Talk:Chainlink (blockchain)

Proposed deletion

Ysangkok: I saw that you proposed deletion of this article because you stated that Forbes or Bloomberg will write about almost every cryptocurrency. I don't think this is true at all as there are thousands, or tens of thousands of cryptocurrencies. There are also cites from other reputable sources like Reuters and ZDNet. This article should pretty clearly pass WP:GNG but if other editors would like to put it up for discussion, please go ahead. Hocus00 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Helpful source

This source provides helpful background on how Link works: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chainlink-launches-mainnet-to-get-data-in-and-out-of-ethereum-smart-contracts/ Hocus00 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

a dimension

Banned sockpuppet

@David Gerard: with regards to summary 20:53, 7 July 2021 and User talk:Autonomous agent 5#July 2021 20:51, 7 July 2021 this editor considered the fact of 3 dimensions to not include the dimension of the internet as a dimension in reality‎ i.e. the internet is an extra dimension if the word seems inapplicable, the fact of the question at the summary "what on earth" (which intimates unintentionally/indirectly the reasoning this editor is showing here) should describe how the word is applicable, in the opinion of this editor - with regards specifically to how cyberspace including the word "space" indicates a dimension that is expressable by the word "dimension" - this editor considers this response to allay the other editors consideration of gibberish as being here inapplicable, not the word (is asserted by this editor), with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC) This is unclear and unencyclopedic. We're here to inform the reader, not do whatever you're doing here - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

reversions

Banned sockpuppet

@David Gerard: why you think the Publications section is a problem? with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC) (to interested users, the question is a continuation of User talk:Autonomous agent 5#July 2021 (23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC))) the question is with regards to the reversion of the version @ oldid=1032603790 with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC) User:David Gerard is giving what appears to be legitimate criticism in the summary and changing the article to show the criticism i.e. adding tags - but when this editor looks at the sources it wasn't possible to find how the sources aren't legitimate for the article - in addition this editor has made changes 21:57, 6 July 2021, 19:31, 6 July 2021 - the editor is not reasonably showing consideration for the material in the article - 18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources WP: RSP @ 15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion" cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ could the user please explain how these choices are legitimate, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies#Remedies "All articles related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." this editor (that is Autonomous agent 5) has provided an extended courtesy of allowing the reversions knowing the 1RR exists with the hope that the article could be improved for those interested users, including this user editor, but the reverting editor has not made any constructive efforts except for criticism, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC) @JBchrch: I pinged because of the preceding concern (via here from here), this editor thinks the reverting editor has made an error of judgement and would like the pinged editor to review the reversions (where he/she/they will surely find the same problem) - I didn't see obvs. how to proceed with enforcing the 1RR sanction rule, or gaining any clarity on the situation from the reverting editor, is why the ping was sent - as a second option, providing a route for procedure (i.e. to provide some help on who else and where else in wikipedia to request assistance from) - would suffice, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC) corr. 11:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC) @Autonomous agent 5: I assume you would like a second opinion about this edit? I think that David Gerard is correct here. Cheers. JBchrch talk 11:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC) actually I already indicated primarily the problematic aspects @ above here - as is shown @ the list with 3 members 11:24, 6 July 2021‎ - 14:33, 6 July 2021‎ reverted 12 edits - was provided @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and declined there, but specifically the fact of 1RR being the rule, would motivate me to request your review of the 12 successive reverts - as the rule is strictly a sole revert with regards to 11:44, 9 July; "The oracle software produced by Chainlink was, at the beginning to 2021, the most utilized blockchain oracle service currently existing within the cyberspace dimension.[3][4] The organisation Chainlink itself is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands[5]" was a part of that revert (the editor wrote "revert" not function reverted @ that edit) - I don't perceive any strong fault with that excerpt - not glaringly obvs. - if you could vindicate your position as to how this excerpt is not acceptable - I would surely be enlightened to a reality which is an improvement to my understanding that my current perception does not afford, thanks, with regards, (i): agent (5) (ii): autonomous - (version: prototype) (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC) It may or may not be registered in the Caymans, but that link does not show where its headquarters are - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC) if you open the link the source shows explicitly headquarters Cayman Islands, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

History edit request

Hi Wikipedia! I'm A at Chainlink and I've been paid by Chainlink to seek some changes to the page. I won't make any edits myself to make sure I stay compliant with the rules, and have disclosed my COI in the banners above. I have some suggestions that I think can improve the accuracy and sourcing of the article.

For starters, I'd like to offer some more information in the history section about how the network got started and when some integrations were made. I've drafted what that might look like:

Extended content

History Chainlink was created in 2017 by Sergey Nazarov and Steve Ellis, who co-authored a white paper introducing the Chainlink protocol and network with Cornell University professor Ari Juels the same year. Chainlink acts as a "bridge" between a blockchain and off-chain environments. The network is used by smart contracts and was formally launched in 2019. In 2018, Chainlink integrated Town Crier, a trusted execution environment-based blockchain oracle that Juels also worked on. Town Crier connects the Ethereum blockchain with web sources that use HTTPS. In 2020, Chainlink integrated DECO, a Cornell project co-created by Juels. DECO is a protocol that uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to prove information is true to a blockchain oracle without revealing sensitive information, such as birth dates. Chainlink published a second white paper in April 2021. That paper, Chainlink 2.0: Next Steps in the Evolution of Decentralized Oracle Networks, detailed a vision for expanding the role and capabilities of decentralized oracle networks to include hybrid smart contracts, which utilize on-chain code and off-chain services provided by oracle networks. More than 650 entities have integrated with Chainlink as of July 2021, including the Associated Press, Google, and Deutsche Telekom. References

If anyone is interested in seeing my overall goals for the article, I uploaded a draft to my userspace. I also welcome feedback and understand editors may change my proposed content. Thank you so much for your help and consideration! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: hello and thank you for following protocol, much appreciated. I think the history section addition you are making looks good in general. I think the source regarding DECO should be improved, as it seems more like a press release. It's therefore making more of a marketing promise, rather than stating an objective fact. It would also be good to support primary source [2] with a secondary source. BeŻet (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Hi BeŻet, thanks for your response and your constructive criticism! It's really helpful.

• Regarding the DECO acquisition source, I do see what you are saying. The only other source I could find that speaks about the acquisition is this CoinTelegraph source, but it is my understanding based on this RfC that editors prefer not to use CoinTelegraph. Do you think this would be an acceptable use in this case? I'd love some additional thoughts from you on this.

• Regarding an additional secondary source for source 2, I am not sure what specifically you would like additional sourcing on.
  • Source 1 mentions that the white paper was published in 2017
    • "Chainlink's whitepaper, published in 2017, tries to address this on the technical level."
  • Source 4 mentions that Juels is a Cornell professor
    • Without that, they are “like a city with no electricity,” says Ari Juels, a computer science professor at Cornell.

Can you clarify what you would like additional support for? I am happy to try to dig something up for you. I really appreciate the help and you taking the time to offer feedback! A at Chainlink (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: Thanks for your reply, and you are making a good point about the secondary source - I would just re-use source 1 with source 2 in that statement. Regarding the DECO aqcuisition, perhaps we can remove that part for now, or at least trim it to just the part mentioning the acquisition itself, and removing DECO is a protocol that uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to prove information is true to a blockchain oracle without revealing sensitive information, such as birth dates - this part is the problematic one, as we are making a factual statement, but if all that supports it is a press release, we should either rephrase (e.g. "the authors of the protocal say that it allows users to...") or just remove it all together. BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Hi BeŻet, thanks for the quick response and the clarification! Could we rewrite that sentence to something like this?

• In 2020, Chainlink integrated DECO, a Cornell project co-created by Juels. DECO is a protocol that uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to prove information is true to a blockchain oracle without revealing sensitive information, such as birth dates, according to its authors.

References

As for the other citation, can we just move it back later in the sentence? Please let me know what you think! Cheers! A at Chainlink (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: sorry for the delay. I think it looks good, but maybe it could read something like DECO is decribed by its authors as a protocol...? Might just look better structurally. This is just a personal opinion though, otherwise I think it's good to go (of course another editor may disagree). BeŻet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Thanks, that is fine with me! And no worries, I know you are busy. Do you mind implementing this request with the changes? A at Chainlink (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem, that's been added now per discussion above. BeŻet (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request, since it seems like it has been answered. If this is not the case, please open a new request at the bottom of the page, outlining the proposed changes. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Technology section request

Hi editors, A at Chainlink here again. I thought while BeŻet is reviewing my first request, I'd put up something else for the community that I hope isn't too controversial.

I'm proposing removing the Chainlink Token section and replacing it with one about the technology behind Chainlink in general. I think this section should go after the History section. This adds additional information about how Chainlink works and some of the features of the network and should address the citation needed and self-published source tags in the current section.

Extended content

Technology Chainlink's decentralized oracle network is an open-source technology infrastructure that allows any blockchain to securely connect to off-chain data and computation resources. The network nodes fetch, validate, and deliver data from multiple sources onto blockchains to execute smart contracts. Node operators are compensated with the network's native cryptocurrency, LINK. The LINK token is compatible with the Ethereum ERC20 and ERC677 token standards. Additional functionality In addition to the transfer of external information to a blockchain, Chainlink can also be used for several different off-chain computation functions, including a verifiable random function (VRF), data and price feeds, programmable external adapters, and Keepers. Chainlink's VRF can be used for random number generation which can be used in decentralized gaming and in the minting of NFTs. ZDNet reported the verifiability of the random number generation ensures the in-game results are tamper-proof. The data and price feeds supported by the Chainlink network are aggregated data streams that include market prices and conversion rates. Other uses for the data feeds include bringing weather information on-chain for parametric crop insurance as well as election data. Chainlink nodes can also connect to external adapters, allowing smart contracts to use computing power not directly on a blockchain network. These software extensions allow a node operator to allow smart contracts to use external APIs and perform other tasks independent of the blockchain, such as connecting to payment software. Keepers are a service that automates smart contracts and reduces manual maintenance for developers. Decrypt reported that Keepers can automate token minting, harvesting yields from vaults, and the liquidation of undercollateralized loans. References

I am trying to follow all the rules by not making any direct edits and welcome feedback on my requests here or on the draft in my user space. I really appreciate all the help! A at Chainlink (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the above. I think to widen consensus, I might let someone else review this change - hopefully it won't take too long. BeŻet (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet, thank you for adding the history section! And I definitely get wanting to wait for more consensus. Can I ping you after a while if no other editors respond to the request? Thanks again for taking the time to review the other section! A at Chainlink (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep sure, let's give it another week or two and then I can have another look. Just want to make sure there's more eyes looking at this. BeŻet (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll keep a lookout. A at Chainlink (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I thought I might split the difference on the timeline you established. It doesn't seem like we've generated a lot of interest from other editors, so I was wondering if you might take a look at this section now? No rush! Please let me know A at Chainlink (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are several cites that won't past muster and will likely end up being reverted. Cites in crypto articles are extremely strict and should be to perennial reliable sources. See WP:RSP. See if you can find alternate sources instead of arXiv, crypto sites like Decrypt and The Block, and self published sources from Chainlink or Google. The Forbes and ZDNet cites are ok. Hocus00 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hocus00: Thanks for the feedback! I've posted a new draft without those sources below:

Extended content

Technology Chainlink's decentralized oracle network is an open-source technology infrastructure that allows any blockchain to securely connect to off-chain data and computation resources. The network nodes fetch, validate, and deliver data from multiple sources onto blockchains to execute smart contracts. Node operators are compensated with the network's native cryptocurrency, LINK. In addition to the transfer of external information to a blockchain, Chainlink can also be used for several different off-chain computation functions, including a verifiable random function (VRF) and data feeds. The data feeds have been used to bring election data on-chain. Chainlink's VRF can be used for random number generation which can be used in decentralized gaming. ZDNet reported the verifiability of the random number generation ensures the in-game results are tamper-proof. References

Thanks again for the feedback and for pointing me in the right direction! A at Chainlink (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hocus00: I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the new draft I posted without those sources. Also, I noticed an editor added "like Tellor" to the introduction, but I don't really see how that fits in with WP:Relevance. Can we remove that? Please let me know. Thanks! A at Chainlink (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink:Thanks for your patience with this. I'm fine with these changes and the page has been updated. Hocus00 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with possible spam

Hello editors, A at Chainlink again. I saw an editor had added "like Tellor." to the article's intro. That looks like WP:Spam. It's also the only edit that editor has made. Is there any chance someone can remove this? I don't want to make any direct edits because I have a COI. Please let me know and thanks in advance for your help! A at Chainlink (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Hocus00 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done by Hocus00 casualdejekyll 02:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Request to clean up introduction, Chainlink token and tags

Hello again, A at Chainlink here with one last batch of requests. I thought I might put them all together so I don't fill up the request queue.

• First, I was hoping we could delete the Chainlink token section. I couldn't find any sources that are acceptable to replace the two in that section and thanks to Hocus00 (thanks again!), the token is mentioned in the Technology section. That way we could cut the two self-published sources.
• Second, I had a proposal to change up the introduction so we could remove another self-published source tag.

Chainlink is a decentralized blockchain oracle network that allows off-chain data and computation to be brought securely onto blockchains and interact with smart contracts.

• Third, if those changes are okay with the community, I was hoping we could remove the self-published sources tag at the top of the article and see about changing the disambiguation to "blockchain oracle." Chainlink is not a blockchain, but it does work with blockchains.
• Finally, I was hoping you might consider adding an External links section to the end with a link to our white paper, something like this: Chainlink 2.0: Next Steps in the Evolution of Decentralized Oracle Networks, v1.0, April 15, 2021.

Please let me know if you think these requests are possible! I know it's a lot but I'm hoping they are small enough that they won't be too much trouble. BeŻet and Hocus00, you've been so helpful so far, would either of you consider taking a look at these requests? Thanks in advance! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: My thoughts: 1. The Link token section does not have any RS's right now but that is one of the most important aspects of the project. I think deleting that section outright should come from the consensus of the editors here. I would keep it. 2. There are still several cites to the Link website/github so I don't think we can remove this header. 3. It's referenced as a 'blockchain oracle network'. I think that's accurate. It's not a blockchain, but it's an oracle network. I think the naming of the page "(blockchain)" should be reconsidered however. 4. The whitepaper and website are linked already in the infobox. Hocus00 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hocus00: Thanks for taking the time to respond to the multi-part ask! 1. Understood, will defer to the community on the relative importance of this section. 2. Got it. As additional sources become available I'll be sure to highlight them. 3. My suggestion for the naming of the page would be Chainlink (oracle network), as I haven't seen other similar disambiguations used (would defer to those for consistency if they do exist). 4. Understood. Thanks again! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This request has been open for a long time, and no other editors have opined to comment. As such, I will defer to Hocus00's assessment above and close this as answered. If anyone would like to open a new request, or have text above reconsidered, please open a new request at the bottom of the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Questions about recent edits

Hi, @Citing:, I noticed you made some edits to the page recently. I was hoping to understand them a little better. The first one, removing the DailyCoin source and the integrations, I do understand that DailyCoin is not an ideal source. I worked with BeŻet on that content and we chose to include the integrations with the AP, Google, and Deutsche Telekom because they were written about in reliable sources (by Forbes staff and ZDNet). Might you be willing to replace those as use case examples?

With the second edit, I am concerned that the wording doesn't accurately represent the content of the source, and implies an unconfirmed event. As the writing states, one analysis "suggested" a pump and dump scam. Because nothing was confirmed, should this be included at all? Do you think we could remove that sentence, or if editors think it's worth keeping, can we add more context? Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: Listing a business's clients is almost always promotional in tone and not useful for readers, often ballooning into uninformative and repetitive prose. It's better to explain what the business/product does (e.g., with how the Forbes reference is currently used in the Technology section). The pump-and-dump bit looks like it was an independent analysis reported by a reliable third party who contacted the researchers and Nazarov for comments, and given the company's relatively short existence it's worth noting.Citing (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)