Talk:IOTA (technology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Regarding NPOV Dispute

To address the filed NPOV dispute

"Comefrombeyond is developer of IOTA and is removing Criticism section"
The original editor, and user who has filed this dispute has persistently edited the article to include their own improperly placed opinions within the context of this article. The editor in question altered the content within four sections of the article to include incorrect and un-referenced information in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to misconstrue facts. Specifically, the "Criticism section" was wholly unsubstantiated and outside the scope of an encyclopedic repository, such as this.

"also editing and removing mentions of facts as of 2017 July - IOTA has a central authority to reach consensus called Coordinator."
To address this dissent, a section including all known facts about the Coordinator will be added to this wikipedia entry when editing permission is restored.

The whole article as written, reads like from a marketing department, where dissenting opinions are erased.
The purpose of this platform is to allow anyone to participate in the editing process, in an effort to create a comprehensive source of knowledge on this subject. Editors are tasked with providing facts that can be substantiated with external references, as those who contributed on this entry have done.

Please clarify the Coordinator role, with a subtitle == Coordinator == . Mention when it is planned to be removed. Mention why it is not removed right now or 1 year ago. As you say it is not providing security or consensus, why is it there?

Criticism of iota is censorship, official channels are moderated, mentions of Coordinator is stomped out like here. There must be an Criticism sub-section like any other wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Avoid editing my text with yours, very unprofessional, If you want to respond use :: to indent your responses. (:: Thank you for the advice, I'm not a Wiki professional indeed.)

Please follow the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Using_talk_pages guidelines. Sign your name by typing four tildes on comments please. Note: New discussions should be at the bottom, not bumping something to the top that was written later. The Criticism section thread has been placed in the chronological order of creation of this talk page. Builderbobero (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A resume

The person hidden behind 178.78.237.194 has a strong incentive to keep vandalising the article (because of being invested into a competing technology). Keeping the current version locked indefinitely is the only way to prevent this. Deleting the article won't solve the problem unless Wikipedia has an autodelete mechanism to prevent emergence of mirrors which will be created by thousands IOTA fans. Comefrombeyond —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider trying to reach agreement here on the talk page about the disputed issues. It is surely possible to create a neutral summary of the disagreements, even though many practical questions about IOTA can't yet be answered, at such an early stage. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If the agreement (with 178.78.237.194) hasn't been reached during last 12+ months then it won't be reached in the foreseeable future. I suggest to ignore the editwar here, eventually 178.78.237.194 will give up once he sells his share of the competing technology. Comefrombeyond (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you see IOTA as in competition with other cryptographic platforms? EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No, IOTA is clearly leading, but some platforms try to catch up and they see IOTA as the main competitor. Being unable to outpace IOTA tech-wise these platform spawn people like 178.78.237.194 who use different black PR tactics to protect their investments. Comefrombeyond (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ed, see the IOTA announcement thread from 2015 https://bitcoin talk.org/index.php?topic=1216479.0 it was started by Comefrombeyond. Iota is in competition with all other crypto-currencies, especially Ethereum and Byteball. The later, Byteball, has outpaced Iota both to being the first block-chain less technology to reach several exchanges, first to launch in production mode/livenet without requiring "training wheels", having usable smart contracts, and private payments (does Iota even have the mentioned "Masked Authenticated Messaging" yet or is it another marketing promise?), among many other leading features. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@David Gerard: looping you in here, another crypto page with issues. I think these editors are making a clear case for a autoconfirmed lock on this page. Then we just deal with COI if necessary. This article has a lot of issues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to IOTA (technology)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

---

IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology) → IOTA (cryptocurrency) – IOTA is one of many forms of cryptocurrency. The present disambiguator is incorrect if for no other reason than that it is in title case rather than sentence case (properly, it should be IOTA (distributed ledger technology)). But worse, it is incorrect because the essence of IOTA is that it is a new form of cryptocurrency. The fact that it uses the distributed ledger as its underlying technology is important, but it is not the essence of the thing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cryptocurrency" is a home-made term which is incorrect in the most legislations (which don't define legal status of "cryptocurrencies"). "Distributed ledger technology" can already be used everywhere because it's a technical term and it doesn't require an approval from legislatures. The essence of IOTA is messaging. Token transfers ("payments" would be an incorrect term without corresponding laws) is a special case of messaging. If we count the percentage of the token transfers we will see that they take less than 10% of all messages. Maybe we should use "(platform)" disambiguator? Comefrombeyond (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Comefrombeyond: That is a legalistic explanation that doesn't hold much water in the light of everyday use, which is the norm that governs article titles at Wikipedia. At the List of cryptocurrencies, there is an entire collection of concepts that fall under the category of "cryptocurrency" (including, not surprisingly, IOTA). Whether it is a "home-made term" (I really don't even know what that means) or not, it is a term that has common understanding among readers, whereas "distributed ledger technology" is not such a term. Also, the acceptance of any given terminology by any given legislative body is not the issue here. We are not writing this article with an eye toward allowing legislative bodies to understand and permit any given transaction technology, we are writing it with an eye toward having the general public gain an understanding of the concept. If IOTA requires legislative approval for any given application, that's between its developers' lawyers and the legislators. I am not requesting that the description of IOTA in terms of distributed ledger concepts be removed from the article, only that the title be made clearer and simpler for readers to understand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

IOTA is a messaging protocol for Internet-of-Things too. What do you think of "IOTA (platform)"? Comefrombeyond (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer IOTA (technology) as platform is a generic term that can have several meanings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's use "technology". Could you do the changes? I'm a newbie editor and not sure I'll do it right. Comefrombeyond (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Comefrombeyond: This discussion process should be allowed to run for several days to see if other users have any input. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IOTA (technology). In the scope of intended use cases for the technology "currency" is a small part. While reductive, its understandable that it's coloured by that label due to the most vocal users being those with money at stake (See the editwar above). Twpks (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IOTA (technology) per above Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Take a deep breath

Looks like a nice article stub. Sure it has lots of primary sources, but that is common in new articles. Certainly it is notable as one of the larger market cap crypto's. But a lot of work needs to be put into on RS. If there is edit warring between anonymous editors, maybe leave that on until the article can take shape and more editors arrive. Certainly unconfirmed editors pushing an agenda (whether it is right or wrong) is not good for wikipedia. If confirmed users are also edit warring then it is right to also ask them to leave the article alone for a while. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole article is pushing an agenda, is is marketing material from iota. See the reaction of iota developer and their fans, edit war, attempts at doxxing me, calling my edits lies and false. Their agenda is having the article be an advertisement, not to actually describe what is reality and facts today - Coordinator is active, iota is centralized, PoW expended does not secure the transactions, only the Coordinator milestone releases are "truth" of the network - exactly to prevent over-power attacks (only 31% required), and to prevent someone exploiting the social anti-Sybil means. They say this all is "training wheels" and "will be resolved in the future". Thats all fine, that should be said in the article and not hidden as they have now successfully done. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Another point, Censorship is rampant among IOTA official channels and intimidation from their developers and founders - See the linked article on medium how they reacted to Eric Walls article. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia would describe what-is as it is, and not what-is-promised by a product-building foundation. Iota does not run on any IoT device, as of 2017 July. It does not matter what they promise or how they will resolve the problem, this is not a technical discussion board or idea-brainstorming notepad. 178.78.237.194 (talk) 10:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks like WP:Tendentious editing to me, specifically WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, the autoconfirmed lock is warranted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have fully protected the article for three days. After that time, the page will be open for good-faith discussion, but I'm afraid that some of those who posted above may have disqualified themselves already as good-faith editors. Some facts about IOTA may not yet be known for sure, and its virtues could be arguable, but we can still summarize what reliable sources have written about it without injecting personal opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed citations to original research (WP:NOR). Please replace them with citations to reliable third party sources.LarsPensjo (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of text was added without sources by @Sephirothika. Please look into WP:RS how to use reliable sources, and include these into the text. LarsPensjo (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Advert

The Advert template should be used.

92.221.198.20 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2017

Requesting to not change any existing sections. But append the 13 subsection entries of the Design section, as referenced in the older version. The current version is omitting legitimate specific information, and can be seen as a form of censorship of information. Design specifications is not an advertisement.

The sections which had consensus after the last editor war are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(technology)&oldid=794354029

Removing the vaste majority of established, factual information from a wiki article is irresponsible, and can be seen as an attempt at hiding truth.

Sephirothika (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The text you want to add contains a lot of statements without any references to sources. That means your are violating the rule WP:NOR (Wikipedia articles must not contain original research). If the facts are established, please provide citations to third party sources that confirms this. You also have to fulfill the requirement WP:RS (Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it).LarsPensjo (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I have placed a WP:RS tag on the article. The article is interesting, love these new technology articles. But it relies way too much on primary sources. Please find RS for the claims, prepare for claims that are not supported by RS to be deleted, and avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Happy editing... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added several secondary sources for sections of the article that only used primary. And I removed the tag. If there's any area you feel needs another ref, please contact me and I'll dig it up. best - SR — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolangeRex (talk • contribs) 17:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

• IoT and proof-of-work are at opposite goals of each other, IoT especially battery-driven wireless devices aim to preserve-energy, by doing as little computation as possible and sleeping. Iota requires the device to compute hard, PoW, wasting energy. No IoT device exists with Iota on it. Very small IoT devices can not do the Work required, even a smartphone takes a minute to solve the PoW and make a transaction. A smartphone has Ghz cores, and several GB of memory. IoT devices have less than 100Mhz and memory in kilobytes. And if they can (bigger devices), the transactions are not zero-fee, but are the wasted energy to prove work was done. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system#Variants mentions a variant which doesn't require all that.)

• Coordinator is active and has been active till this day 2017, July. Its existence is hidden and attempts at censoring it where-ever iota is discussed. Unclear what it actually does and if it provides any security to transactions. It is optional yet essential for security as it is until 2017 July, with promises of its removal being around the corner. Can it be removed with maintained security, or not? When, what is the criteria for its removal? (Coordinator existence is revealed in various sources, e.g. the official slack where Coordinator reports are posted every minute, the official wallet software where milestones are reported in the bottom panel. Only users decide when Coordinator is removed, making the decision for them would be a centralized solution.)

• Unclear if PoW adds any security to transactions or if it is the Coordinator. (It's clear from the whitepaper.)

• Only 31% of PoW power is needed to attack the network, compared with 51% for bitcoin. (It's 34%, this is typical for all solutions using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance#Byzantine_Generals.27_Problem)

• Permission-ed by social gossip in iota slack channel. Not fully permissio-less system. (No definitions provided, so they can mean anything.)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 

Your issues may be valid however they are mostly outside of the scope of a wikipedia article. Other points you raise are already in addressed. For example, the coordinator is listed in the designed section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolangeRex (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Note also that all technology has its criticisms. Yet those criticisms are not argued out in separate sections of the technology's article. By introducing a separate section on Criticism (after your account history reveals a singular focus on criticizing IOTA) you are violating Wikipedia's guidelines including WP:NPOV, particularly WP:STRUCTURE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolangeRex (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with the previous comment about keeping out the criticism section due to it violating Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, a criticism section is not found in the Wikipedia page of other cryptocurrencies and thus would not be consistent to have one for IOTA. ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.217.226 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert article to October 1

Since October 1 there has been a lot of activity by user SolangeRex, probably affiliated or with interests in IOTA.

It now reads like a commercial for IOTA again.

Furthermore, SolangeRex twice deleted controversy and criticism sections.

I suggest we revert article back to before the work of SolangeRex et al.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.217.226 (talk • contribs)

The comments above were written by an anonymous poster who has radically and repeatedly altered the article and violated wikipedia principals of NPOV by adding disproportionate criticism. Criticism of the type and scale that comparable cryptocurrency articles do not have. This despite criticism of IOTA (such at the MIT critique) already being in the article and my attempt to draw his attention to the facts. Instead, he instigated an edit-war to the point that a senior editor had to protect the article from being further altered by the anonymous poster. Having being thwarted in that approach, the anonymous poster now suggests reverting the article to its Oct 1st state, thus eraseing three months of developments in the IOTA landscape and undoing the contributions of many writers from around the world. As for my additions, they are numerous. And they are brief, documenting facts, not opinion, with proper attributions according to Wikipedia standards. SolangeRex (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

See the criticisms from last July which can be found at the top of this page. Those posters believed the article was too promotional and relied on primary sources. Until there is extensive third-party commentary on the real-world success of IOTA there may not be much reliable content that can be added to the article. We can read the primary documents produced by the IOTA project and we have lots of forum comments, by people who are sometimes critical. This does not give us much to go on. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

More than 2 confirmations?

The beginning of the Design->Transaction section reads:

"For an IOTA user to send out a transaction, the user must validate two other, randomly selected transactions. A sent transaction must accumulate a sufficient level of verification (i.e. must be validated a sufficient number of times by other users) in order to be accepted as “confirmed” by its recipient."

I don't quite understand this: How is it mathematically possible that a transaction can accumulate on average more than two confirmations ("sufficient level of verification", whatever that is) when only two other transactions are confirmed per transaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.97.169 (talk) 07:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Правда , все просто транзакции криптографически связаны ( перемножены , несколькими способами) , так вот если у кого суперкомпьютер он может взломать пароль , но если транзакции связаны друг с другом в базе , то чем их больше , тем больше транзакций надо взломать для изменения одной конкретной транзакции , это не значит что кому то надо вычислять больше двух транзакций

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

"With the participation of Deutsche Telekom, Microsoft, and Fujitsu" - the reference regarding the statement is, firstly, a removed source and secondly taken from a third party with a limited statement on the participants of the data marketplace. A better source can be taken directly from IOTA Data Market. Mentioning Microsoft from a source that released untrue information about IOTA partnering with Microsoft may be arguably misleading. Paulius J (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (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. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology)

Comefrombeyond is developer of IOTA and is removing Criticism section, also editing and removing mentions of facts as of 2017 July - IOTA has a central authority to reach consensus called Coordinator. (Editing and removing of false information cannot be a proof of having a non-neutral point of view.)

The whole article as written, reads like from a marketing department, where dissenting opinions are erased. (Dissenting opinion contained outright lies.)

Please ban the user Comefrombeyond from editing the IOTA article. (This is a sign of hypocrisy - posting censorship request after blaming the opponent in using censorship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• На русском и то статью нормальней написали, чем на английском, критика присутствует по многим вопросам , а не только координатор. 109.171.95.172 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this Dispute

The issue with this NPOV dispute is that the above user does not have a NPOV. What this user considers as "facts as of 2017 July" is incorrect. The Coordinator is not a central authority of the network, nor does it provide consensus in the network, nor does it provide security to the network. The issue at hand is that what this editor above considers a 'dissenting opinion' is a fabrication of information. Having an opinion is fine, but wikipedia is here to represent factual information. This editing war can be seen as an attack, and an attempt to spread ill formed information to uninformed users. The claims presented in this editor's Criticism section are not legitimate criticisms, but an attempt at misguiding people with fabricated information. The Censorship section is a deliberate attack with unknown motives, and these claims are void of reality.

Please refer to my edited criticism section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology)&oldid=789291097

Builderbobero (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• подтвеждаю 109.171.95.172 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Seed length

The Seeds paragraph reads:

 Seeds can be any length, but any more than 81 characters fails to add extra security.

Then:

 The number of possible IOTA seeds, when using the maximum length of 81 characters [...].

This sounds contradictory. Can a seed really be any length? Or does it get truncated after 81 characters?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daranfrere (talk • contribs) 07:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Длина пароля 60-81 символ из A-Z и 9 . 109.171.95.172 (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

The security section doesn't cover the severity (beginner's mistake) in the source, but mainly that it was fixed. Widefox; talk 01:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability Tag

I think some of us have heard of IOTA. However, the article still needs sources to comply with WP:GNG. Please add WP:RS as all this use of WP:PRIMARY including IOTA website, medium, blogs, and reddit is just not good enough (in fact it is prohibited). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There's been coverage in The Next Web ... most of it about the community weirdness, security issues and that they didn't actually have a partnership with Microsoft as such - David Gerard (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks David, found that and added it... and I removed the tag. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Recreated formerly deleted article

• This creation at a new name was previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOTA (technology). Its not clear to me yet if this is any better, where's the RS? I see a not fully independent (semi-interview, "Machine translation provided by Google") at Bloomberg, Business Insider seems routine coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Where's the significant RS coverage of what it is, and does? Widefox; talk 13:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Im still working on adding sources. I have collected most of them here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110nWGgJVXzkWr5Q0Uh-X9M6GxQBjZ6l2LK3pOjXnKzo/edit?usp=sharing Havent had the time to add them yet. Want to mention that the overall quality of the article has gone down allot since my last revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmash (talk • contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC) @Badmash: This article was previously for awful sourcing. Today I have cleared all the content that lacks WP:RS. You need to find some content for the article, WP:SOAPBOX applies here. @Jytdog: @David Gerard: you might want to add to your patrol, seems it has returned in its old form. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xa7v9ier: you have reverted my edit to add a lot of unsourced content. This article was previously deleted due to unsourced content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Xa7v9ier: this is the second time you have reverted my edits deleting your poorly sourced content. You have created three entire sections on this article that rely entirely on WP:PRIMARY. This is all trash, see you edits [1] and you deleted the only sourced content on this page which was the microsoft news in this edit [2]. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The Next Web author, MIX, has a known public feud with the IOTA community, which might contradict WP:RS guidelines. https://twitter.com/Mixtatiq/status/966312593077030912

Still an RS, and the "feud" is attacks from IOTA cultists - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: @David Gerard: I disagree with WP:RS here, as the individual directly mis-quoted by Mix , his interpretation of that particular situation stemmed from a lack of understanding of the basics of IOTA. His other articles lack WP:NPOV in favour of clicks. WP:COI Twpks (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what WP:NPOV or WP:COI mean. Please don't invoke policy pages you don't seem to have read or understood - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Huge primary-sourced addition - what's useful here?

[3] This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk (and has posted editors' personal information to talk) in the past, and this is a huge primary-sourced addition that needs review by uninvolved editors. What in this is useful and sourced to third-party RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary readers are not interested in that marketing stuff (from the previous version), I added information which is really useful to them. "This editor has contributed only to this article and its talk" is an incorrect statement. "and has posted editors' personal information to talk" -- I didn't know about that restriction back then... wait, is it an attempt to discredit my version with help of ad hominem? Comefrombeyond (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not ad hominem to note that 20kb of primary-sourced material being added by a problematic and single-issue editor is a reason for due caution. Is there anyone else who thinks the new stuff is good content to add? - David Gerard (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I contributed to Wikipedia in the past, don't let the fact that I wasn't able to recover the old account to fool you. Regarding asking "anyone else": the truth can't be found by voting, just compare my and your versions. Mine contains much more useful information, if you think that your marketing stuff (which, frankly saying, makes me suspect you being a IOTA shill) is really that important then add it to my version. Comefrombeyond (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I've compared the two revisions. My first note was that David Gerard's preferred revision contains more information about the business side of this topic, and Comefrombeyond's contains more about the technical side. Some of the information on the technical side is important, particularly about those aspects which distinguish it from other cryptocurrencies (i.e. that users are required to validate each other's transactions). Other aspects seem of no particular importance (such as seeds and units), and some unduly promote the subject of the article (notably the scalability section). A larger percentage of the information in David Gerard's preferred version seems of notability, but it can probably be condensed a little bit too. From an ease of editing standpoint, I would probably start with Gerard's version, then incorporate the more important elements of Comefrombeyond's revisions into that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"Seeds" part is the most important one actually. An incorretly generated seed may lead to a loss of million dollars worth of tokens. Comefrombeyond (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This may or may not be true, depending on whether the fact that the website uses seeds is notable. If every cryptocurrency uses seeds in a similar manner, there really isn't anything to talk about here in that regard. But also of note is the fact that I couldn't tell that from the information given in the article, which talks exclusively about how the seeds are generated (nothing about their purpose aside from "enabling access to the network"). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It's notable if third-party Reliable Sources bother to cover it. If not, it's not notable and shouldn't be in the article - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that. My assumption was that if everyone uses it, no one will talk about IOTA using it. But David applies the correct standard here, both to that technical detail and every other. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

https://iotasupport.com/gui-newseed.shtml and https://iota.guide/seed/how-to-generate-iota-wallet-seed/ are such sources. IOTA seeds are not the same thing as seeds in other cryptocurrencies. I guess once someone adds the sources "Seeds" section gets the right to life... - Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Literally every single source is primary or unreliable. Tagged accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I put a request for more eyes on the issue on WP:RSN - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

While we are waiting, could you comment on the article which can be found by googling for "David Gerard versus the block chain; a peak into an emerging wiki war"? Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The content you are attempting to force into the article violates the following policies: WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:PROMO. Please learn and follow the content policies -- Wikipedia content should be based on independent, secondary sources. Primary sources are OK used cautiously and sparingly There should be nothing unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is being improved, it's impossible to make it perfect in one go. The content of your version is not much better than an empty page. Comefrombeyond (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Content that violates policy is not an "improvement". You are not engaging with policies and guidelines and you are obligated to. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your version violates the policies too, the most of the sources are from media sites, the general tone of the content looks so similar to hyping that I'm tempted to ask you to disclose if you own IOTA tokens or are being paid. Maybe we can just leave the opening line and delete all the rest?.. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing unsourced in my version. The sources are strong. You are just throwing words around when you write "Your version violates the policies too". The content you added and have been edit warring to retain violates every policy we have. You are not engaging with the policies and guidelines here. Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are unreliable, your content looks as pure marketing aiming to hype IOTA. While the former is arguable, the latter is not. I guess we need a referee. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Here, I'll add another name to the list of people opposing you. Don't re-add it without consensus. --Tarage (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you disclose if you own IOTA tokens? I see no other reason why you would prefer the version which attempts to hype IOTA. Comefrombeyond (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Niiiiiiiice personal attack there. I don't have any tokens. I don't even use bitcoin. But please, do continue edit warring and attacking. You'll be blocked faster that way and we can get back to making this article something other than a PR fluff piece. --Tarage (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And then you got blocked. Such a shame. --Tarage (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

- ! Unit !! Number of IOTAs Lokesh1699 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Submit your request in the form of "change A to B", and provide a reliable source to back up the change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 22 April 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

- ! Unit !! Number of IOTAs ZimtX (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Design

=== Tangle ===

Instead of using a blockchain, IOTA uses a directed acyclic graph (DAG) as its protocol.IOTA’s DAG protocol is colloquially referred to as the "Tangle", and is a generalization of the block chain protocol (a blockchain is a special case of a DAG).There are no “blocks”, and there is no linear “chain” within the Tangle. This architecture removes the necessity of predetermined block times, allowing transaction finality to become more swift as the number of transactions on the network increase. However there are many factors that influence confirmation time as well, such as Tangle topology and node location within the network.

The Tangle is a public ledger within which IOTA transactions are stored. It is decentralized such that no central entity is in control of the network, which is maintained by a network of nodes, organized according to mesh networking topology.

The Tangle acts as a distributed database - currently, each node in the network stores the entire Tangle history.

In order to send an IOTA transaction, the sender must confirm two other transactions on the Tangle.

The Tangle’s unique verification parallelization is afforded by being an asynchronous system. This is in contrast to blockchain’s strictly sequential, synchronous ledger.

The "payment" for using the IOTA network is validation of two other transactions (rather than paying a mining fee). Therefore validators (known as "miners" in Bitcoin, or "stakers" in proof-of-stake protocols and users (any entity that sends a transaction) are no longer decoupled entities. To put it more simply, every user becomes a miner / staker in the network.

The Tangle is programmed in trinary as opposed to binary code. Lokesh1699 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You need to provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies any content that you want to add. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

- ! Unit !! Number of IOTAs Simonmalaga (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2018 (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. Please keep in mind that reliable sources are necessary for a successful edit request. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

COI Disclosure

I just made some edits to the draft but should have disclosed beforehand that I have a COI as a software developer at IOTA. Please see the diff of my edits and feel free to let me know if I need to revise anything. Rajiv Shah (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

More sources

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/amp.ft.com/content/6f138722-47d4-11e8-8c77-ff51caedcde6] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]

[138] [139]

Benjamin (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Two more sources.

1. [Journal 1] Preprint article that has not been fully peer reviewed yet. Its peer review period ended April 5, 2019. There is no indication that it was rejected or withdrawn, so may be a good source when it is fully released. Has good info on Tangle's basic functionality and overview of MAM system.

2. Journal 2Also health-sector related, discusses using the IOTA network to authenticate healthcare data. Wisper7 (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Iota or IOTA?

Is the name all in capitals or not? - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It's all capitals given its only ever shown as such in all 'offical' communications. Twpks (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Seconded Kutkraft (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

Discuss content here. Including grammar and ideas on what is and isn't a subjective/biased inclusion. Kutkraft (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

wtf... Kutkraft (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I just spent so long explaining each change.. Kutkraft (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that! Since there was nothing to go along with them I removed your talking point annotations within the intro. I think we've definitely come to a point where anything further can be discussed within this section. Looking good so far, I'll start focusing on subsections now.Wisper7 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok cool - I’ll focus on references to complete the section. Kutkraft (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Needs a bad sourcing scour

Crypto blogs, primary sources and Reddit posts are never going to get this article to go through. Is there any reason to even add claims only supported with these?

If it's not completely sourced to third-party mainstream source that pass WP:RS, this article is quite unlikely ever to go live - David Gerard (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair call. I'll push for it. While we're on the topic, can we use BlackHat.com ??(https://www.blackhat.com/about.html) -- there's an abundance of technical information here, including contributions from academia. - Kutkraft (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take it the silence is a lack of objection and push forward with blackhat.com on the whitelist. - Kutkraft (talk) 05:03, 01 June 2019 (UTC)

Digital Currency Initiative's Report

I think this is a contentious issue and should be moved to the Criticism away from the Vulnerability section. As arguments can be made from both sides, and it hasn't been established as a peer reviewed weakness of the system. And considering the many conflict of interest point that can be raised.

What we see from IF, is that they configured security away from Curl-P to be extra precautious, and it looks as though they did so because they were taking DCI seriously and wanted to fully investigate the accusations. Circling back, the decision to update the algorithm may not have come from the vulnerability claim alone.

I'm reading through the emails in detail: http://www.tangleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/letters.pdf

Seems like DCI can't provide tangible proof when asked, leading Sergei to ask for things in absolute terms. (p. 59)

Resulting from quotes from DCI like: "We excluded second-preimage attacks from the summary since although we believe we have broken the second-preimage resistance of curl we have not formally quantified the second-preimage attack." (p. 51)

Where Sergei took the time to write pages long responses with code dumps in Git to prove the algorithm's logic.

---

Also (from my exp. working in corporate 10+ years) it's a sign of courtesy to say Hi ***, or Hey ***, before getting into the body of what needs to be said. Ethan stops doing this from p. 40 and Neha on p. 60. Neha seems to be aware of the 'tone' a lack of courtesy elucidates, as she goes back to using the courtesy from p. 64 - it can be interpreted as a strategic maneuver..

This is an important note because of this: “We made it very clear at the beginning of the email chain that if they stopped being professional and civil we would cease communication,” the DCI team wrote Motherboard in an email."

Posted on Vice: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywq44k/a-5-billion-cryptocurrency-iota-has-enraged-cryptographers-leaked-emails

Where someone who doesn't have the time to read the 127 pages would think 'how unprofessional of IF to START this'. I'm saying civility didn't fall off the ranks where Neha insinuates it does.

Neglecting comments towards Sergei like: "This is not intended as an insult but the list of questions asked here show a lack of understanding of the basics of how cryptographic primitives and schemes are assessed." p. 57

Reminiscent of "No offense.. but.."

---

Motives behind DCI targeted paper on IOTA are unclear.

And it's not publicly obvious that IOTA engaged in due diligence for their algorithm, showing their acknowledgement of Ethan's skill, as can be seen in the exchange on p. 66:

"Ethan and Paragon, I of course meant his role in the Paragon Foundation. We even have admission from Ethan that he is working on a 'similar project' from back in May when we asked him to audit Curl, where he adviced that we not disclose information that wasn't known, precisely due to the potential conflict he himself highlighted. This is a very sensitive matter, so I'd prefer we stear clear of assumptions."

---

Final thoughts:

The DCI report isn't a formally recognized truth, unlike the 34% attack. Therefore, it shouldn't be recognized as a vulnerability as the claim hasn't been proven, and counterclaims against the DCI propositions fully examined and accepted as accurate.

Moving the topic now to the Criticism section.

Let's have a chat if there are objections.

Kutkraft Kutkraft (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like you're putting tremendous store in IOTA's own text - and not in what the mainstream, third-party, reliable sources say.

What do the mainstream, third-party, reliable sources say?

Fundamentally - if you think the task here is to write an apologia for IOTA ... then this article will almost certainly just end up deleted again - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject is clearly notable, isn't it? Try helping to build things up, not tear them down. Benjamin (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be literally what I'm trying to do - in the face of advocates who appear from their behaviour to think the purpose of the article is promotion. If you find yourself writing an apologia for a thing, then you're doing Wikipedia wrong.

What do the third-party sources say? - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the article of a subject that is clearly notable is not helping to build things up. I've listed several third party sources in an earlier comment. Benjamin (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

>in the face of advocates who appear from their behaviour to think the purpose of the article is promotion.

-K: If that was the case then why wouldn't I have just deleted the DCI topic? My behaviour has been to list all talking points. The article is in progress, and I've been adding sources for every statement (almost exclusively academic). I also added the Criticism section to this article. I don't appreciate your interpretation of what I'm doing, and couldn't disagree more.

>Fundamentally - if you think the task here is to write an apologia for IOTA ... then this article will almost certainly just end up deleted again

-K: We won't have that problem then will we? When the article is submitted, it will include a 3rd party source for each objective statement describing IOTA, with the bulk of references coming from credible non-crypto blogs/sites. Something that can't be said for the other Crypto articles on Wiki. However, if we're going for consistent Wikipedia standards for references then I'd happily source from these types of sites too. But I'm hesitant to, so that we avoid the trap of falling into contentious sourcing -à la: then you're doing Wikipedia wrong.

I explained moving the topic from Vulnerability to Criticism from my perspective. I was giving my opinion on why it should be moved. Yes it's subjective, I'm interpreting the exchange with the way I see it. I abosolutely understand that my perception could be wrong, which is why I opeded up this discussion in Talk. What I read is a claim that a product is fundamentally broken, and a disagreement asking for proof. Proof was not adequately provided, and there was a disagreement on the thesis. Since there are two sides to this topic, it should be treated as contentious - and not a proof. And the letters are available from the article cited in the topic: https://archive.org/details/FUDIngloriousFUDFTAlphaville/page/n3

What do you disagree with? Kutkraft (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

"clearly notable" - this has not been established; in fact, IOTA has been deleted repeatedly at Wikipedia for having failed to demonstrate notability. This draft hasn't been promptly deleted as another promotional attempt, but it's still in a position where the burden of proof is on the article to clearly demonstrate notability sufficiently well to change people's minds from their previous opinions on the topic - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There have been many sources published since the last time it was deleted. What do you think of them? Benjamin (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm participating in this draft because I think it's at least worth a try, but in my guess as to the Wikipedia community response, the article's going to have to be something where literally every line is clearly sourced to a mainstream third-party RS, and with as absolutely little primary-sourced content as possible - whether or not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that does it that way - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I too am willing to participate. I suggest the draft article be stripped of everything that cant be 3rd party sourced and see if we can at least form a stub, then go from there. This will also help to create a rigor that is the only path forward for this article (given its history of promotional content in the past). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the following lines:

1. The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researchers for revealing the hole, and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue. Ref: https://archive.org/details/FUDIngloriousFUDFTAlphaville

I'm unclear on:

"The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researches for revealing the hole"

-Who made the legal threats? Where in the source does it show that?

"and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue."

-Who made the violent threats? Where in the source does it show that?

2. The Center for Blockchain Technologies at the University College London severed ties with the IOTA Foundation in late April 2018 after the Financial Times report, due to the legal threats against security researchers Ref: https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/04/28/iota-university-college-london-ucl/

From The Next Web:

In a statement pinned on its website, CBT explained it has decided to cut ties with the cryptocurrency foundation. Ref (hyperlinked to wesbite text): http://blockchain.cs.ucl.ac.uk/

-Was the severing of ties the result of the FT report? If so, where is the evidence? -Are we able to cite sources that point to entire websites as the source of information?

Can the author/s clear these up please? Kutkraft (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What does the source text say? - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Are these the only 3 mainstream sources? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

>What does the source text say?

1a. In relation to "The Financial Times has documented various legal threats against the security researchers for revealing the hole" the article's only references to legal are: "Mr Sonstebo said neither he or the IOTA Foundation has ever threatened any legal action against researchers" and "for Mr Ivancheglo it was a matter of reputation, and “Sergey felt he had no choice but to seek legal counsel". I don't see where it clearly shows that the IOTA Foundation used multiple (or various) legal threats against security researchers for revealing a security gap. Can you please show me where in the text this is shown? Otherwise I suggest editing the entry to something that isn't misleading, or removing it entirely - and reconsider referencing material this kind of way.

1b. In relation to "and threats of violence against a journalist reporting on the issue" the editor is referring to the slack comment written by Dominik Schiener. Even if it were a threat (which it isn't -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat), the editor wrote 'threats against a journalist' - insinuating harassment. The article points to a single redacted statement, not multiple incidents, and the incident the article refers to is not a threat by any commonly understood standard. I don't see where it clearly shows that the IOTA Foundation used multiple (or various) violent threats against journalists reporting on a security gap. Can you please show me where in the text this is shown? Otherwise I suggest editing the entry to something that isn't misleading, or removing it entirely - and reconsider referencing material this kind of way.

2. In relation to "The Center for Blockchain Technologies at the University College London severed ties with the IOTA Foundation in late April 2018 after the Financial Times report, due to the legal threats against security researchers." I'm going to add 'alleged' before 'legal threat' - as the sources fail to show evidence of legal action on behalf of the IOTA Foundation toward security researchers.

George Orwell famously said*: “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” - Kutkraft (talk) 06:01, 01 June 2019 (UTC)

History

Removed all references to partnerships. Saving partnership talk for when the IOTA page gets published and becomes a legitimate entry, the plethora of partnerships can be covered in detail elsewhere, similar to how Ripple partnerships are captured on Wikipedia.

But I'm going to leave the mention to the Jaguar partnership, because I find this part incredibly interesting:

"FT Alphaville reported, however, that this project was not proceeding - that "the press release was allegedly motivated by a last-ditch effort to draw some sort of value (a.k.a. temporary buzz) out of an otherwise failed investment. The source added, if one was to go through the press release carefully one would soon discover it was phrased very cleverly to give the impression that Jaguar was committing to a crypto service when it actually wasn't."[24] "

The style of writing reads biased - almost like the writer has it our for IOTA. Especially when you have a read of the article that is being referenced (essentially an opinion piece - with anonymous source and all). The Wikipedia editor could have simply made an objective statement, capped it with the first sentence, and linked to the source. The editor, however, chose to insert quotes from the target article -- which is why it reads like an opinion, and not a fact. Kutkraft (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You can do your best to impeach what little RS coverage there is of Iota, then this article will be deleted as a promotional exercise as the last sixteen attempts at an Iota article on Wikipedia were - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please explain specifically what you are referring to. Speaking so broadly and ambiguously is not conducive to progress. Neither is the constant “this article will be deleted” comments you’ve been making. I’m asking very specific questions in talk, giving plenty of detail, and getting very little in return. What is the point of this Talk section if you don’t take the time and make the effort to properly explain your positions? - Kutkraft (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please try to be helpful, David. What you're doing is not constructive. Benjamin (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I've stated repeatedly my opinion that, despite my direct effort to make it usable, in its present state, and with the direction it's going, I'm pretty sure it's not going to survive. The Iota fans seem seriously resistant to listening or accepting constructive input, despite the observable evidence so far. But fundamentally, you do you - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A Few Points

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on two things. First, when is it IOTA versus Iota versus iota? IOTA for ticker symbol, Iota for everything else? Or something else?

Second, what are people's thoughts on deleting some of the earliest sections of this talk page? IDK if that's an acceptable thing on wikipedia, but its getting a bit long...Wisper77 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

First point - a good one. I think IOTA should always be IOTA. Using the IF page as a reference - all mentions of IOTA are in caps: https://www.iota.org/the-foundation/the-iota-foundation

Second point - I think it best to keep it there for history. The page has been deleted and blocked on a number of occassions. Access to previous conversations and why decisions where made to remove the article should be available to all to learn from. And I believe we have with this heavily sourced iteration that is an objective description of what IOTA is. Kutkraft (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Design: Quantum Resistance

Let's have a conversation here about the content. Kutkraft (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the information with what I hope is more accurate info. I've kept the PoW as this is laid out in the white paper as still being quantum resistant. But I've added details on the Winternitz OTS.Wisper77 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Pruned in the interest of pushing the stub to review and publication - the section should be revisited when more RS and academic work has been done on the Tangle's Quantum proofing mechanisms.Kutkraft (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Stub

I'm going to prune the content to get the article in a position where it describes IOTA objectively, with every statement backed by at least one 3rd party RS. Too much of the design and history section relies on releases from IOTA, and listing all partnerships would make the page look like an Ad. The article needs to be neutral and properly sourced, that's the goal here on out. Kutkraft (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Attention Editor 87.249.117.130 - Let's go with the listed topics. If you want to delete anything please have the conversation here. Keep Criticism and History, ubiased information should be presented for readers to consume. Kutkraft (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Must all be reliable third party mainstream RS. No IOTA blogs, no coindesk, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Kutkraft (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on where we are now. Getting the stub out should be the #1 priority, and then we can worry about more details later. Personally I think the 'History' section should be cut except for a small blurb about how the project began in 2015, and by whom. There are far too many things that have happened, its far too hard to source, and it will be very difficult to upkeep a section like that.

Second, the Centralized Network criticism seems very subjective. Who is a reputable source (if there are any sources on that), and is centralized really bad? Doesn't seem worth the effort of adding, especially since the 'Compass' criticism is right before it. Instead, I think we should replace it with the criticism that it doesn't require miners, and that PoW mining is the only way to ensure security. I think there are a lot more reputable sources that could be found for that belief, even if they don't directly reference IOTA. And I think it is one of the main reasons many are skeptical of iota, because it doesn't require paying fees to ensure security. Other than those two things, I think we are almost ready for a stub. Obviously just need to finish the sections we already have started. Wisper77 (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

For the history section, I propose: "IOTA was founded in 2015 by David Sønstebø, Dominik Schiener, Sergey Ivancheglo, and Serguei Popov, who created the project to solve what they believed were limitations within traditional blockchain architectures. ref In 2017, the IOTA Foundation became an officially chartered non-profit organization in Berlin. [20] The foundation, a Stiftung under German law, had 60 employees as of March 2018.[19][20]

That would be it. Any more, and it could be considered as 'advertising'. I think people can look into it further if they want to, this is more than enough information for a stub.Wisper77 (talk) 03:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Since no one has responded I have gone ahead and made the changes. I will be further editing sections down to a more manageable Stub Article here as well. Wisper77 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Attention: Jtbobwaysf - Are you willing to look through sources and flag anything noteworthy? Kutkraft (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kutkraft, I looked and the IOTA whitepaper is not an RS on this article. It should only be linkted in the infobox as a link to the whitepaper. It is not an RS for anything else. Binance, bitfinex, coinmarketcap, and the IOTA website are also not RS. I suppose the website could be an RS for a list of IOTA founders, or executive management team, etc. But not to anchor any feature claims, etc. Github only to substantiate a current software version in the infobox. Cybercrypt is not an RS. Nor can the wikipedia Bitcoin website be a citation for anything. Reddit, medium are not RS ever. Iota stack exchange as well is not an RS. Coindesk is also not OK, nor are contributor sources like this [140]. My suggestion would be to massively pare back the sources to focus on just just the good RS, such as forbes staff writer, vice, fortune, wsj, etc. If you can find a half dozen of those then you can create a stub and work on it from there. I didnt go through all the IEEE, etc research articles (which might have been written by IOTA founders etc). Seems there might be enough here to start an article, but i would for sure start with something much more simple and then work to expand it slowly over time rather than coming out with a bang and having a huge number of dubious sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jtbobwaysf, thanks for looking it over. I just wanted to clarify something before we go down that road. We have included the Criticism section in an effort to remain as objective as possible. However, I would say 99% of the sources in the criticism section are not RS material according to your above statement. Following that path means the resulting stub will NOT include a criticism section, as even if the one or two 'RS' that Gerard suggested above will not really give enough for more than a sentence or two. I suppose it could still exist, but I don't have an alphaville account to look at his sourcing anyways. So will a stub without a criticism section be acceptable as long as all sources are RS? And by RS, we mean any kind of peer reviewed or professional article.

Second, can you explain why Bitcoin's wikipedia page is not an RS? If Wikipedia pages are supposedly held to a standard of referencing that our Iota page is, there should be no issue referencing another page in wikipedia. I guess it just seems strange to say we cannot use any poor references to get published, but at the same time say a published wikipedia page is not a quality reference. Or is this more of a general rule of thumb to never source another wiki page? I'm new to the wikipedia scene so my apologies if that's the norm. Thanks for your time!Wisper77 (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think alphaville is free to signup. About using wikipedia as a source, that would create a circular reference, which is not allowed. See WP:SELF. The most important thing is that crypto articles have much tighter sourcing rules that you would read about in WP:RS. I would consider deleting the criticism section if you cant find RS for it. Remember this article has been deleted multiple times and thus it will face scrutiny when attempting to create it again thus using only top shelf RS will be necessary Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Jtbobwaysf, thanks for the feedback. Someone created a stub section above the original content. I have since copied all original content with a RS, over to the stub. It's now only sourced with academia and mainstream RS. It took me many hours of reading and searching to find the academic sources. I would appreciate they are not discounted, as the main objection has previously been: 'not enough RS' and 'too subjective'. This article goes the other way and is objective and source heavy. I'd ask as a moderator that you please look over these sources, and explain why (if any), these Academic sources should be omitted. I think it's in a good enough condition to be published at this point. Also on 'Wikipedia as a source'. What is meant by that? we're not talking wikipedia hyperlinks right? Because there are no Wikipedia citations in the article. Kutkraft (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kutkraft: I deleted a forbes contributor article and as I was reading down through the sources (note i didnt check the sources against the content) the sources for the most part seem ok. Then I got into source #26 and beyond the the source quality gets much worse, so I stopped looking. Please remove the iota.org sourcing, bitfinex, binance, wikipedia (#52), medium, and all other blogs or user generated content. I would guess the Vice, forbes staff writer, techcrunch, etc are sufficient for the article to get through WP:AFD this time around, but I suggest to first delete all the fan-cruft as promotional content is disallowed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for your guidance on this. I'm confident the article is in good enough condition now that I've removed all questionable sources. It is objectiviely written, fact checked, and backed by 3rd party RS all way through. On your OK - I'll submit for review. Thanks -K Kutkraft (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Kutkraft, you are welcome. Ill ask another editor for his thoughts. @David Gerard: editors above in this section are preparing to submit this article again. It does rely a lot on various 'academic' sources which I haven't looked at, but there are indeed some real RS that I would think are sufficient to pass AfD. Wanted to see your comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As noted above, the current text is basically an advertising piece that desperately tries to marginalise the extensive criticism in RSes. I mean, good luck with it, but I don't like its chances - David Gerard (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I want to bring you attention to history within this Talk page. I've asked @David Gerard: many times for feedback and more information on the article's content, he did not reply. Is he impartial on the topic? If not, is it wise to have someone with an inclination involved in moderation?

@Jtbobwaysf: from your perspective, does it read subjectively? Is it "basically an advertising piece that desperately tries to marginalise the extensive criticism in RSes"? -- Considering it was your advice to strip it down to a stub if the sources aren't there.. Oh by the way.. @David Gerard: has sanctioned me and accused me of being paid/employed by the IOTA Foundation. Categorically incorrect. Where do we go from here? Kutkraft (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kutkraft: Wikipedia is totally open and no editor has any more weight (at least should not have) than any other editor. I just looped him as he is a regular contributor on a wide swath of crypto articles and more impartial eyes are nice. Retimuko or jytdog do you care to comment on this draft? FYI, this article has been the subject of POV pushing in the past. Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Kutkraft, I have another question. Do any of these 'academic' list IOTA related founders or owners as contributors to these articles? If yes, I would suggest to delete those. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:I found one published by Serguei Popov (a founder). I can delete it, but I don't know if that's in conflict with the sanction that I've been placed under.. I feel with all the history captured in this talk page, I've been 100% acquiescent with all feedback and completely on board with an impartial balanced article with heavy RS references. Can you please let me know if it's OK for me to continue editing and submit for review? I don't want to jeopardize the article, as it seems to be under the microscope of someone who has an agenda against crpyto.. evident in the 83 sanctions he's handed out on the topic. Behaviour mirrored with one line statements about his book (Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum & Smart Contracts) on crypto like: “A very convincing takedown of the whole phenomenon [crptocurrency]” — BBC News. It's like a Real Madrid fan/reporter being in charge of what can or can't be published about FC Barcelona on the Spain's most heavily digested newspaper. Isn't there a conficlict of interest here? His main source for contention on IOTA comes from FT Alphaville. Whose chief editor had him on her 'unofficial podcast' to 'talk crypto'

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/07/27/2191972/attack-of-the-50-foot-blockchain-a-sceptics-guide-to-crypto/

https://soundcloud.com/user-544122300/gerardpod

I fail to see how a self proclaimed sceptic, who authored a book about how he believes the industry is a psychological phenomenon and not a technological one, is capable of acting as a balanced moderator on crypto, when his schtick is all about the illegitimacy of crypto.. Kutkraft (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe WP:NPA applies to a discussion of David on this talk page.

Please remove the citation that is authored by the IOTA creator, as that would fall under WP:PRIMARY for this article. Any other sources that are authored by the ITOA creator, past or present IOTA staff, IOTA investors, etc are all non-RS for this article and must be deleted. Deletion of this type of content will also help this article to navigate WP:AFD not to have any questionable content.

There is a general consensus for all crypto articles to exclude all non third party mainstream RS, except something that is truly non controversial, promotional, etc (such as an office address, list of founders, etc). Some editors even might delete such non-controversial content that is anchored by primary sources. Cryptocurrency is under strict sanctions WP:GS/Blockchain#GS and I am presently supportive of that. This will for sure greatly limit the quantity of content on most cryptocurrency articles, but in general it improves the overall reliability of the content and is in line with wikipedia policy in general.

I didnt see anything on your talk page to indicate that you were under sanctions BTW. If you are talking about a notice posted on your talk page relating to cryptocurrnecy sanctions, nearly everyone got one of those notices (including me), and that is not a sanction. Its a sort of welcome to the cryptocurrency editors club, you can be proud of it rather. I will add the article level tag to this talk page, as I think this article is nearly ready for mainstream.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Thank you for your objective impartial stance and commitment to progress. I apologize for pointing out those behaviours, and for stating my opinion on a matter unrelated to the actual article. I've removed the primary source reference, and further cleaned anything that reads unbalanced. I can no longer contribute anything new to the article, and believe it's ready for submission. Kutkraft (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think the draft article is ready to go into mainspace. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Benjamin (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)