all transactions in the relevant cryptocurrency"; by "all Bitcoin transactions". So that's all it's focusing on. Of course, Bitcoin itself is based on the Bitcoin protocol. LjL (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks LjL for the excellent comments and the revert you did on the article. It feels odd to have to go through such pain for a minor, benign edit. Sanpitch (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional contributions to the conversation Sanpitch and LjL. It seems that a consensus is emerging that this article is about more than merely the original bitcoin block chain, and is, indeed, about blockchain databases more generally. Moreover, block chain databases, in general, may or may not be based on the bitcoin protocol, even though we are all in violent agreement that the first block chain database ever was from bitcoin, and was, therefore, certainly based on the bitcoin protocol. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree A consensus is clearly emerging to broaden the scope of this article to include alternative implementations of block chains not based on the Bitcoin protocol. See historical discussions where Satoshlong attempted to make similar changes and was blocked for it. Clearly WP:STONEWALLING taking place here, singlehandedly committed by Ladislav Mecir to limit the scope of this article to Bitcoin-derivative technology only. Alpacahats (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
A consensus not based on any reliable sources does not take precedence over a sourced and verified information: "Based on the Bitcoin protocol, the blockchain database is shared by all nodes participating in a system." Until any reliable source confirming otherwise becomes available, there is no dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The original, WP:STATUSQUO wording was based on informations coming from reliable sources. The current wording:

A block chain or blockchain is a distributed database, introduced in Bitcoin, that maintains a continuously-growing list of data records that each refer to previous items on this list and is thus hardened against tampering and revision.

is dubious, since:

  • it is not true that a reference to previous items on the list is hardening the list against tampering and revision. Some links harden, some do not. For example, in case of bitcoin, a secure cryptographic hash is used to link blocks together. That adds safety, as opposed to other conceivable means of linking that may be significantly less safe.
  • Also, these are not all means of hardening. Other means of hardening include the use of asymmetric cryptography. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
The consensus that has fairly broad support here is that block chain databases, in general, are not exclusively restricted to block chain database that are entirely based on the bitcoin protocol. That is not the same thing as a consensus saying that the current lede sentence is absolutely the best that can be done. One suggestion might be to start another Talk page section for your spedific proposal of what you think a better lede sentence might be.
But in this Talk page section, there is at least substantial support from other editors that the scope of this article is about more than merely the bitcoin blockchain. And that is an important intermediate step in discussing how we might make this article better, and is worth noting here in a reasonably clear way. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: even reliable sources, must be read in context, like everything in this world. The citation you insist on, the one saying "Based on the Bitcoin protocol, the blockchain database is shared by all nodes participating in a system.", is being read out of context, because as I already explained, if you look at the opening paragraph of the same source, it says "A blockchain is a public ledger of all Bitcoin transactions that have ever been executed": clearly, it is referring to the Bitcoin blockchain (the one containing all Bitcoin transactions), not really any other blockchains (which do not contain Bitcoin transactions, but other denominations).
All that the source is saying is that the Bitcoin blockchain is based on the Bitcoin protocol, which nobody ever doubted. I hope this time I have made myself clear. LjL (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Yes, that is a helpful explanation. Almost all of the earlier sources were talking about the bitcoin protocol, which is of course defines and sets up the bitcoin blockchain. It is the later sources, after the advent of the sorts of on-chain enhancements that are seen in blockchain v2.0 implementations that, might, plausibly explain the wider superset of all blockchains, now that blockchains are not tied to the bitcoin protocol. N2e (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
N2e wrote: "The consensus that has fairly broad support here is that block chain databases, in general, are not exclusively restricted to block chain database that are entirely based on the bitcoin protocol." - response: there was no such formulation as "exclusively restricted to block chain database that are entirely based on the bitcoin protocol", neither in the sources, nor in the article text. Such a formulation does not even make sense. Thus, any such "broad consensus" is just what it is: WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
If, as you seem to say now, there was never any claim that all blockchains are restricted to being based on the bitcoin protocol, then we should not state that blockhains are something based on the bitcoin protocol in this article. It's that simple. I sense some selectivity in the arguments tackled on this page, though. LjL (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav, we get that you have made as assertion of WP:OR. But you have not gained consensus on your view. Several other editors have politely disagreed with your conclusion, including LjL and myself.
I, for one, am certainly willing to have you make a concrete proposal on wording or however you think would advance the project of improving the article, and then open a specific section to see if you can gain a consensus for your position. I would participate in such a discussion, as I imagine others would. But failing that, the consensus in this section is rather clear: blockchain databases (today, in 2016) are simply not exclusively related to blockchains that are based on the bitcoin protocol. The scope of the article is not as narrow as you suppose. N2e (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
N2e, the wording of the first paragraph of the lead that enjoys a large consensus and is supported by the sources is the WP:STATUSQUO wording that was a subject to discussion as can be found in the talk archives. As opposed to that, your so-called "broad consensus" wording is dubious and contradicting the sources. I mentioned it several times that your "exclusively related to blockchains that are based on the bitcoin protocol" is a straw man argument. First of all, there are no sources or formulations mentioning your "exclusively related to ..." What I know for sure is that there are sources claiming that the block chain is based on the bitcoin protocol. Unless you find any source contradicting this and stating that the block chain is not based on bitcoin protocol, you are out of luck with your purported "broad consensus". Both you and I know for sure that the wording you put to the lead is contradicting the available sources and that there is no consensus on the formulation you put in there. Since I propose a wording that does respect the sources, it is not me who is doing something wrong here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


So you've got some work to do, since many other editors on this page have disagreed with you, and have used plicy-based resons to do so. N2e (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I am fine with the current wording in the lede, which seems accurate and properly summarizing. Claims of "status quo" are stale at this point. The status quo is what we have now. LjL (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
N2e, likewise many editors on this page agree with Ladislav Mecir, it seems apparent to me that even those trying to change wording agree that bitcoin and the original blockchain started the technology as it sits today, everything else has been based on its concept or code. The original white paper on bitcoin states both in abstract and summary that the primary function of the system is to provide transactions between parties without the requirement of a 3rd party trust (such as a financial system). That is its primary function of which it uses a variety of resources to accomplish. The current wording is misleading, the word "introduced" should be "originated from" or "based on" since "introduced" leads a reader to believe something existed first.. which it didn't and nobody can find proof otherwise. OnePercent
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

other uses

To the editors of this article: is this PBS NewsHour post of any interest ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge in decentralized autonomous organization

The information at decentralized autonomous organization is potentially better merged in as part of this article.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Happy for that if you want - just do it! ----Snowded TALK 13:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE — there is no question that the two topics are related, in the sense that decentralized autonomous organizations are organizations that use blockchain databases to facilitate their existence. Had the info on DAOs been created as, say, a section or two or three of the Block chain (database) article, it would have been fine to leave it there until such time as it grew to some point and was perhaps split into an article of its own. But as it exists now, the DAO article was created by someone, and seems to me to meet WP:GNG, is reasonably well sourced for a "Start" class article (and one or two WikiProjects have rated it "C" class). So the only real way to get a community-wide consensus in favor of a merge would be through the WP:AfD process. That's my two cents on it. N2e (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment- User:N2e is correct. This is the 6th time this article is the subject of a merge nomination or merge revert. That shows a merge is controversial and the AfD process is the correct venue for consideration to gain broad consensus.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE — DAO can use other type of distributed database, not only blockchain. It can be the same as Ripple, for example. 0x0F (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Would distributed database be a better target? Jonpatterns (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure about the separate article, DAO is a particular thing like cryptocurrency. Database just a tool for building DAOs, no more. 0x0F (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE — DAO is a theoretical construct which is only truly revolutionary thanks to the breakthroughs of the cryptocurrency community willingness to pilot new methods. That being said the computer science which is Ethereum|Blockchain|Database technology is more like your computer operating system and the DAO contracts are the suite of office software you need to type up a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.228.251.56 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - the blockchain is just one example of a certain type of decentralized structure. the term 'decentralized anonymous organization' is broader, and thus is does not make sense to merge the two 68.106.184.226 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - the block chain (database) is a database, hence the name. A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) (or Decentralized autonomous corporation (DAC)) is an organization/entity, hence the name. Second, there are many uses of a blockchain database, such as cryptocurrency, enterprise software, DAO (as is mentioned here), licensing, etc. Here we have a discussion of a new type of technology enabling a new method of communication, cooperation, automation, record keeping, accounting, etc. Maybe like HTTP enabled hotmail, or p2p file sharing enabled napster. However, in neither case is the technology defined by its use, nor is the use defined by the technology. As User:0x0F said above, a DAO such as Ripple doesn't have to use a blockchain, it can use other types of databases as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, DAO is not a database. Nevertheless, I am for mentioning DAO as one of the applications of the block chain technology in the "Applications" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, DAO is too broad, does not belong here. OnePercent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Unsure. I was thinking it should go to Ethereum, or possibly it and The DAO (organization) should be the same article - decentralized autonomous organization is badly written and badly sourced, but the article on the DAO has solid RSes. But I'm pretty sure Block chain (database) isn't the right place - David Gerard (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons above. -download 23:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to close merger discussion

It appears there is no consensus to merge. Suggest that the discussion be closed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I was just notified to this discussion; as a courtesy, please don't close this for a couple days. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree that there is clearly no consensus to merge. Kevin did you have any more input you wanted to put into the process? N2e (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Detagging now, without prejudice to a future rediscussion. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect treatment of an opinion

In the "History" section, the text:

As of 2014, "Blockchain 2.0" was a term used in the distributed blockchain database field to distinguish between bitcoin as an asset and the "blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure" more generally, with additions of new scalable features of "on-chain utility and extensibility."

presents a personal opinion of a developer in the cited source as a fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AGREE — This is opinion. Additionally "blockchain 2.0" things are being developed with bitcoin as well. OnePercent —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
So it would seem that, if the term blockchain 2.0 is being used for advancements related to bitcoin, editors need only to find sources for and then add such statements in the article prose. I accept that the term BC2 may be being used more widely than just the on-chain extensions of programmable code, but haven't seen any sources for that yet to date. Do you have any sources for this? N2e (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, N2e, there is a WP:BURDEN, and it is on the editor who inserted the claim, ignoring the fact it was mentioned only as a wish of a developer. If you fail to do it, I will remove the unsubstantiated and challenged claim from the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears as if someone already got to it. I can't find any challenged bit remaining in that set of text as the article stands today. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Cite blockchain basic idea published before Satoshi?

The paper 

  Distributed Marketplace using P2P Network and Public Key Cryptography
  Alessio Signorini, Antonio Gulli, Alberto Maria Segre
  Proceedings of Infoscale 2008, June 2008

and available at 

  http://alessiosignorini.com/articles/distributed-marketplace-p2p-public-key-cryptography/paper.pdf

proposes concepts, methodology and algorithms very similar to what has been mentioned in Satoshi's paper 

   https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

although the original paper is not cited anywhere. Do you guys think it is worth a mention on the blockchain page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.223.254 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth mention. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The claim that it is related is WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Why? It was presented and published in the proceedings of a famous peer-reviewed conference about Scalable Information Systems in April 2008. It is not just WP:OR. I am the author of the paper. Alessio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"peer-reviewed conference"? The review standard for conference proceedings in all fields I know of is well below that for journal articles, and "peer reviewed" in journal articles is a bare minimum standard, not "this is settled science for sure". What precisely did "peer review" here entail? - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Importance and quality of proceedings and journals can be debated endlessly. That said, the publication at least provides a verifiable publication date. The paper did not introduce any new theories or proofs, just a novel idea. An electronic currency appealed the public more than a distributed eBay, but the peer-to-peer distributed database (block-chain) at their base is the same, down to the encryption and signature scheme. Alessio (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Alessio-signorini - I said that the claim that it is related is WP:OR, since there is no source interpreting your article as related to block chain. The claim that it is related is a substantial interpretation for which there is no source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, in the article, there is substantial evidence that it is unrelated:
  • The article proposes user reputations tracking, which is not present in the Nakamoto's paper.
  • The article describes "marketplace like eBay", which is also distinct from the Nakamoto's idea of electronic cash. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You are correct in saying that my paper does not relate directly to bitcoin. It does however introduce a peer-to-peer distributed database which serves as public ledger to create and verify transactions (of goods instead of electronic money). Events published contains the same components, and even the diagrams are similar in their content. The request for citation probably stemmed from that. Alessio (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Comment It seems to me that the addition of this cited paper to this article would be synthesis, and thus would not be acceptable for Wikipedia articles. Now, if some third-party (unrelated) source were to make all the analysis and connection between the stuff said in this paper, and what the bitcoin protocol and bitcoin software inovated, than that might possibly be of interest with respect to improving one or more Wikipedia articles; but that analysis and connection would need to have been completely made and published in a third-party source, probably unconnected to the person's who made the various technological contributions. N2e (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    The paper was (verifiably) published before Nakamoto's one, and while it does not provide any direct contribution to the electronic currency called "bitcoin", it introduces the concepts of block-chains (the topic of this page), a peer-to-peer distributed database which serves as public ledger to create and verify transactions. I do not want to take anybody's credits, but it does seem to belong here. An electronic currency appealed the public more than a distributed eBay, but the peer-to-peer distributed database at their base is the same, down to the encryption and signature scheme. Alessio (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    In my opinion, there are substantial differences between the concept described in the article and the concept of block chain. For example, the article concept does require the users to log in, which is not required for block chains. The article also does not resolve the problem of dishonest peers the way that is typical for block chain design, requiring linking of IPs and user identities. Granted, the article describes the signature scheme using public key cryptography. That, however, is the principle known before the discussed article was published, and it is not sufficient as a proof that the article introduced the concept of block chains. As I see it, the differences between the design proposed in the article and the block chain design are substantial, and that is why it is hard to verify the claim that the article introduced the concept of block chains. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Blockchains must be going mainstream. Just got a book from my local library that provides wide and deep and historical coverage of the topic. Details: Don Tapscott, Alex Tapscott, The Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin is Changing Money, Business, and the World, Penguin Books, Released May 2016 ISBN 978-0670069972]

I'll certainly use it to source a few things in various articles in the next week I have it, before other work will prevent. My edit history will probably show some of them, and I'll get back here to this article and build content and citations as well. N2e (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Other recent secondary source articles that support the rather broad impact of blockchain technology, and especially second-generation blockchain technology, to a wide variety of application areas:

— N2e (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not actual impact, but hypothetical impact. Should certainly be noted as hypotheticals being put forward in a given era (indeed, it would be useful to track the popular hypotheticals over time) - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course, no statement in the Wikipedia article prose should ever be more than that which is supported by sources. Thus, if it is an article with future releases dates for subsequent software versions one would want the statement to clarify the projected or scheduled nature of those dates. Of if it is Janet Yellen, head of the US Fed Reserve Central Bank that bitcoin and/or blockchain are ______x y z______ and that other central banks ought to be paying attention to the blockchain or bitcoin space, then article prose should say no more. Always, only what the sources support. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Added the Tapscott book to further reading, hope it saves you a bit of time. Don't forget pg nos. when you extract from it. Also, with the thorough use of reFill tool to create up-to-date and uniform citations for the web sources, there are, throughout, good templates for {{cite journal, book, and web that can be copied and pasted, as starting points, to create the other new citations. I like using journal, even for WSJ, NYT, wired, etc., because it gets all the formats correct, to a MLA/Chicago-type style. Cheers, Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Article name needs to be moved

With "blockchain" now being the predominant spelling (overwhelmingly in 2015–2016 sources) while "block chain" was the original spelling, and most often used in early-2010s sources, it is probably the case that the article should be MOVEed to "Blockchain (database)", over an existing redirect at that name in the article space.

I don't think it is highly important—as either spelling of the name gets here to this article—and don't personally care when it gets done, but it is probably going to happen in the future per WP:COMMONNAME. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Without space - I'm surprised it's at the name with space, I never see it in the wild other than as "blockchain" - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Withoutspace ; ) - No further comments need adding to the request, and the observation of DG, which I share. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Withoutspace — just to be clear, I support the WP:MOVE to rename the article at Blockchain (database), without the space. N2e (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved since there's been support and no objection in a week and a half - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. Similar proposals in the past were met with stiff resistance, so I'm glad to see this was finally changed. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Include a link?

I wanted to suggest that a link to record be created in this article. I'm not certain if and where it belongs. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange, I'm agnostic, and have no opinion one way or the other. Only thing is, we need a good solid reliable secondary source that supports the use of the term "record" in the context of blockchains. If I find one, I'll try to get back here and note it. N2e (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Section tag on the lede of the article

A section tag was applied by an editor to the lede of the article. To wit:

"This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page."

Two questions:

  1. what is the specific statement in the lede for which factual accuracy is disputed?
  2. if it is one of the areas of the lede that is tagged with an inline cleanup tag adjacent to the lede prose (and I don't know if it is or is not), then do we really need redundant cleanup tags? One for the prose needing attention, and another for the overall section? I suspect the answer is no, and that Wikipedia has some policy for this, but will avoid looking that policy up until I know what the issue is that the editor had in mind.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been a couple of days with no defense for the double/redundant tagging. I'm going to remove the section-wide tag and just assume, for now, that the specific issues are tagged with inline tags, per item no. 2 above.
If the section-level tag is about some other issue, then please articulate that issue here so it might be addressed. N2e (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
BTW, this should now clear things up and those specific issues addressed by the inline tags can be worked on over the coming days, without wondering if there is 'also' some meta-issue about the section that should be worked on first. I already have one idea to chase down for supporting the disputed statement; just need to put the time in to find it. Soon. N2e (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
N2e, the lead section tag is appropriate, because:
  • The second sentence of the lead section describing the subject is WP:OR, and it has been challenged as such since May.
  • I watched the Youtube video you advocate as an acceptable source above, but am still missing a specific minute:second in the video, which supposedly confirms your claim.
  • To explain the issue more thoroughly, I took part in the discussion in the above section, and updated the tags in the lead section to explain the reasons why the citations are not acceptable for the specific claim you made.
  • You reverted all attempts to restore the text to WP:STATUSQUO, even though you admit that, after those months, you still did not find a source confirming your claims.
You may not know it, but the policy here is to revert the unconfirmed and challenged edits to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question as to why the section need TWO tags—one at the section heading level and others inline, at the specific points of contention.

But I do appreciate that you have clarified that both the section-level tag and the inline tags are about the same topic. With that clarification, we can discuss the specifics of the contention in the next section, below; and leave this section just about the single issue (avove) of whether redundant/duplicate tag types are appropriate, messing up the appearance of the entire article.

I'll go on record that we do not need both. One set of tags should suffice; pick whether you want to identify the problem at the section level, or at the specific inline level. But I'll not remove it a second time as I don't want an edit war with you. (the other items, where the inline challenges are, will be dealt with in time, as I said above). I'll try to get a second opinion on the redundant/duplicative use of tags. N2e (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

And I go on record to say that your edits were challenged since May. After some time it was evident that you were unable to prove the claims by citing WP:IRS, and a consensus was established that they were wrong. (see above) After that, you actually admitted the incorrecness, yet you continued your edit war and:
  • you reverted the reinstatement of the WP:STATUSQUO information, which is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia policy
  • deleted all inline tags marking your sources as inadequate
Due to these actions, I had no other possibility than to tag the section, to make sure the readers are warned that the claims in the section are not supported by reliable sources. The strategy of yours to start several discussions related to the same problem, restating that you do not know what the problem is, has a name in Wikipedia, it is called WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I hope that instead of continuing, you start addressing the problem in an adequate way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Whoah. You just went over the edge and did not assume good faith. You have accused me of edit warring (which I've not been even close to the line on). We are talking here about whether redundant levels of tagging are appropriate in this section. I won't let this section's discussion get derailed by your move to personal attack on me. So if you want to allege that I have violated those Wikipedia policies, then as a very experienced editor, you know where to go. Take that to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you want to try to back up your mere assertions.
You are clearly off the topic that this section is about: do we need redundant tags in the lede of this article, as it stands, today. I think not. I'm done here in this section, and will let other editors resolve with you as to if we actually need both section-level article cleanup tags and also inline article cleanup tags, as the personal attack move on your part makes it quite impossible to continue ordinary dialogue. N2e (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blockchain/Archive_1&oldid=1136569315"