Open main menu

The lack of commercial deploymentsEdit

I was going to add the following however I note that it was written 10 months ago. Include or not? The lack of commercial deployments for blockchains has been attributed to their expense, complexity and inefficient energy use.[1]


  1. ^ Saifedean Ammous (4 February 2016). "Blockchain Won't Make Banks Any Nimbler". American Banker. SourceMedia. Retrieved 8 December 2016.

Unreadable to the uninitiatedEdit

For someone uninformed about the general subject matter who, say, simply wants to understand what blockchains are sufficiently to comprehend the text in which they first saw it used, this article is useless. It gives no actual explanation of what they actually are, and only confuses further by using a plethora of what some might call additional technical mumbo jumbo. There's plenty of room for that stuff, but the introduction should at least in part be used to give context to the topic, explain the very basics and give a small number of tangible, comprehensible facts which help readers place blockchains in a sort of mental category, before the article delves into rattling off all the theoretical specifications, history and various uses of blockchains.

Much muddlement.Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019Edit

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

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

Improving Video GamesEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had to revert the edit - it was a sea of non-RS sources - Forbes contributor blogs (only staff or "print edition" is RS from Forbes), low-quality crypto blogs, personal blog posts, etc. I think that if you honestly think a Forbes contributor blog is a RS for Wikipedia, reviewing WP:RS and the archives of WP:RSN would be in order. Also, your edit appears related to your past efforts to promote Huntercoin on Wikipedia. I went to clean up the edit, and was eventually just deleting huge swathes of it. You say "relevant information", but I say "the information is relevant if it's in mainstream third-party RSes". I see you're aware of GS/Crypto [1] and have been informed of what a nightmarish headache crypto articles in Wikipedia have proven to be, and why these sanctions went into place - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I support David's removal. We have a big problem with promotional-ism on these articles and thus that trumps the concept of broad inclusion. We need this stuff to be clearly notable before we include the newest blockchain widget. These scholar articles can be sufficient, but I have also seen times when the supposed scholor article is written by the lead maintainer of a crypto project (thus just a glorified blog post from wikipedia's perspective). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf wrote "...just a glorified blog post from wikipedia's perspective..." about a scholar article. Let me introduce you to the publishing process of scholar articles: they are published only after a review process, in which all of the following are involved: one or several editors of the respective magazine and usually several reviewers independent on the author. Calling this a "glorified blog" is a severe misunderstanding of the process. And, BTW, there is no arbitrariness in the Wikipedia rules. They do not leave an option for anybody to call a scholar article "a glorified blog". Once the source is scholar, it is unambiguously called "reliable" by the Wikipedia rules, as you could easily find out if reading e.g. WP:IRS. That said, I am not a fan of video games, neither do I support use of unreliable sources, but we should not bend the rules as we see fit and call something "a glorified blog" with the goal to discredit it as a reliable source as long as it is scholar. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This [2] is the edit I was referring to in which a ledger source was in fact written by someone closely related to the crypto project. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
"...written by someone closely related to the crypto project..." - and? It does not matter who the author is, as long as the article is published in a scholar journal and subject to the review by editors and independent reviewers verifying the accuracy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Too much Nikolai Hampton opinionEdit

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

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

Adding another use?Edit

Here is a Forbes article about putting blockchain to use for academic purposes - would it be a good addition to include a mention of this under "Other Uses," or even create a section for Academic Uses?

It could say: Brandman University and N2N Services, Inc., collaborated to build a competency-based learning platform using blockchain technology, that allows colleges and universities to test student competencies and then place those students within an academic program according to their skill level. N2N is also developing a blockchain “personal value ledger” that will take work experience listed in employment histories, officially vet them through a transcript and credential-evaluation service, and then make those certified "resumes" available to employers.Angelala3222 (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC) is a contributor blog. Essentially, it is a self-published source, not reliable for our purposes here. Please have a look at WP:RSP. Retimuko (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Would this link work to support the mentions of Dallas County Community Colleges using blockchain, above? (Sorry, I'm new here, trying to figure out how to do this right - and also, is this the right place to put this comment?)Angelala3222 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that is a reliable source. Retimuko (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Blockchain and Internal AuditEdit

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

There are several problem with the current wording:
  • The section title is not in a sentence case as required by WP:MOS.
  • The first sentence of the section: "The need for internal audit to provide effective oversight of organizational efficiency will require a change in the way that information is accessed in new formats." is too general to be related to the article subject.
  • The AICPA acronym used in the section is not recognizable by anybody outside of the US. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ladislav, this all needs to be redone to wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another problem with the section formulation is, that the cited sources appear reliable, but they do not look like academic sources, do they? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019Edit

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

The blockchain has also given rise to Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) as well as a new category of digital asset called Security Token Offerings (STOs), also sometimes referred to as Digital Security Offerings (DSOs).[1] STO/DSOs may be conducted privately or on a public stock exchange and are used to tokenize traditional assets such as company shares as well as more innovative ones like intellectual property, real estate, art, or individual products. A number of companies are active in this space, including Securitize (private STOs), Polymath (compliant tokenization services) and Blockstation (public STOs on the stock exchange). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeintocan (talkcontribs) 17:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeintocan:, could you maybe point to a better source for this than It appears to be self-published. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur:, I updated the link with a more journalistic source. – User:Mikeintocan (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Need a mainstream RS, not a crypto site. Do STOs have any mainstream notability? - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's an article from Forbes establishing that STOs are a genuine use of blockchain technology, including some use cases: [2]. User:Mikeintocan (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a Forbes contributor blog, not an RS - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Both of these have security token offering comments. [3] and [4] . You can read the excerpt here in google [5] if you dont have a login for bloomberg. Bloomberg should be an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur:, could also use this Deloitte report on crypto assets. [6]. Mikeintocan (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur:, I've updated the in-text reference with the Deloitte source. What are next steps for this edit request? – User:Mikeintocan (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)Mikeintocan (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Mikeintocan, you are now an autoconfirmed user, so you can now add this section in yourself. I think the sentence "a number of companies are active in this space including X" might be spam bait, also doesn't appear that the listed examples have articles here on Wikipedia. (Sorry, didn't get your previous pings since it is necessary to mention the user and sign with ~~~~ in the same edit for the ping to go through)Thjarkur (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019Edit

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

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

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

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

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

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sceptre (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Blockchain" page.