Talk:Blockchain/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Initial explanations

After sharpening the definition as explained under the threads "What is a blockchain and how to define it" and "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use" the initial explanations must be improved (by careful changes to the existing formulations) to achieve consistency. Generally the initial explanations shall help to understand the definition and its context. On the other hand leads the context over for the concrete descriptions in the following sections. Therefore I suggest the following improvements to the initial explanations, basing on example 1 "A blockchain[1][2][3] – originally block chain[4][5] – is a continuously growing list[6] of records, called blocks[6], which are cryptographically[1] secure linked[6].": Stefan Konst (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• By following the order in the definition we should first explain (as to date) the contents of a block. It is ok for me when we are here more concrete, but in my opinion we must let open other solutions which could be described below the initial explanations: "Each block contains typically a hash pointer as a link to a previous block[6], a timestamp and transaction data[7]."
• Then we should explain the special characteristic of the links (cryptograhpically secure) and move the explanations regarding the network behind this and the next: "By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data."
• Then we should move the typical use to this position, because this explains the motivation why we are talking about inherently resistance and peer-to-peer behind: 'Functionally, a blockchain can serve as "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way."[8]'
• Then we can explain how the blockchain is used for it: "For use as a distributed ledger a blockchain is typically managed by a peer-to-peer network collectively adhering to a protocol for validating new blocks. Once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without the alteration of all subsequent blocks and a collusion of the network majority."

This disentangled explanations regarding the technical solution and the typical use are then the base for all following descriptions. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per the explanation above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you interested in improvements or not? The old definition and explanations were confusing and inconsistent. Do you really think Wikipedia should give confusing and inconsistent explanations? If you think that the new structure can be improved then explain what you want to change and why. Stefan Konst (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

What is a blockchain and how to define it

Although Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources (see WP:IRS) and Wikipedia articles must not contain original research (see WP:NOR) this article is not a copy of one single source. The authors of this article have to collect, evaluate and arrange the sources, which becomes difficulty if the sources are making deviating definitions but are describing the same. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Problem 1: In my opinion the actual definition of "blockchain" in this article ("A blockchain[1][2][3] – originally block chain[4][5] – is a distributed database that is used to maintain a continuously growing list of records, called blocks.[6]") is such a case. It is not cited word by word from a source and the referenced sources are making deviating definitions, but are describing more or less the same (see the list below). This leads to the following problems: Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

" It is not cited word by word from a source" - of course it is not cited word for word from a source - it would have been a WP:copyvio otherwise. However, the claims in it are confirmed by many independent reliable secondary sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please, I think "fair use" is not unknown to you. The citation after "Functionally..." wouldn't be legal otherwise. But that is not the real problem. The problem is, as described, the deviations and the evaluation of the sources. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Problem 2: If you look at the word then it consists of "block" and "chain". While "block" is defined in this definition of "blockchain" as a "record", you find no definition of "chain". "chain" must be abstracted by the reader from the following explanation that "each block contains [...] a link to a previous block". Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

'you find no definition of "chain"' - That is because what shall be and is defined is blockchain, not chain, and it has to be defined in the way confirmed by reliable sources, not in the way you, as an unreliable source, approve. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have analysed the problem. That is ok for a discussion and that is what we have to do when we collect, evaluate and arrange the sources (see above). Why do you accuse me for things that I hadn't done? If you read the suggested solutions then you will find a perfect reliable secondary source. Which I have then used as the base and improved it with another reliable secondary source. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Problem 3: You have to read one other explanation until you can read an explanation of the special characteristic ("inherently resistant to modification of the data") of a blockchain. But there is no hint or explanation on what the resistance relies. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not doubt your motivations are honest, but you are too much placing yourself as a reliable source on how the definition shall look. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have analysed another little problem. That is also ok. And why shouldn't I write about problems which I and others have solved many years ago? Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Problem 4: On the other side the definition contains with "distributed database" and "list" a duplicate because "database" ("organized collection") is an alternative/generalization to "list". Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that, in contrast to reliable sources (some of them academic), you are after removing the "distributed database" characteristic from the definition. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

And why don't you have cited them? I and others don't know what there is in your mind (and would be a violation of WP:IRS). I have no problem with "database" instead of "list". "list" was the word which was used by the academic source [6] (see the list of referenced sources below). Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the differentiation is already done with the distributed ledger article. Stefan Konst (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Problem 5: "database" isn't used in the definitions of the referenced sources, but is a generalization to the used word "ledger". Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "database" is used by reliable sources, as I demostrated at this talk page, so this statement is not based on verifiable facts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote "definitions of the referenced sources". I had listed the referenced definitions below and there is no "database". So I fear that your statement is misleading. Please consider also "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use". Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for solution: Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• If there is no source for a definition which solves the problems 2, 3 and 4 the authors of this article must find a consensus for an intermediate solution until such source is available.
• "block" and "chain" must be part of the definition.
• The special characteristic of a blockchain must be part of its definition.
• The definition must not contain duplicates. (What could also be a solution for problem 5.)

Suggestion for an intermediate defintion, following the suggested solution: Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the duplicate ("distributed database"): "A blockchain[1][2][3] – originally block chain[4][5] – is a continuously growing list[6] of records, called blocks[6]."
• Define the "chain", for example:

"...called blocks[6], which are linked[6]."

• Add the special characteristic, for example:

1.: "...called blocks[6], which are cryptographically[1] secure linked[6]." or

2.: "...called blocks[6], which are linked[6] in a cryptographically[1] secure way." or

3.: "...called blocks[6], which are linked[6] by cryptographic techniques[1]." or

4.: "...called blocks[6], which are chained by cryptographic[1] links[6]." or

5.: "...called blocks[6], which are linked[6] by hash pointers[6]."

Example 5 shows, that the definition could be completely (I have no problem with the uncited "continuously growing" and "record" instead of "data structure" in [6]) based on an improved defintion of the definition from [6]. I would prefer to replace "hash pointers" by citing [1] as suggested in example 1, 2, 3 or 4 to express the special characteristic, in which example 1 is my favorite. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"If there is no source for a definition which solves the problems 2, 3 and 4 the authors of this article must find a consensus for an intermediate solution until such source is available." - so, first you try to attack the definition based on reliable sources, and now you claim that an unreliable definition should be assembled instead? That is not how Wikipedia works. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the old defintion wasn't based on reliable sources. It was a misleading and unexplained mixture from differing sources of a technical solution and its use which couldn't be found in that form in the sources. Are you the author of the old definition? I fear that you want to protect your own idea of that what a blockchain should be, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The characteristic "distributed" could be inserted before "list": "...a continuously growing distributed list of records...". But in my opinion "distributed" should not be part of the defintion, but of the following explanation, because distributed could be misinterpreted (just as in the context of "database") in the way if copies of the list are distributed or if the elements of the list are distributed. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

'in my opinion "distributed" should not be part of the defintion, but of the following explanation, because distributed could be misinterpreted' - aha, nevermind that reliable sources define blockchain as a distributed database. You have got reasons why you don't want that characteristic to be mentioned. Clever but not adhering to WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The examples defines the blockchain regarding the technical solution and not regarding its use. Otherwise the citation after "Functionally..." wouldn't make sense. I fear you don't consider the context of the definition and its initial explanations (see also the thread "Initial explanations"). Stefan Konst (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the differentiation is already done with the distributed ledger article. Stefan Konst (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

All following explanations are regarding to the definition above and their border. Following explanations can't be arranged well, if the definition and their border isn't clear, as the next threads shows. So, please let us cleanup the definition to solve the problems below and to improve the explanations following the definition. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

List of cited definitions: Stefan Konst (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

[1]: "But the cryptographic technology that underlies bitcoin, called the "blockchain", has applications well beyond cash and currency.", followed by explanations how the "bitcoin blockchain" works and "Most of the data in the blockchain are about bitcoin. But they do not have to be.".

[2]: "But rather than existing solely as legal documents, those bylaws are hard-coded into a blockchain—a cloud-based, secure financial ledger, of which Bitcoin is the most famous example.", followed by general use of "blockchain" without reference to the "bitcoin blockchain".

[3]: "Most Wall Street firms and many central banks are experimenting with the blockchain, the online ledger system that Bitcoin and Ether pioneered. Banks hope the blockchain, or something like it...", followed by description of D.A.O.

[4]: "Every transaction that occurs in the bitcoin economy is registered in a public, distributed ledger, which is called the block chain.", followed by explanations how bitcoin and the "bitcoin blockchain" works.

[5]: Technical description how "the block chain" is constructed in the original source of bitcoin.

[6]: "Figure 1.5 shows a linked list using hash pointers. We call this data structure a block chain."

In difference to the discussions under "Request for revision" and "Problems with existing formulations" above cited [6] is now from the book which was cited in the discussions instead of the reference to Investopedia. Stefan Konst (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use

The duplicate of "database" regarding "list" (Problem 4 of the thread "What is a blockchain and how to define it") indicates that the actual definition is a concatenation/mixture of a definition regarding a technical solution by adding a definition regarding use. This mixture can't be found by the cited sources:

• [1], [5] and [6] are definitions regarding a technical solution (cryptography, "list").
• [2], [3] and [4] are definitions regarding the use as a ledger ("database").

This concatenation/mixture is not acceptable because it is breaking the rules (WP:NOR and WP:IRS) and it could consternate the reader, which is here to find clearness. Stefan Konst (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion this article should define the blockchain regarding a technical solution as described in the thread "What is a blockchain and how to describe it" and we have to decide if

1. we want to create a second article which defines the blockchain regarding use ("A blockchain is a crytographically[1] secure ledger[2][3][4].") or
2. we sharpen the citation of the description "Functionally, a blockchain can serve as..." and stop the citation after "permanent way", because programmability is a possible characteristic of the ledger, which in my opinion must not be described here.

I would prefer the second way because the work of Anderson gives an inspiration that a "cryptographically secure ledger" could be based on ohter technical solutions as described by Haber & Stornetta and Schneier& Kelsey. Stefan Konst (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

"this article should define the blockchain regarding a technical solution" - this suggests violating the WP:NPOV, trying to suppress claims from many reliable sources. That is why I oppose it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't suppress the other sources and doesn't violates the WP:NPOV. The explanation of the relation between the technical solution and its use can be directly found after the definition. The old definition violates the WP:NPOV because technical solution and use were mixed and you can't describe the views when you can't explain the differences. Please be more constructive. What do you think about one article regarding the technical solution ([1], [5] and [6]) and one article regarding use ([2], [3] and [4])? Stefan Konst (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"What do you think about one article regarding the technical solution ([1], [5] and [6]) and one article regarding use ([2], [3] and [4])?" - I am now certain that you do not understand Wikipedia policies. Per WP:NPOV, this is not how the information shall be treated. Relevant information must be represented in the corresponding proportion, i.e. not segregated to some separate article. Also, regarding the purported continuity of blockchain research predating 2009: any source predating 2009 is a primary source on itself, and if such a source does not even use the word blockchain, we cannot use it as a history source unless the relevance is established by some independent reliable secondary source. I see secondary sources establishing the relevance of Haber/Stornetta's articles for the blockchain notion, but I do not see any secondary sources establishing the relevance of the other articles you are trying to represent in the text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

As I noted below, the differentiation was already done long ago (and not by me). The relevant information isn't removed by my changes, I corrected some misleading mixtures which were in that form not covered by the cited reliable secondary sources. The rest of your statements relates to another discussion about history which is not the point here and already solved there. Stefan Konst (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the differentiation is already done with the distributed ledger article. Stefan Konst (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to definition and initial explanations

The threads "Request for revision", "Problems with existing formulations", "Disputed Accuracy" and "Blockchain != distributed" shows that the actual definition and initial explanations are misleading. As requested I have identified the problems and analysed possible solutions under the threads "What is a blockchain and how to define it", "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use" and "Initial explanations". On base of this I will make (in the coming days) the following traceable changes, choosing the second way of "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use": Stefan Konst (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Sharpen the definition by using example 1 of "What is a blockchain and how to define it".
2. Disentangle the explanations as described under "Initial explanations".

Please explain here on base of WP:IRS, if you have additional remarks. Stefan Konst (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why so many repetitions? Do you think it helps your cause? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen, please feel free to update the text here on the talk page, and also add citations. Then we can discuss something. We only can discuss cited content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jtbobwaysf the cited content can be found in the list at the end of the thread "What is a blockchain and how to define it". The motivation of the changes can be found in the other threads referenced above. It is no problem for me when we use only example 5 of "What is a blockchain and how to define it" as the definition for blockchain and discard the improvement "secured using cryptography". But I think "secured using cryptography" or similar formulations is a useful extension which expresses the special characteristic of a blockchain and is covered by the referenced source [1]. Stefan Konst (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Please keep also the distributed ledger article in mind. I think, that many things which are described here regarding use (sources [2], [3], [4], see "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use") should be moved to that article. Stefan Konst (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ladislav, I fear your comment is not that level which this discussion should have. It doesn't make sense if you oppose to all and doesn't made suggestions for improvements. Unnecessary to say that is no improvement to return to the old definition and explanations with all their problems. Stefan Konst (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Unnecessary to say that is no improvement to return to the old definition and explanations with all their problems." - actually, observing the problems you have got with:

* the use of primary sources not established to be relevant for the article subject

* WP:OR attempt to make yourself a reliable source

* WP:NPOV violations trying to remove relevant and notable informations confirmed by reliable sources to a different article

I have to conclude that your changes were not improvements and you do not have the necessary consensus to do such deep changes to the subject definition. In case the consensus does not exist, the reversion to WP:STATUSQUO is the solution preferred by Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose to "the use of primary sources", I didn't used primary sources for the actual changes. Stefan Konst (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose to "WP:OR attempt to make", I cited reliable secondary sources, which were not referenced by me, but for example source [6] from you. Stefan Konst (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose to "WP:NPOV violations", you are misinterpreting WP:NPOV. The informations by the reliable secondary sources were not removed by my changes but rearranged to solve the misleading mixture which was in that form not covered by the sources. Stefan Konst (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose to "I have to conclude", you want to protect your own definition which is in that form not covered by the sources. And you try to misuse WP:STATUSQUO. Stefan Konst (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I do understand that you oppose this, but, as reliably discovered, you did not achieve consensus with your changes. Also, the definitions are not my own, I am protecting the work of many editors. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Two other editors made little improvements to my changes and accepted obviously the rest. Their improvements are ok from my point of view. So, until now you are the only one who misses the old formulations. And please consider that we have now with the Princeton University Press book as source [6] a better academic source than before, which covers the definition. I tried to respect the work of the former editors by minimizing my changes, using their words and rearranging their formulations. Stefan Konst (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The definitions regarding use in [2], [3] and [4] are differing but have in common the word "ledger". What do you think about adding an information that non-academic sources uses "blockchain" shortly as a synonym for "ledger"? Stefan Konst (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, please, edit the above text. You are not supposed to intersperse your comments in such a way that it becomes undetectable what I wrote. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I shifted my answers below your comment. Stefan Konst (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy

"A blockchain facilitates secure online transactions."

This statement, and many others within the article, are misleading. The primary benefits of the distributed database model "blockchain", with its consensus algorithms, in a PUBLIC space, can drastically improve integrity. When speaking about security its usually through the viewpoint of the CIA triad and the mccumber cube. The prioritization of integrity is why most of blockchain's implementations have been within a financial scope where the issue of accurate ledgers is heightened. Additionally, within security as a whole, there has been a shift in prioritization within the CIA triad to integrity over confidentiality.

Its important to note that even in a public setting; global electricity cost discrepancies can cause centralization. Beyond that; "computational expense" with respect to altering the ledger post transaction publication is exponential but not impossible. This means that in practice and reality that the ledger is alterable within a certain time frame. This becomes more important when wrapped within the context of a nation-states' capabilities and computational power at hand. This means that most of the security claims here are just that; claims. We need to remove the adverts within this article as they can be extremely misleading.

I'll be making edits shortly as I amalgamate research and summarize these into better lay explanations. This specific post is to create a heading for those moving forward in terms of getting this article straightened out.

Things to consider:

What does the system inherently provide versus other systems?

How does context change these inherent capabilities? (centralization when electricity is cheap in a country; public versus private; secondary indicators w/ respect to node identification and targeting; etc.).

Is this security claim overly broad in comparison to the systems capabilities?

Karmeow (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

References

"A blockchain facilitates secure online transactions." - this claim is, indeed, confirmed by a questionable source (private website). I marked it as such. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The sentence Blockchains are expected to disrupt the cloud computing industry although practical technical issues remain as obstacles. is also mis-referenced. The EY report AND the referenced article do not provide adequate supposition w/ respect to cloud computing and its disruption by block chain.

References

(Karmeow (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC))

@Karmeow: given the size of the article, is it possible to replace the {{disputed}} tag[1] with something more specific, such as {{disputed section}} and/or {{disputed inline}}? GregorB (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Karmeow, GregorB what do you think about my suggestions under "What is a blockchain and how to define it" and "Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use"? From my point of view this could solve the main dispute and other points could be marked more specific. Stefan Konst (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

These statements about what blockchain in the future might be, about them maybe disrupting xyz are all WP:CRYSTALBALL. Need to be treated properly in the wording, or not covered at all. There is plenty of press, so we can say that 'forbes and wsj suggest that blockchain might disrupt xyz'...but that is all we can say in my opinion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Karmeow: A while back a few editors were developing this article, and I saved some content before it was deleted (there was a tag-team going on at that time relating to deleting content). This content might be useful today, it is complete with sources User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Blockchain_article . Feel free to use what you want. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I will remove this tag, 2+ months since no discussion on this dispute Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter whether there is a dispute or not. What does matter is whether the accuracy reservations were all resolved, which is not clear to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

After the changes to the definition and the initial explanations which are stable now for some time its ok for me to remove the disputed tag from the top of the article. The bold marked citation and questions above refer to the "Description" section which should be improved. But I don't think that we need a disputed tag for this. Stefan Konst (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semantic web

Can anyone clarify the link between blockchain and the semantic web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CartesianClosedCat (talk • contribs) 10:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit misrepresenting cited sources

This edit by Stefan Konst

• replaces a claim that "blockchain is an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way" contained in the cited source in this exact wording by a different one, stating that "blockchain can serve as an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way." The difference is an attempt to misrepresent the source, justified by a statement that it "misrepresents the history". Wikipedia policies do not support such attempts to correct the history information from the cited source.
• replaced a claim that "The first blockchain was conceptualised by Satoshi Nakamoto...". supported by the text "The blockchain began life in the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto" in the cited source by a modified claim stating that "The first distributed blockchain was conceptualised by Satoshi Nakamoto...", justifying it by the same claim that it "misrepresents the history". Wikipedia policies do not support such attempts to correct the history information from the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The edits ("is" instead of "Functionally [...] can serve as" and removal of "distributed") and this new discussion by Ladislav Mecir are misleading. The differentiation between technical solution and use is well explained and discussed in the threads above ("Definition regarding a technical solution vs. definition regarding use" and "Changes to definition and initial explanations"). The cited definition itself and the context in the article shows that this is a definition regarding use. This is expressed by "Functionally [...] can serve as" and not by "is". The word "distributed" is also already discussed above. The technical definition itself and the work of Schneier and Kelsey from 1998 shows that the distribution is an characteristic of the use as an distributed ledger. So this is no discrepance to the cited Economist article regarding the use as an distributed ledger. Stefan Konst (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Relating to the change from "is" to "can" WP:AWW applies. This is an article about blockchains and what they do after all. About Satoshi, my understaning is that it is widely accepted that Satoshi created the first working blockchain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

My note: actually, this is worse. It is an attempt by Stefan Konst to modify the wording contained in the source in a way that would support his opinion, instead of representing the cited source. Such an attempt is called WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As I already wrote above under "What is a blockchain and how to define it": The authors of this article have to collect, evaluate and arrange the sources, which becomes difficulty if the sources are making deviating definitions but are describing the same. This is no WP:OR. I don't know why Ladislav Mecir ignores the fact that some sources define the term "blockchain" in an accurate way regarding a technical solution and some with weasel words regarding its use. "Functionally [...] can serve as" expresses this differences in contrast to the technical definition. There may be other solutions for example "The term blockchain is synonymously used for [citation from HBR]". We can change it in this way. But it would be a misrepresentation of the sources if blockchain is only defined regarding its use as Ladislav Mecir wants. Hope that helps... Stefan Konst (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Satoshi did the first widely accepted distributed blockchain. Please see above under "Problems with existing formulations: History" Appendix A of my work shows that I already implemented a solution for a non-distributed blockchain in 2000. But Ladislav Mecir wiped this source away and didn't wants to readd it nor the article of Chartech magazine as reliable secondary source. Please take a look on the "IT supplement on blockchain". I got it from them without problems by e-mail. Stefan Konst (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Konst, you wrote: "Appendix A of my work shows that I already implemented a solution for a non-distributed blockchain in 2000" - this claim sheds a new light into the discussion. First of all, let me express my respect to your foresight with which you recognized that cryptographic chaining can be used to guarantee "authenticity, order and completeness of the entries of a log file" in your diploma thesis from 9 August 2000. That said, my above observations prove that you did not treat the independent reliable sources and neutrally, modifying sourced informations that did not fit your above "Appendix A of my work shows that I already implemented a solution for a non-distributed blockchain in 2000" claim. I must inform you that this claim of yours makes it not just a difference in opinion between us, but an example of a conflict of interest on your part, and per WP:COI you, as an editor in such a conflict of interest, are not allowed to edit the Blockchain article. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, thank you for your appreciation. So, what do you think to write about it in the history section and to readd the removed history entries on base of the improved sources (Chartech magazine and Technical University of Braunschweig)? I know that WP:COI forbids editings from me about myself in the history section and I'm in compliance with it, because I haven't wrote about me in the article. Please consider that WP:COI doesn't forbids me editings regarding technical facts on base of other independent reliable sources. Best regards. Stefan Konst (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Stefan Konst wrote: "I know that WP:COI forbids editings from me about myself in the history section and I'm in compliance with it" - you are not in compliance with WP:COI, since you are modifying informations from and that do not comply with your claim that you created a blockchain before Nakamoto did. Therefore, your edits are not neutrally treating the cited sources. Stop doing that, please, and respect that you are not allowed to edit the article due to the COI. The conflict of interest is described as any external relation to the subject (such as your intent to maintain that you created a blockchain before Nakamoto did). Due to the conflict of interest, you do not have any consensus to continue editing the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice construction, but it didn't works. I argued for the formulations in the article with other reliable secondary sources. So, I'm in compliance with WP:COI. But that's not the point. The point is why you removed and didn't readds the history entries regarding Anderson, Schneier and Kelsey, Szabo (see Chartech) and me, although improved sources are available? Stefan Konst (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not a construction. The fact is that you treated the mentioned sources nonneutrally, modifying their claims. That is not allowed even if you were not in conflict of interest. Nevertheless, you are in conflict of interest, trying to mention yourself in the history of blockchain. It is not up to you to do that, some independent (on you) reliable source must do.

Please, consider with your edits that there is a difference between a technical solution and its use and there would be no reason for me to correct them. Please, you removed the history entries with the statement of insufficient sources, so please readd them with the sufficient sources as written above and there would be no reason to ask you again. Or perhaps can someone else help? Checking the sources and refill the history entries? Stefan Konst (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

They grow in height?

In the second paragraph under § Description, it reads:

"As blockchains age they are said to grow in height."

This smells like vandalism, but I'm not sure.—Theodore Kloba (☎) 15:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, useless nonsense. Removed. Retimuko (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad citation re Git

I was interested in this claim comparing blockchains to Git:

"Variants of this format were used previously, for example in Git. The format is not by itself sufficient to qualify as a blockchain.[36] "

But the citation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 ) is just a high level talk on Git and doesn't mention blockchains at all. I don't think it's a sufficient citation for that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.179.236.39 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Is mining a general feature of blockchains?

The decentralization section of the article references mining and uses the term miner as an alternative to node, yet the reference [36] is specific to Bitcoin, which is confusing. The article itself highlights alternative consensus methods(proof-of-stake and proof-of-burn) to the one used in Bitcoin mining, are these also covered by the term mining? The Wikipedia article on Bitcoin refers mining solely in the context of proof-of-work. Are there experts that can clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidSturt (talk • contribs) 06:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point Of View

Some of the commercial offerings, while they should be listed, were obviously written by employees of the various vendors: "Founded by a world class team, QED-it has developed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E02:3C3E:8195:C864:E1B4:7ACF (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I rewrote this entry to be more neutral. Retimuko (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Article is not helpful

The technology described does not follow the guideline of making technical articles understandable. Perhaps a simple step-by-step description of the process of decentralized verification/consensus would assist readers in understanding this presently germane technical subject.

For instance, there are a substantial number of articles in the Economist and from IEEE publications that might provide good frameworks or references, but I feel that the article shrouds the idea in mystery rather than opening the subject up to curious readers. Kxo91 (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

An icon to itself?

Most other technologies have an icon - like WiFi, USB, Lightning, - even actions like send, delete, edit have well recognized icons. I propose this icon (and a 'no-fuzz' Roboto typeface): https://www.dropbox.com/s/s670vc5yeu5vvnz/BLOCKchain.png?dl=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdiechmann (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We can use it in the article as soon as it becomes "well recognized" and mentioned by independent reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hidden section

The following section was hidden, with the hidden note "Only referenced material should return if directly related to all blockchains. The following sections may be used for a sidechain article later". It seems to do no good there, so I moved it to here instead, so that anyone interested in reinserting these topics can find inspiration.Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sidechains One of the most important developments in the blockchain industry has been development of sidechains operating on a 2-way peg system. A sidechain is also blockchain that runs and operates akin to the main Blockchain network. The basic function of a sidechain is to amplify the functionality of the main blockchain by allowing a friction free transaction network back and forth the main blockchain. Sidechains are decentralized, peer-to-peer networks that enhance the performance of a given blockchain network by adding features such as high security, lower risk, and efficient performance along with minimizing the storage space and operating length of the main blockchain. This enables global systems of value exchange with zero third party interference. And further, it allows developers to come up with new applications without a risk. Two-way pegging A two-way pegging is a system that explains transfer of bitcoins or cryptocurrencies, in general from the main blockchain to the sidechain and vice-versa. Well, to your surprise, this transfer is a "mirage" and the currencies are not really transferred from the main chain to the sidechain. How it actually works is that a certain amount of tokens (to be transferred) is blocked in the main blockchain and the same amount of tokens are unlocked in the sidechain. When the tokens in the main blockchain are unlocked, the ones in the secondary chain is locked again. However, this can be correctly realized under certain assumptions. For instance, We assume that the participants in a two-way peg are honest. The main blockchain has not been censored at all. The party that holds the custody of the licked tokens is also honest. If these assumptions do not hold, the two-peg deploys a double-spend, which is obviously vindictive.

This article is essential worthless to the average reader.

This article is essential worthless to the average reader, and indeed, even the seasoned computer engineer. The terminology is biased, incomplete and abstract, at best. Not to mention inaccurate with respect to computer science fundamental concepts (such as what a 'database' is). And thanks to a handful of "experts" - fighting over it continually, it has become a steaming mess. I will look elsewhere for a proper article. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. For starters, there should be a broader, more accessible definition in the lede. 184.70.1.10 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Even tho I'm not 100% on board with it, I have a pervading sense of the integrity of the idea, marred a little by Deloitte and the other 2 banks who decided to look for 'angles' rather than embrace the open-source ethos. Someone tell me if I'm talking crap. psic88 23:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

-- That judgement is overly harsh, but I will mention one obvious question that an intelligent reader would ask, that is not answered by the text: What mechanism ensures that any particular transaction becomes part of the chain? In other words, what prevents my next transaction from being included only in blocks that end up as orphan blocks? Another such question: How do network participants find each other? In other words, how does the "broadcasting" work? I think the article should address some such integrity issues more specifically, or at least point the reader to a source that does. Cacadril (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, very poor encyclopedic value. This article is about "Blockchain" the buzzword and cites 99% low quality clickbait blog posts. The statements are randomly juxtaposed and mostly express an emergent emotional belief in the current blockchain zeitgeist. I suppose we are too embedded in this phenomenon right now to have a proper social analysis of the hype, or to have the party be spoiled by a respectable technical explanation divorced from hype. I suggest coverage of cryptographic research prior to 2008 that eventually led to bitcoin's blockchain implementation as a starting point. Several sentences currently imply that bitcoin sprang out of a vacuum, as if satoshi invented the entire thing. 72.211.80.153 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Early blockchain examples

@Ladislav Mecir: This edit you reverted [2] seems to be good content with sources. What is wrong with it? I will revert your delete of the content and we can discuss it. Looks like the editor is an IP address editor, so I thought someone should ask about it (as I guess he wont see your revert notification) and the content looks interesting at very least, and has decent sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The claims were challenged without being confirmed as required by WP:V.

• In particular, the claim

  In 2002, David Mazières and Dennis Shasha proposed a network file system with decentralized trust: writers to the file system trust one another but not the network in between; they achieve file system integrity by writing signed commits to a shared, append-only signature chain that captures the root of the file system (which in turn is a Merkle Tree). This system can be viewed as a proto-blockchain in which all authorized clients can always write, whereas, in modern blockchains, a client who solves a cryptographic puzzle can write one block.

  is an evaluation of a particular work, and as such, it needs a secondary source. Note that there is no confirmation that the system is a "proto-blockchain".
• The claim

  In 2005, Nick Szabo proposed a blockchain-like system for decentralized property titles and his bit gold payment system that utilized chained proof-of-work and timestamping. However, Szabo's method of double-spending protection was vulnerable to Sybil attacks.

  does have a secondary source, but the source does not confirm that the system was blockchain-like. That was mentioned in the challenge. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

History Section

@Mikael Häggström: In general the rest of your work on the article looks good, but you moved history to the last section which I didn't personally like. I suggest it be first. I think a reader wants to read about history when they are first learning about something new. Other articles such as Bitcoin generally list history high up on the section list, position #1 or #1. Maybe there is even something in WP:MOS that covers this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, I personally think the history is the least interesting part, because if something is currently relevant then it belongs in another section by definition. However, if you find a WP:MOS telling otherwise, I'm prepared to go with it. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström: The other articles that exist in this crytpcurrency area seem to have history early on. There was a discussion of this a few months ago on this talk page, mostly relating to some WP:POV editors trying to bury the Ethereum Classic at the end (that was after they tried to delete it entirely.) Note I dont think your edits are POV. Note also this discussion might have been on the Ethereum Classic talk page, as I cant remember off hand if it was the classic fans trying to bury the ethereum history, or the other way around. Regardless, we did have this discussion. I think that MOS:ARTCON applies in this case, if you look at Bitcoin, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash etc. I think you will also note other technology companies such as Microsoft and Oracle also tend to have history at the beginning of the article. My theory on this is that wikipedia cannot really offer the best technical overview, as we often are not skilled enough (speaking for myself) and also we cant find great sources. But in geneal we can do a great job on history, so it is good to put it first, in addition it is interestig to readers who know nothing (and those are the readers who are most likely to start on wikipedia).

Next, I re-added the infobox on the Ethereum article that you boldly moved to the new Ether article you created. I think the core information about Ethereum, even if the currency aspect is removed, still needs to be in the infobox (such as white paper date, author, etc).

Sincerely Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

History sections are commonly early in an article, 'cause they provide context to the encyclopedic reader. Experienced readers can easily skip, as the table of contents allows multiple quick ways to navigate around an article. N2e (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The description

We currently have : "A blockchain database consists of two kinds of records: transactions and blocks. Blocks hold batches of valid transactions." You lost me here : the way i read that, a blockchain consists of one kind of record : a block (which holds transactions as well as a pointer to the previous block, and possibly other things). --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jerome Charles Potts: "the way i read that, a blockchain consists of one kind of record : a block" - this suggests that you refuse to call transactions "records". Why? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently a transaction is a record (or entry) in a block, which itself is a record in the blockchain. So the blockchain consists of one kind of record only. I may be nitpicking here; that description sentence looks confusing to me. --Jerome Potts (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the block is the pizza box that the pizza (transaction) arrives in. Sounds like a container or a wrapper to me. I am totally non-technical, so please forgive me if I have used a term that might mean something in the software world. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind confusion -- the term "batch" is used without any sort of description. Please somebody provide a description of "batch" for this context.Stevan White (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV?

{{POV-section}} was added to the Blockchain#Big Four section by an editor at IP 174.202.10.193 on 29 March (UTC). I kind of understand why it's there, but it's not clear enough to provide a way of remedying the article. Would anyone be able to clarify the exact reason for its placement, or even better, address and remove it? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

who is this article for ?

Certainly not to the average reader who came to find out more than can be had from ordinary journalism It seems to speak only to like minded contributors which is a pity Cobalt69 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Cobalt69

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

New Content Discussion - Historical 3rd Party Incontestable information -

Hello team,

Please see the below addition that I would like to add. Please advise if you have any objections. Some notes from my side:

While I am the named person, as an individual, I am 'not' a reliable source. The government intellectual property offices, on the other hand, ARE a reliable source. So the citations to the trademarks offices should be acceptable. Please read the citations; I have not "filed" for trademarks; I have "approved registration certificates" and some are more than five years old (the main one for certain: PrivateLender.org: Canada's Private Lending Network® which has a date of first use of May 9, 2005. This certificate was issued more than 5 years ago, which makes the claim "incontestable". This means that, unlike other trademarks, it is an incontestable fact, pursuant to international intellectual property law (including the same laws (Lanham Act)) that the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to, that "a peer-to-peer and private (crypto) finance network named PrivateLender.org: Canada's Private Lending Network® existed in 2005. And, it is not a difficult inference for the average reader of the Blockchain page to recognize the relationship between a "peer-to-peer", "private" or "crypto" lending platform and the need to have an underlying blockchain system in place, for the network to function.

When see the material below, you will notice that the citations are all third party in nature or form. The beauty of blockchain is that the proof-of-work is immutable. I cannot "fake" a proof of invention certification (ie: trademark); because the timestamp is already there. I am not certain that it is fair to keep this information hidden from the world. What say?

Here is the material:

Extended content

Internationally accepted (by government & regulators) point of origin for application of blockchain in finance The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) , the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and their international peer intellectual property organizations (in 191 member states) incontestably [the word "incontestable" is legislatively defined, pursuant to Canada's (a WIPO Member State) Federal Trade-marks Act R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13); equivalent United States Trademark Law and international jurisdiction equivalents] recognize (pursuant to international intellectual property treaties and conventions) that the world's first commercially deployed application of blockchain 'principles in commerce' was not 'first used' in the form of a "peer-to-peer (P2P), private, or secret" (these are equivalent terms: see Peer-to-peer lending) electronic (binary digit) financial instrument in the form of currency (commonly referred to as "cryptocurrency"); known by its genericized brand name: "bitcoin" and actually or ostensibly, created by unknown person or persons named "Satoshi Nakamoto"; pursuant to a white paper entitled "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" first published in the Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co. LLC “Cryptography Mailing List” on Friday, October 31 at 14:10:00 EDT in 2008 and a subsequent computer program named: “Bitcoin v0.1" published for release on Thursday January 8 at 14:27:40 EST in 2009; instead, international public trademark records (proof-of-work) indicate that the world's first commercially deployed application of blockchain was 'first used' in the form of a "peer-to-peer (P2P), private, or secret" electronic (binary digit) financial instrument in the form of debt (commonly referred to as "cryptodebt"); known by its internationally registered trademark brand names: "BITMORTGAGE®" (for government regulated cryptodebt instruments, including those secured by real property) and "NONMORTGAGE®" (for non-government regulated cryptodebt instruments, including those not secured by real property), created by Mr. Anoop Bungay; pursuant to a proprietary dissertation entitled: “Binary Digit Debt: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Debt System” [research commenced pursuant to regulatory obligations to the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) at least as early as August 14, 2001] and its corresponding public business implementation: PrivateLender.Org: Canada's Private Lending Network® at least as early as April 9, 2005. Priority, systems architecture, reference architecture, ontology, reference implementation The systems architecture including (but not limited to) reference architecture, ontology (state and dynamic ) and reference implementation related to the use of blockchain to effect functional commercial trade of both regulated and non-regulated "peer-to-peer electronic debt transactions to be sent directly from one party to another party without going through a financial institution" was developed at least 3 years, 4 months and 10 days prior (from the date that PrivateLender.org: Canada's Private Lending Network® was activated) to the date "Satoshi Nakamoto" registered the internet domain Bitcoin.org (pursuant to registration with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ICANN.org); and at least 3 years, 6 months and 10 days prior to the date "Satoshi Nakamoto" published the white paper "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" in the Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co. LLC “Cryptography Mailing List” on Friday, October 31 at 14:10:00 EDT in 2008; and at least 3 years, 7 months and 30 days prior to the date "Satoshi Nakamoto" published the announcement of the release of the Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System computer program named: “Bitcoin v0.1 released” on Thursday January 8 at 14:27:40 EST in 2009. International standards benchmark Continuously from May 9, 2008 until at least May 9, 2018, the systems architecture, reference architecture along with the ontology and reference implementation contained in the "Binary Digit Debt: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Debt System" body of work became the international benchmark for trust and safety in Peer-to-Peer P2P finance (Private Finance and Cryptofinance) transactions through registration to the Geneva based International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ISO 9001:2000, ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 9001:2015; the international standards for Quality Management Systems, and the National Standard for 119 countries under the tradename MQCC™ (the Money Quality Conformity Control Organization). Specifically, the ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems Standard serves as the National Standard for over 119 countries including: Australia (AU), Canada (CA), China (CN) United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA). Registration to an ISO 9001 standard provides at-a-glance confidence to legislators, regulators, regulatees, customers, prospective customers, stakeholders, interested parties and consumers, "that they can have confidence that their products are safer, reliable and of good quality". A new field of study: conformity science Discovery of the principles of blockchain in finance resulted in the creation of a new field of study and a new academic discipline, namely: conformity science. The following definition is found at Conformity.org, which is curated by the International Organization for Conformity IOC™. "The application of scholarly, problem-solving, scientific knowledge and mathematical methods (plan, do, check, act) to practical purposes of the design, analysis or operation of systems and technology used to certifiably or functionally ensure that an organizations' statutory, regulatory and process requirements are satisfied on a continuous basis; for the benefit of legislators, regulators, regulatees, customers, prospective customers, stakeholders other interested (and related) parties, consumers and the general public." The highest and best use for blockchain is to create systems, technology, services and products that effect validated continuous compliance, conformity systems to laws and regulations (conformity) at an organization level for government regulated and non-government regulated or regulatory exempt entities. World's first higher-order artificial intelligence (AI) blockchain & risk-based organization conformity operating system Applying the principles of Conformity Science to the originating blockchain algorithm and combing the below components, resulted in the world's first pan-industry higher-order artificial intelligence (AI) blockchain & risk-based organization conformity operating system with self-regulating controls. industry, function and activity rules international and national standards multi-jurisdiction statutory and regulatory requirements best-practice principles and guidelines artificial intelligence/machine intelligence/application software The latest version of the operating system which is registered to the international standard is named (R)evolution™ OS and is built on the originating blockchain developed by Anoop Bungay (the Bungay blockchain algorithm) which evolved into the "MQCC Blockchain™". On May 10, 2018, the operating system celebrates 10 years of continuous international standards registration. Defense (military) standard, government, finance regulator & regulatory recognition (international, national & regional) Departments of National Defense, International, National and Regional finance regulators in at least 119 member countries of the International Organization of Standardization - which rely on International Standards for market efficacy and consumer safety [including matters of financial innovation, including "conformity blockchains"] pursuant to in-country legislation, namely: USA: National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Public Law 104-113) and Code of Federal Regulations (US Department of Defense and US Government Accountability Office) Canada: Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management; Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2012 United Kingdom (UK): By Royal Charter: British Standards Institution King George IV: Westminster (Parliament of the United Kingdom), 22 April, 1929; original Charter. Elizabeth II: Westminster (Parliament of the United Kingdom), 5 November, 1931; 1968, 1974; Supplemental Charters. Recognize that the MQCC Blockchain™, with over 10 years of continuous National and International standards-based financial operation - serves as the benchmark standard for “better, safer and more efficient methods and products” in the domains of blockchain, cryptofinance and validated continuous compliance, conformity systems. Regulatory organizations (or their member entities) that recognize the national and international standards to which the MQCC Blockchain™ is registered: International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) (including the United States Securities & Exchange Commission, Canadian, UK, Chinese and European equivalents.) The World Federation of Exchanges (WFE) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) G20 G7 2001 - 2018: Outcome of 16 years of research and 10 years of continuous international standards registration As of May 2018, the following applications have been developed within the "MQCC international standards blockchain sandbox" and are implemented or are pending implementation: fiduciary blockchain - for any individual organization who serves in the capacity of a fiduciary to another. assurance blockchain - for any individual who provides 3rd party assurance services to others. defense (military) standard blockchain - for any individual or organization who needs no-fault command and control capabilities; or serves the defense industry. conformity blockchain - for any individual or organization who is regulated by a government or professional body and requires the utmost level of continuous compliance in a validating environment (conformity). torrens blockchain - for any individual or organization who seeks to register/transfer/control/identify real estate assets within the torrens title system government-to-government blockchain - in accordance with the United Nations Development Program UNDP definition of governance; designed for Governments who seek to implement a "country-wide operating system" to capacity building, increase efficiency, transparency, reduce corruption and reduce administrative burden. Subject to the scope of deployment, the country-level governance blockchain system developed by the MQCC™ is the only blockchain system in the world to be able to qualify [subject to project conditions] for "Government of Canada" sovereign guarantees for project completion References

Anoop Bungay (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Anoop, thank you for posting this here. On my talk page you acknowleded that you sought to add content to the article that you are the creator of the blockchain. This creates a WP:COI and thus you should not be editing the content yourself (as far as I understand about COI). Therefore, I asked you to post on the this articles talk page so other editors could comment. For us to add this content we need to find a WP:IRS that shows that you were the creator of the blockchain. I cannot make this deduction from the trademarks you registered, as I would be deducing that because you registered a trademark you therefore created the blockchain. Does that make sense? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Good morning (MST) Jtbobwaysf and team;

The beauty of government intellectual property offices, is the right of "incontestability" that is conferred via intellectual property legislation. If you heard from me 8 years earlier, or 5 years earlier, the claim of incontestability could not be made. With over 5 years of national and internationally recognized intellectual property registration and a continuous international business operation (regulated by government regulators) since at least before May 9, 2005, there has been plenty of opportunity for competing claims - and there is not.

You will further appreciate that when you double-check page 1, paragraph 1 in the Stuart Haber and W. Scott Stornetta paper named: How to Time-Stamp a Digital Document, [these fellas are cited in the Blockchain article in the History section on Line 1] as the fellas clearly state:

"In many situations there is a need to certify the date a document was created or last modified�ed. For example, in intellectual property matters, it is sometimes crucial to verify the date an inventor �first put in writing a patentable idea, in order to establish its precedence over competing claims. One accepted procedure for time-stamping a scientific�c idea involves daily notations of one's work in a lab notebook. The dated entries are entered one after another in the notebook, with no pages left blank. The sequentially numbered, sewn-in pages of the notebook make it difficult to tamper with the record without leaving telltale signs. If the notebook is then stamped on a regular basis by a notary public or reviewed and signed by a company manager, the validity of the claim is further enhanced. If the precedence of the inventor's ideas is later challenged, both the physical evidence of the notebook and the established procedure serve to substantiate the inventor's claims of having had the ideas on or before a given date."

In their "penultimate paragraph" before the "concluding paragraph", Haber and Stornetta further state:

"What kinds of documents would benefitt from secure digital time-stamping? For documents that establish the precedence of an invention or idea, time-stamping has a clear value. A particularly desirable feature of digital time-stamping is that it makes it possible to establish precedence of intellectual property without disclosing its contents. This could have a �significant effect on copyright and patent law, and could be applied to everything from software to the secret formula for Coca-Cola."

What you will notice is, while I (sorry to use the "I" view point so much) not only followed the Haber and Stornetta approach, rather than using a "Lab Notebook" which would remain in my actual or ostensible possession and therefore subject to 3rd-party scrutiny, I went a few levels higher by using a highly immutable 3rd party (government), peer-reviewed (Intellectual Property prosecution goes through a peer-review or public-review process before a claim is validated by issuance of a registration certificate ), "public" "validation system" with "3rd-party time stamping". An intellectual property certificate of registration is infinitely better than a lab notebook. Beyond other differences, the former is peer or public reviewed and the latter is not.

The real amazing part is that you will notice - if you have not already - Jtbobwaysf, is that the World Intellectual Property (IP) Organization (IPO) served as an IMMUTABLE, DECENTRALIZED or DISTRIBUTED PUBLIC LEDGER to RECORD all international IP transactions. The member 191 countries can be seen as DECENTRALIZED or DISTRIBUTED NODES with their own respective ledgers to record IP transactions. IPO's also work on CONSENSUS because IP cannot be registered without first being reviewed by the general public for critique, during the "advertising or publishing" phase of the IP prosecution process. As with all public ledgers, everyone can "see" IP transactions within each of the NODES.

The more amazing part is that Haber and Stornetta themselves, answer your question Jtbobwaysf in 1991 because in the penultimate paragraph they stated (as excerpted above), the following: "A particularly desirable feature of digital time-stamping is that it makes it possible to establish precedence of intellectual property without disclosing its contents." By prosecuting the registering the trademarks, I was able to "establish precedence of intellectual property without disclosing its contents." Stuart Haber can be reached here and W. Scott Stornetta can be reached here. You know that "someone" registered (established precedent) with an IPO: "PrivateLender.org: Canada's Private Lending Network®" for the business. By doing a IPO registration, that "someone" received the benefit of "establish precedence of intellectual property without disclosing its contents". By now, after all these years and global scrutiny, you must agree with my following ""IF-THEN" Rule of Peer-to-Peer, Private & Crypto Commerce": "IF you are enabling peer-to-peer electronic finance transactions to be sent directly from one party to another party without going through a financial institution, THEN you are using "blockchain"."

As for WP:IRS; the World Intellectual Property Organization, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office laws, regulations and source information should be sufficient, shouldn't it?

Finally, Jtbobwaysf regarding your comment: "I cannot make this deduction from the trademarks you registered, as I would be deducing that because you registered a trademark you therefore created the blockchain."; this is a step too far. You NOT have to make this "deduction". Haber and Stornetta made it easier for you. Just look at the "description: ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use" that would embody a peer-to-peer, private & crypto entity that is entitled "PrivateLender.org: Canada's Private Lending Network®" and look at date of web domain registration and the date of trademark registration and the "age" of registration. Nothing to deduct, nothing to infer; just "a block of dates in the chain of time™."

Trusting this is to your acceptance team and Jtbobwaysf; your thoughts?

Best,

Anoop Bungay (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Anoop Bungay

Sorry, I am a bit lost here, as I am missing the connection to Haber and Stornetta... and might be missing the point in general. Can you please summarize this in 30 words or less? I do know that we cannot contact Haber or Stornetta to verify anything, as that again would be my WP:OR. We just read what is in the sources. Is your name listed the Haber and Stornetta article? I searched it and couldn't find your name. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see you and I have similar hours Jtbobwaysf. Some points:

0 - Don't worry about "being lost"; there is much technical content. You may have to re-read some content.

1 - The "general point" Haber and Stornett (HS) reference in the passage is to bring to your attention that the introductory premise of their research was in respect of using "timestamp functions" to validate "intellectual property"; which is exactly the reason for your concerns. The main issue is that you, or any other editor can see, on a "prima facie" basis from looking at the citations, that third-party sources validate my claims. Your main point of concern is my role as the source originator of the claims, and I understand your point of view.

2 - 30 words or less; "okay, will try (on a "per sentence basis").

3 - RE: contacting the fellas; it was "just an idea", in case you know them already (or not). WP:OR

4 - RE: "We just read what is in the sources"; then please remember that the Intellectual Property Offices are trusted 3rd party sources.

5 - RE: "Is your name listed the Haber and Stornetta article?"; you are overstating what I had written -- "no" I am not "listed" - don't worry.

6 - RE: "I searched it and couldn't find your name."; correct, you will not find my name.

Going forward, my only request for you is to ask you to look at the evidence at face value (prima facie) because that is the whole reason why we (society) created intellectual property offices; in order to help people like you to get immediate trust in a claim by persons who make claims of ownership.

Regarding your earlier statement: "For us to add this content we need to find a WP:IRS". Please note, WP:IRS has ALREADY PERMITTED my updates. See the rules re:

WP:SELFSOURCE - namely, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Please double-check this and you will see that I am not offside on the five criteria items.

WP:RSSELF - this rule also has an exception to permit my additions.

While you have been very diligent in highlight the "prohibitions" that might apply to me, I trust you will agree that, under the wikipedia policies, I have acted in accordance with all "permissions" that apply to me; and under the exceptions, I am free to contribute the content given that I have already done the home work of validating the content with third-party sources.

Why don't you let me make the changes, and see what the community says. This does not harm and is fair and reasonable; is that too much to ask Jtbobwaysf?

Thank you in advance,

best,

Anoop Bungay (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Anoop, the sources you have submitted state that you have a trademark. They dont say anything about you inventing blockchain, nor does the trademark even imply the content would be relevent on this article.. If I am missing something, please explain it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello JT Jtbobwaysf Using my phone so keyboard is limited.

Pls consider the dates of claims. One cannot fake innutable IPO public ledger time stamping.

While I cannot give you legal advice re IP--which means you will need to retain legal counsel for an opinion. What I can say is that i hear you; and I notice that you are not looking at the material on a prima facie, first-impression-basis, as a whole. A basic tenet of trademark prosecution in matters of claims.

Just as Haber and Stornetta exclaimed: i do not need to disclose the intellectual property (though I have), i just need to disclose the name of the system, in a way that a public, immutable timestamp would be applied in order to lay claim, at a later date.

While you may not see the whole, others have; which is why no one else seems to voice the same concern as you.

Moreover, if a "direct stated connection" is what you seek, then by your standard we must remove the Haber Stornetta citation from the blockchain page because they, too, do not talk about block chain. Read every page of their paper and understand their concepts, arguments and conclusions. Their article does not even imply blocks and they seldom used the word chain. A word count of their paper shows they were only focussed on "timestamps" and "linkages". Yet they are cited in the blockchain page. Haber and Stornetta should be in the "timestamp linkage" page --which they are -see: linked timestamps.

Going back to our 2005 activity , please look at what is described in the new content i am adding: please re-read the quality, character, ingredient, function, form aspect noted earlier and the "IF-THEN" comments about blockchain in peer-to-peer electronic financial transaction. If you are not recognizing blockchain, then lets us see whatvother think, after publishing the content.

Surely you cannot be contesting the date of 2005. And if you do not disagree - like the 191 government IP offices have not - that a private (crypto) lending system (network) was - and continues to - operate since at least as early as May 9, 2005; then it follows that you must agree that the basis of the system is blockchain. Given what you know today - how else do you think i made peer to peer transactions bypass a financial institution?

Wait, I have an idea; let us see if there are there any other persons who have any questions similar to you. Why not give it 24 hours from noe and if no one else pipes in, lets publish the new material?

That is -after all- the crux of Wikipedia's Vision statement. I have a right to exercise my "permissive" rights afforded to me by Wikipedia policy (as described earlier) and upon publishing, members of the Wikimedia Foundation target audience -most of whom who do not read Talk pages - we can address questions, if they are raised.

It should not be this hard to prosecute an article. While you are an important individual, i think you are not being fair nor reasonable because I sense you are going beyond editorial query and moving into prosecutorial, advocacy or arbiter mode.

Allow us to meet the Vision of the Wikimedia Foundation which means that you should let the publishing go ahead and let another person raise their objectio s -if any.

Is this - once again - too much to ask? What say JT?

Best,

Anoop Bungay Anoop Bungay (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jtbobwaysf Back at my keyboard, so I have inserted your signature so that you are notified of the latest message to you (unless you already saw the message on your initiative). Have a great remainder of your day. Let me know what you think of the 24 hour suggestion. Best, A Anoop Bungay (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 19-MAY-2018

N Not done and not likely to be done Just so I'm clear on this, allow me to paraphrase what Mr. Bungay is saying here, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

It is not a difficult inference for the average reader of the Blockchain page to recognize the relationship between a "peer-to-peer", "private" or "crypto" lending platform and the need to have an underlying blockchain system in place, for the network to function. —Anoop Bungay

Mr. Bungay's claim is that peer to peer, private or crypto lending platforms utilize systems of record-keeping similar to a blockchain, and it would not be difficult to infer that readers of the article would recognize the relationship between those platforms and the need to have a blockchain in place. From that claim statement, Mr. Bungay then posits that his registration of an extra-provincial company, MortgageQuote Canada Corporation — which uses a form of record-keeping similar to a blockchain — entitles him to make changes to the blockchain article whereby the provenance for this technology, originally ascribed to Satoshi Nakamoto, would then be altered instead to a newer narrative placing Mr. Bungay as innovator of that technology. Is this correct? If so, I'm afraid that these changes would not improve the article. .spintendo⋅⋅) 07:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 31-JAN-2019

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

Hello  Spintendo 

Happy 2019 to you.

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

1. 1 - In future, please remember to "cite your sources"; ie: please provide reference to evidence that MQCC is an "extra-provincial corporation". Which jurisdiction? What is the incorporation date? What is the implication of being incorporated and how does this affect any claims, as you see it. Not to mention, the readers need to know your source of knowledge.
2. 2 - In future, please remember to "cite your sources"; ie: please understand that your assertion that MortgageQuote Canada Corporation "uses a form of record keeping" is deceptively misdescriptive. Please provide the readers the source of your information and how you arrived at your conclusion; the readers need to know your source of knowledge.
3. 3 - Please note, a public "Journalistic Correction" is issued to some major university professors (Harvard University), journals (the Economist Magazine), newspaper firms (Financial Times Newspaper) and interested parties; you may find the "Journalistic Correction" at blog.mortgagequote.ca for your reference.
4. 3.1 - As explained in the "Journalistic Correction", development of an ontology for a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" [the word 'finance' embodies all characteristics: equity, debt (loan or mortgage), asset, liabilities, currency, securities]; development of the underlying "principles of 'blockchain'"; and development of the related science and mathematics, resulted in the identification of a new field of study (academic discipline) namely, "conformity science"; visit www.conformity.org to learn more. The study of Conformity science is important because in some cases, the absence of much-needed conformity may result in loss, not only of financial or natural resources, of human life.
5. 4 - While the following may constitute as "primary research", please note: of all the financial (including securities) regulators, legal regulators, assurance regulators, policy makers, legislators and related persons in the world (or the lawyers and consultants employed by these bodies) who are "looking into" the 19 years of history, including: over 13 years of empirically proven, public sector and private sector benefits of the MQCC™.org System and Technology which is built on the seminal "Principles of 'blockchain'" -['principles' that are defined by your's sincerely pursuant to research (commencing at least before 2001)] - have no objections with your's sincerely's claims.
6. 5 the phrase: "principles of 'blockchain'" are in quotations because the technical title is: "Bungay Unification of Quantum Processes Algorithm"; each quantum process consists of a "block" and the unification of each block, creates a "chain".
7. 6 - Any yes, the MQCC™ ontology is quantum-computing ready. Just waiting for the correct programming language; and right computing environment; and the right team of good, sincere, trustworthy people.
8. 7 - In conclusion, instead of ending on a negative note; prosecuting wikipedia for its inherent weaknesses, potential for editor bias, distinction between "C" class articles and "FA" class articles, the requirement for differing points of view and so forth (including initiating formal dispute resolution - someone else can do that); might I please end on the following; for those of you who are current or future students of quantum philosophy/quantum computing/quantum anything, imagine two states of existence:

• (a) a world where a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" - in a commercially deliverable state - was introduced to the world (without disclosure of the underlying knowledge-base/algorithm, ie. intellectual property, principles, science and math) on April 9, 2005 at the www.privatelender.org website. (Analogy: a world where a cat is alive, in a sealed box)
• (b) a world where a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system" [the 'electronic cash system' being merely a sub-system - a "payments delivery" function - within the overarching 'finance system'] - in a non-commercially deliverable, alpha and experimental state (see reference below) - was introduced to the world (with partial disclosure of the underlying knowledge-base/algorithm ie.: intellectual property, principles, science and math) on Thu Jan 8 14:27:40 EST 2009 at the www.Metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list. (Analogy: a world where a cat is dead, in a sealed box)

1. 7.1 - At any given time, both states (a) and (b) existed at the SAME TIME - there is superposition - but the observer (you), will only know which (a) OR (b) came first, only after you fairly "look into the matter". (Analogy: the cat is both alive and dead until you (the observer) open the box and look into the box to see the actual state of the cat).
2. 7.2 - Conclusion: The day that you (wikipedia) first heard from your's sincerely (Anoop Bungay), is the day that it was decided to introduce your's sincerely; and the Money Quality Conformity Control Organization (MQCC™) incorporated as MortgageQuote Canada Corp. (mqcc.org); and PrivateLender.org (Bungay International Inc.) and a "peer-to-peer electronic finance system" that is litigation-tested, regulator-audited, regulatory-recognized, in continual operation and continually improving, since April 9, 2005. (Analogy Conclusion: the "cat pre-empted the observer and decided to jump out of the box" and say: "Hello world, I am alive".)

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

Best to all,

Enjoy a healthy and prosperous 2019.

/s/

A. K. (Anoop) Bungay

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

Anoop Bungay (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

eDinar seems false

When I look at the Tunisian Central Bank page there is no mention of Blockchain nor eDinar

https://www.bct.gov.tn/recherche/search/serach.php?query=Blockchain&search=1

There is also no reference to it on the supposed provider's / partner's page.

https://monetas.net/news/ has nothing in its news section about Tunisia nor eDinar.

Without any source that is trusted then this looks like an idea rather than an actual existence of a state backed currency. It is possible it was a project by the Tunisian Post Service

https://e-dinar.poste.tn/fr/ seems to use the term e-dinar, but this does NOT seem to be its own currency rather just a payment method and branding of that payment method e.g. Visa or a postal order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Cheers, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No E-currency in Senegal either

I looked and saw these 2 articles:

https://unblock.net/cryptocurrencies-cure-african-economic-ills/ says that Senegal is planning to introduce as of 11 June 2018 - so it has NOT done it and an article saying the Central Bank does not want it

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-06/west-african-digital-currency-project-shunned-by-central-bank

"April 6, 2017, 2:01 PM GMT+3 The Central Bank of West African States distanced itself from plans to introduce a digital currency in Senegal, saying it isn’t involved in the project and won’t consider doing so." - as this is behind a paywall I cannot see if some Central Bank is doing this, but it looks unilkely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.51.145.16 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Blockchain as data structure, minus the hype

An article is needed that describes the data structure called blockchain. Only very few paragraphs in this article make an attempt to do that (unfortunately in vague terms rather than with concrete definitions and examples, like other data structures). Purpose and applications of the data structure can briefly be mentioned. But in this case, more than half this article is just meaningless hype. Compare it with, say, the article about relational databases. Relational databases in fact did have the kind of impact on everything that blockchain can only hope for as of now, yet the relational database article isn't full with claims about its world-transforming potential. This article shouldn't be either. Blockchain has been hyped a lot in the press, and I notice that a lot of references in this article are just pointing to such hype as if they are fact. I'm not intimately familiar with how Wikipedia ranks sources, but just because some popular business journal claims that "bitchain will revolutionize data processing", you can't just claim as factual that "bitchain will revolutionize data processing" by referring to that article. Such popular press simply is not an authoritative source to substantiate such claims. People reading the hype elsewhere will come to Wikipedia exactly to get some cold hard facts so they can judge for themselves -- serving them instead a copy of the hype doesn't do any good.

No doubt there are many Wikipedia editors who share the enthusiasm for everything blockchain, so I have little hope that all the text about the earth-shattering future benefits will be removed. But maybe the article can be split into "blockchain (data structure)" and "blockchain applications", where "blockchain (data structure)" is limited to describing how it works in standard computer science terms.

2602:306:CEAE:E60:A4AB:281E:F3D7:4A29 (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been removing some of the hype and as many of the "cryptocurrency propaganda press" citations as possible. This requires looking at the sources and judging their quality - is it hype and fluff? Feel free in joining in removing the crap. I'd say go ahead in removing the "applications" as well if they are not documented, or have never gone beyond the Proof-of-concept stage (i.e. most of them) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The US Senate and other government entities are weighing in

Saw this interesting government source today:

• Chapter 9: Building a Secure Future, One blockchain at a time, US Senate Joint Economic Committee, March 2018.

This doesn't strike me as a real government document - but conress reprints or "puts on the record" lots of other stuff. Can you track down the original publisher? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

SOAP

@Smallbones: youtube videos are not an appropriate source on wikipedia, certainly not on the blockchain sanctioned articles. This edit [3] is taking your WP:SOAP to a new level. @Jytdog: and @MER-C: in case you want to add something. Adding this new section at the top of the article is also a WP:WEIGHT issue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Antitrust

Dear all, May I mention an academic paper published by a law professor and focusing on how blockchain will impact antitrust law and tech giants: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3193576 I found it to be very interesting, especially this paragraph: "The incentive system of public blockchain also creates a strong incentive to join it as soon as possible, contrary to what happens on digital platforms as we know them today. It results in a weakening of these platforms against blockchains whose users have an interest in quickly joining the community - and not only once the network effect is created. This difference between "network effects" and "token effects" (network effects on blockchain) also lies in the fact that tokens help "overcome the bootstrap problem by adding financial utility when application utility is low". According to the author, the paper was presented at the OECD. Best, Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.149.70.107 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Energy use section needs expansion and should also be moved

Seems like the energy use section appearing at the top of the page is out of place and also needs more content. Also seems a bit misleading since not all blockchains use a lot of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.223.129 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)