![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Ethereum Classic, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by Example.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The article is extensive but reads like an on-project page, not a Wikipedia article. It is full of primary sources and what appears to be original research and personal opinion that is not verifiably sourced to third-party reliable sources. What of the extended content here be sourced to third-party sources that would pass WP:RS? - David Gerard ( talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Working on adding third party sources. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Will do soon. I see you removed the section regarding the DOA addresses, the "C" address, and the repayment of users for DOA/ETH as unsourced. I thought I provided adequate citation from a blog post directly from Vitalik, was this insufficient? Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/
https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/the-dao-the-hack-the-soft-fork-and-the-hard-fork/
Maybe I should note that the blog.ethereum site and post from vitalik is NOT Ethereum classic. I'm assuming its a second/third party source. Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I, too, have sorted through this page, added some additional third party links, supporting details, and believe it is time to review this page for the removal of the COI maintenance header. Please provide feedback. I will wait seven business days before proceeding in the event of a lack of response from any parties involved. Warm regards. Bobbtheman ( talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you David for your response. I will review the original edits by the user in question. I am also asking for external, third party assistance of the review of this page to ensure no COI is present from the eyes that examine. Once completed I will request that the COI be reconsidered. Warm regards and kind wishes. Bobbtheman ( talk) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's two anons edit-warring over the logo. I've semiprotected the page for 3 days. Which logo is appropriate and why? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming I simply edit this page to discuss.
With regards to the logo - I've updated the logo yet again after reading the comments. The logo chosen, which was already uploaded to the wikipedia page, is the same logo that is used on the ETC homepage, and most exchanges. I see no plausible reasoning for using any other logo. The logo used here should reflect the logo used by the item we are describing. This edit does just that. -- Bobbtheman ( talk) 13:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
After further research, it appears that there are multiple itterations of the official ETC logo, and no set single choice is valid. Considering such, ive added a section on the page stating such. I may create a single image of many ETC logo images overlying each other and place that as the header, top of the page, image. Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The section added that discussed the situation with the ETC logo/s has been removed, unfortunately. There are over 15 official ETC logos provided by the ETC team on their github account. I'm assuming the currently logo is adequate and if it needs to be updated to reflect a more accurate position such changes wouldn't be met with hostility. Bobbtheman ( talk) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The current logo is adequate. The 13th 4postle ( talk) 22:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A public ETC bounty has been posted to update and fix this page. Notice here for historical record. https://www.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/6mcvbz/wikipedia_improvement_bounty_5_etc/ Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
this morning the bounty to edit this page was added, in error, to the header of the ETC page, it was removed by me and added tothe correct location at the wikipedia board bounty. Bobbtheman ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
What is here is nonsense:
People who held Ether from before the DAO hard fork have both a balance of Ethereum Classic (ETC) and an equal amount of Ethereum (ETH). Exchanges that held customer funds in Ethereum also held in their control a proportional quantity of ETC after the hard fork, but may have lost significant amounts due to the lack of replay protection that was not programmed in the DAO Hard Fork code released by the Ethereum Foundation and exchanges' lack of knowledge of how to separate ETC from ETH and secure it. [1] Users of most ETH exchanges have demanded their ETC be made available to them. [2]
References
I'm thinking of writing more about the 51% double spend attacks since those were briefly mentioned in the page. I'll talk about the 3 attacks in more details — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHosni ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The info currency box was removed, which is present on almost every other crypto currency listed on wikipedia, including Ethereum (ETH). This is vital information to the page and should be listed.
The wallet details was removed, which is listed on others also, including Ethereum (ETH)... this is also important.
I purpose we add these back. Are there any disputes to this content? I will wait 48 hours before adding it back. I'm working to undo the regression. Bobbtheman ( talk) 03:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The dao hard fork section that was added by myself to the ETC page closely resembled the section on the ETH page. This section was removed from the ETC page even though the content is relevant and was properly cited (similarly to the other page). I would note that now with the regressive changes made by the current revisions the entire ETC page, the page is almost as short as the single DAO hard fork section present on the ETH page. This is relevant, was well written, and cited with primary and secondary sources and should be returned with expediency. Bobbtheman ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
if you want to propose that specific content, please propose the actual source code you want to use in a new section below. If the goal is to propose what was there I suggest you look at it carefully before you actually propose - there were invalid embedded URLs, content that was unsupported, and unacceptable refs. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following instance was removed with the note "spam" by user JYTDOG, do you care to expound upon your conclusion here or cite any wikipedia editing policies as to how or why you came to this conclusion?
References
-- Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The page has been trimmed to the point that it borderlines stub length. A reclassification may be needed, and its time to seriously consider the possibility of merging this page with the main Ethereum page, and using this as a section within the ETH page. The length of this ETC page is shorter than multiple single sections on ETH. This page, ETC, has been trimmed to the point that any details that would distinguish itself from ETH has been removed as inadequate or spam. Until that discussion proceeds, I've added the inadequate template and will be seeking further assistance via the editor assistance program. Current discussions underway with two additional moderators via the IRC wikipedia channel. Its imparative that we recognize that this pages content (ETC) only has, at best, 8% additional content that differs from the ETH page. The introduction statements on both pages are basically identical. This page (ETC) has only a few sentences that differ.
References
Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
see if this works
In early 2015, Slock.IT (a German startup company specializing in blockchain applications) began the process of developing what would become the first smart contract platform. [1] In May of 2016, a crowdfund successfully completed which funded the creation of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO for short, also called the Genesis DAO). [2] The DAO set out to operate as a venture capital firm that assisted and promoted decentralized businesses and desired to promote the sharing economy. [3] In the same month (May of 2016) a paper was released detailing security vulnerabilities with the DAO. The authors concluded that funds placed into the DAO could be stolen. [4] On June 17, The DAO experienced an attack where 3.6 million Ether was stolen (approximately $50 million USD). Members of The DAO and the Ethereum community debated what actions, if any, should occur to resolve the situation. A vote occurred and it was decided to re-appropriate the stolen funds into a new smart contract that would serve the purpose of refunding users. [5] This event created The Ethereum Classic nomenclature came into existence as a result of the DAO hard-fork (July 20th, 2016), though some would argue that the original creation of Ethereum is the date (July 30th, 2015) when Ethereum Classic was created since Ethereum Classic held true to the original claim of immutability. [6] [7]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
see if this works
Is there any objections or comments to be made regarding the wallets section? It appears most other pages refer to this as their "ecosystem" and also list other clients/dapps/etc . Most of them here are linked, do we want to leave the links, remove them? I think this is similar to pages such as web browser (firefox for example) that goes as far to list every supported platform in its existence. Bobbtheman ( talk) 11:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Jaxx - Web Wallet [1]
Ledger Nano S — Hardware wallet
[2]
Trezor via My Ether Wallet [3]
Classic Ether Wallet
Emerald wallet [4]
References
In early 2015, Slock.IT (a German startup company specializing in blockchain applications) began the process of developing what would become the first smart contract platform. [1] In May of 2016, a crowdfund successfully completed which funded the creation of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO for short, also called the Genesis DAO). [2] In the same month (May of 2016) a paper was released detailing security vulnerabilities with the DAO. The authors concluded that funds placed into the DAO could be stolen. [3] On June 17, The DAO experienced an attack where 3.6 million Ether was stolen (approximately $50 million USD). Members of The DAO and the Ethereum community debated what actions, if any, should occur to resolve the situation. A vote occurred and it was decided to re-appropriate the stolen funds into a new smart contract that would serve the purpose of refunding users. [4] The Ethereum Classic nomenclature came into existence as a result of the DAO hard-fork (July 20th, 2016). Disputes regarding which Ethereum, ETC or ETH, are the original Ethereum have proven to be never-ending within the crypto community.
Some Ethereum Classic supports assert that Ethereum Classic is the true original Ethereum since it held true to the original claim of immutability, rather than supporting the fork (and code revision to reverse transactions) that Ethereum followed after the DAO hack. [5]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
still working on this, removed slock it link external link and grayscale. Ive left the slock it blog post Bobbtheman ( talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence read rough, can someone review it and add anything to make it better? Bobbtheman ( talk) 10:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
no dispute to this content then, correct? Jytdog? Bobbtheman ( talk) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/slockitproject/status/682500174632083456
Note that the milestones section has forward looking projections. Wikipeida has prohibitions agasinst this. Please read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Note that the section on Ethereum had the same problem, and now has been fixed. Ethereum#Milestones Please edit this table so that it conforms to this standard (no suggestions of what the software in the future might include, when it might be released, etc). I think that is what the guideline says at least :-) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
someone, not i, changed that milestone as TBD ... this still doesnt cut it right? Its still a projection I assume and should be removed?
Bobbtheman (
talk)
16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The date of the fork of the ETC chain from the ETH blockchain (the first ETC block that was not an ETH block) must be given, supported by the best sources available. Listing "2015-07-30" as the start of ETC, without giving the date for the fork, is totally misleading and unacceptable. Wikipedia must present the facts in the clearest way possible, whether the ETC supporters like it or not. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 14:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox on the top right it says July 30, 2015. This might be technically true (I guess there will be people that will argue both ways), but my understanding is that Ethereum Classic (at least the term) came the exist after the DAO hardfork. Thus this date is misleading. I suggest it be changed or deleted if the change is too controverisal. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Official website of the Ethereum Classic project states that the launch has been made at block 1,920,000 of the Ethereum blockchain. The block has been generated on 2016-07-20 13:20:39 UTC. Direct sources:
Though, it can be interesting to note that the Ethereum Classic blockchain has started at the same point as the Ethereum blockchain (since they were the same, before the fork). Hence, the genesis block is still block 1 generated on 2015-07-30 15:26:28 UTC ( see on blockchain explorer). Both information can be used for the initial release AhmedDjoudi ( talk) 12:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC).
I don't think Jtbobwaysf was suggesting that any of what he stated should be "worth mentioning". I think he was pointing out the possibility that the article may have inaccurate information. The question is: did the fork create two new coins, or just one new coin with a renaming of an old coin. If it is just a renaming then the article is correct. I don't understand the block chain enough to know if it is a new coin, or an old coin renamed.
Equally problematic is that the new coin after the split was named Etherium (ETH) - yet the Wikipedia article on ETH list the same start date as ETC. So we have one start dates for two cryptocurrencies - yet on that start date there was only one currency. Mateck ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The fork we are talking about, here, lead to a chain split, creating 2 different chains. Think of it as the bifurcation of a road. The starting point is the same as I explained it in my previous comment (genesis block, verifiable on the blockchain, which is immutable and, imo, is a valide source). The second important event is the point in time when the chain split occurred and two currencies were born: Ethereum Classic (the object of this article) that decided to continue with the original chain, and Ethereum that introduced new rules to undo the DAO hack. Before the split, both were named "Ethereum". After split, there was Ethereum Classic and Ethereum. AhmedDjoudi ( talk) 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Jorge Stolfi: This is a controversial subject being discussed here, and this edit [1] relies on weak sources, so i reverted it. I hope no offense as I see you are an apparently uninvolved editor. Just thought this better to be discussed here first. @ David Gerard: and @ Retimuko: what do you think here? The content relies on weak sources. Do we keep the content sans the sources, add the weak sources, etc? What do you guys suggest? Just thought we could discuss here first since this is clearly a controversial topic (aka the 'my blockchain is older than your blockchain' argument). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The very first block, called "genesis block", has been created on July 30th, 2015 [8]. It distributes the 60 million ethers of presale and 12 million ethers to developers. Since then, the issuance of new ethers has only been possible through "mining", a process whereby transactions are verified, recorded securely and immutably in the blockchain. Miners earn 5 ethers per mined block, and a block is created each 15 seconds, on average.
In December of 2017, an update to the Ethereum Classic protocol will reduce the block reward by 20%, from 5 ethers to 4 ethers, and this process will be repeated each 5 million block, creating a virtual cap of 230 million ETC for the total supply. [9] [10]
Ether can be subdivised into multiples and submultiples [11]:
Multiples | Equivalent | Submultiples | Equivalent | Origine of the name [12] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Thousand (103) | 1 kEther | 1 thousandth (10-3) | 1 Finney | From the name of the developper
Hal Finney, first user of Bitcoin, after Satoshi Nakamoto. |
1 million (106) | 1 MEther | 1 millionth (10-6) | 1 Szabo | From the name of the
cryptographer and computer scientist Nick Szabo, who invented smart contracts. |
units above the million don't make sense since there will never be that much Ether units. |
1 billionth (10-9) | 1 Gwei | From the name of cryptographer and
cypherpunk
Wei Dai, who invented b-money, referenced in section 2 of the original Satoshi Nakamoto paper. | |
1 trillionth (10-12) | 1 Mwei | |||
1 quadrillionth (10-15) | 1 kwei | |||
1 quintillionth (10-18) | 1 wei |
References
@ GitR0n1n: welcome to wikipedia. I see you are adding a large amount of content to this article. Please be aware of a few issues. One this article is the subject of sanctions WP:GS/Crypto, along with the rest of the crypto articles. Second there is a strict sourcing policy that we are following for all crytpo articles, and we are only using high quality mainstream sources. So no crypto sites (coindesk, bitcoinmagazine, etc), no contributor content (such as forbes contributor), no blogs, etc. Basically we are only using very clear high quality sources, such as FT.com, wsj, nyt, etc. CCN, and other dubious news sources are not ok. Please also dont add too much info about the DAO event, as that has its own article and we dont duplicate content. I will also loop in David Gerard since he is often on this crypto articles as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@ GitR0n1n: since you seem to be new here, I would also suggest making much smaller changes and waiting for a while to see if they stand before making more changes. I suspect your latest huge change will be rolled back again since there are too many problems with it (primarily lack of sources). Retimuko ( talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
url= https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/coinbase-will-add-ethereum-classic/ |title=Coinbase will add Ethereum Classic to its exchange 'in the coming months' |website= TechCrunch|publisher=Verizon Media |type=Blog|accessdate=5 March 2020
Article leads with undefined reference
GenacGenac ( talk) 23:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the source for total host (node) numbers in the article? It is mentioned that ETC have total of 616 nodes. Is it accurate? 149.108.95.250 ( talk) 13:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I can only see that the ECIP is mentioned once in the article. I want to write more about ECIP such as how it works and who can contribute. The reference will be ethereum classic's website: https://ethereumclassic.org/blog/2022-12-20-how-to-contribute-to-etc-the-improvement-proposal-process-ecip . Should it be under characteristics? Yaqdhannn ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Ethereum Classic, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by Example.
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The article is extensive but reads like an on-project page, not a Wikipedia article. It is full of primary sources and what appears to be original research and personal opinion that is not verifiably sourced to third-party reliable sources. What of the extended content here be sourced to third-party sources that would pass WP:RS? - David Gerard ( talk) 18:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Working on adding third party sources. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Will do soon. I see you removed the section regarding the DOA addresses, the "C" address, and the repayment of users for DOA/ETH as unsourced. I thought I provided adequate citation from a blog post directly from Vitalik, was this insufficient? Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/
https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/the-dao-the-hack-the-soft-fork-and-the-hard-fork/
Maybe I should note that the blog.ethereum site and post from vitalik is NOT Ethereum classic. I'm assuming its a second/third party source. Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I, too, have sorted through this page, added some additional third party links, supporting details, and believe it is time to review this page for the removal of the COI maintenance header. Please provide feedback. I will wait seven business days before proceeding in the event of a lack of response from any parties involved. Warm regards. Bobbtheman ( talk) 17:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you David for your response. I will review the original edits by the user in question. I am also asking for external, third party assistance of the review of this page to ensure no COI is present from the eyes that examine. Once completed I will request that the COI be reconsidered. Warm regards and kind wishes. Bobbtheman ( talk) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
There's two anons edit-warring over the logo. I've semiprotected the page for 3 days. Which logo is appropriate and why? - David Gerard ( talk) 10:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming I simply edit this page to discuss.
With regards to the logo - I've updated the logo yet again after reading the comments. The logo chosen, which was already uploaded to the wikipedia page, is the same logo that is used on the ETC homepage, and most exchanges. I see no plausible reasoning for using any other logo. The logo used here should reflect the logo used by the item we are describing. This edit does just that. -- Bobbtheman ( talk) 13:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
After further research, it appears that there are multiple itterations of the official ETC logo, and no set single choice is valid. Considering such, ive added a section on the page stating such. I may create a single image of many ETC logo images overlying each other and place that as the header, top of the page, image. Bobbtheman ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The section added that discussed the situation with the ETC logo/s has been removed, unfortunately. There are over 15 official ETC logos provided by the ETC team on their github account. I'm assuming the currently logo is adequate and if it needs to be updated to reflect a more accurate position such changes wouldn't be met with hostility. Bobbtheman ( talk) 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
The current logo is adequate. The 13th 4postle ( talk) 22:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
A public ETC bounty has been posted to update and fix this page. Notice here for historical record. https://www.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/6mcvbz/wikipedia_improvement_bounty_5_etc/ Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
this morning the bounty to edit this page was added, in error, to the header of the ETC page, it was removed by me and added tothe correct location at the wikipedia board bounty. Bobbtheman ( talk) 10:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
What is here is nonsense:
People who held Ether from before the DAO hard fork have both a balance of Ethereum Classic (ETC) and an equal amount of Ethereum (ETH). Exchanges that held customer funds in Ethereum also held in their control a proportional quantity of ETC after the hard fork, but may have lost significant amounts due to the lack of replay protection that was not programmed in the DAO Hard Fork code released by the Ethereum Foundation and exchanges' lack of knowledge of how to separate ETC from ETH and secure it. [1] Users of most ETH exchanges have demanded their ETC be made available to them. [2]
References
I'm thinking of writing more about the 51% double spend attacks since those were briefly mentioned in the page. I'll talk about the 3 attacks in more details — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulHosni ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The info currency box was removed, which is present on almost every other crypto currency listed on wikipedia, including Ethereum (ETH). This is vital information to the page and should be listed.
The wallet details was removed, which is listed on others also, including Ethereum (ETH)... this is also important.
I purpose we add these back. Are there any disputes to this content? I will wait 48 hours before adding it back. I'm working to undo the regression. Bobbtheman ( talk) 03:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The dao hard fork section that was added by myself to the ETC page closely resembled the section on the ETH page. This section was removed from the ETC page even though the content is relevant and was properly cited (similarly to the other page). I would note that now with the regressive changes made by the current revisions the entire ETC page, the page is almost as short as the single DAO hard fork section present on the ETH page. This is relevant, was well written, and cited with primary and secondary sources and should be returned with expediency. Bobbtheman ( talk) 13:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
if you want to propose that specific content, please propose the actual source code you want to use in a new section below. If the goal is to propose what was there I suggest you look at it carefully before you actually propose - there were invalid embedded URLs, content that was unsupported, and unacceptable refs. Jytdog ( talk) 17:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following instance was removed with the note "spam" by user JYTDOG, do you care to expound upon your conclusion here or cite any wikipedia editing policies as to how or why you came to this conclusion?
References
-- Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The page has been trimmed to the point that it borderlines stub length. A reclassification may be needed, and its time to seriously consider the possibility of merging this page with the main Ethereum page, and using this as a section within the ETH page. The length of this ETC page is shorter than multiple single sections on ETH. This page, ETC, has been trimmed to the point that any details that would distinguish itself from ETH has been removed as inadequate or spam. Until that discussion proceeds, I've added the inadequate template and will be seeking further assistance via the editor assistance program. Current discussions underway with two additional moderators via the IRC wikipedia channel. Its imparative that we recognize that this pages content (ETC) only has, at best, 8% additional content that differs from the ETH page. The introduction statements on both pages are basically identical. This page (ETC) has only a few sentences that differ.
References
Bobbtheman ( talk) 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
see if this works
In early 2015, Slock.IT (a German startup company specializing in blockchain applications) began the process of developing what would become the first smart contract platform. [1] In May of 2016, a crowdfund successfully completed which funded the creation of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO for short, also called the Genesis DAO). [2] The DAO set out to operate as a venture capital firm that assisted and promoted decentralized businesses and desired to promote the sharing economy. [3] In the same month (May of 2016) a paper was released detailing security vulnerabilities with the DAO. The authors concluded that funds placed into the DAO could be stolen. [4] On June 17, The DAO experienced an attack where 3.6 million Ether was stolen (approximately $50 million USD). Members of The DAO and the Ethereum community debated what actions, if any, should occur to resolve the situation. A vote occurred and it was decided to re-appropriate the stolen funds into a new smart contract that would serve the purpose of refunding users. [5] This event created The Ethereum Classic nomenclature came into existence as a result of the DAO hard-fork (July 20th, 2016), though some would argue that the original creation of Ethereum is the date (July 30th, 2015) when Ethereum Classic was created since Ethereum Classic held true to the original claim of immutability. [6] [7]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
see if this works
Is there any objections or comments to be made regarding the wallets section? It appears most other pages refer to this as their "ecosystem" and also list other clients/dapps/etc . Most of them here are linked, do we want to leave the links, remove them? I think this is similar to pages such as web browser (firefox for example) that goes as far to list every supported platform in its existence. Bobbtheman ( talk) 11:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Jaxx - Web Wallet [1]
Ledger Nano S — Hardware wallet
[2]
Trezor via My Ether Wallet [3]
Classic Ether Wallet
Emerald wallet [4]
References
In early 2015, Slock.IT (a German startup company specializing in blockchain applications) began the process of developing what would become the first smart contract platform. [1] In May of 2016, a crowdfund successfully completed which funded the creation of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO for short, also called the Genesis DAO). [2] In the same month (May of 2016) a paper was released detailing security vulnerabilities with the DAO. The authors concluded that funds placed into the DAO could be stolen. [3] On June 17, The DAO experienced an attack where 3.6 million Ether was stolen (approximately $50 million USD). Members of The DAO and the Ethereum community debated what actions, if any, should occur to resolve the situation. A vote occurred and it was decided to re-appropriate the stolen funds into a new smart contract that would serve the purpose of refunding users. [4] The Ethereum Classic nomenclature came into existence as a result of the DAO hard-fork (July 20th, 2016). Disputes regarding which Ethereum, ETC or ETH, are the original Ethereum have proven to be never-ending within the crypto community.
Some Ethereum Classic supports assert that Ethereum Classic is the true original Ethereum since it held true to the original claim of immutability, rather than supporting the fork (and code revision to reverse transactions) that Ethereum followed after the DAO hack. [5]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
still working on this, removed slock it link external link and grayscale. Ive left the slock it blog post Bobbtheman ( talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence read rough, can someone review it and add anything to make it better? Bobbtheman ( talk) 10:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
no dispute to this content then, correct? Jytdog? Bobbtheman ( talk) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/slockitproject/status/682500174632083456
Note that the milestones section has forward looking projections. Wikipeida has prohibitions agasinst this. Please read WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Note that the section on Ethereum had the same problem, and now has been fixed. Ethereum#Milestones Please edit this table so that it conforms to this standard (no suggestions of what the software in the future might include, when it might be released, etc). I think that is what the guideline says at least :-) Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
someone, not i, changed that milestone as TBD ... this still doesnt cut it right? Its still a projection I assume and should be removed?
Bobbtheman (
talk)
16:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The date of the fork of the ETC chain from the ETH blockchain (the first ETC block that was not an ETH block) must be given, supported by the best sources available. Listing "2015-07-30" as the start of ETC, without giving the date for the fork, is totally misleading and unacceptable. Wikipedia must present the facts in the clearest way possible, whether the ETC supporters like it or not. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 14:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox on the top right it says July 30, 2015. This might be technically true (I guess there will be people that will argue both ways), but my understanding is that Ethereum Classic (at least the term) came the exist after the DAO hardfork. Thus this date is misleading. I suggest it be changed or deleted if the change is too controverisal. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 06:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Official website of the Ethereum Classic project states that the launch has been made at block 1,920,000 of the Ethereum blockchain. The block has been generated on 2016-07-20 13:20:39 UTC. Direct sources:
Though, it can be interesting to note that the Ethereum Classic blockchain has started at the same point as the Ethereum blockchain (since they were the same, before the fork). Hence, the genesis block is still block 1 generated on 2015-07-30 15:26:28 UTC ( see on blockchain explorer). Both information can be used for the initial release AhmedDjoudi ( talk) 12:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC).
I don't think Jtbobwaysf was suggesting that any of what he stated should be "worth mentioning". I think he was pointing out the possibility that the article may have inaccurate information. The question is: did the fork create two new coins, or just one new coin with a renaming of an old coin. If it is just a renaming then the article is correct. I don't understand the block chain enough to know if it is a new coin, or an old coin renamed.
Equally problematic is that the new coin after the split was named Etherium (ETH) - yet the Wikipedia article on ETH list the same start date as ETC. So we have one start dates for two cryptocurrencies - yet on that start date there was only one currency. Mateck ( talk) 14:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The fork we are talking about, here, lead to a chain split, creating 2 different chains. Think of it as the bifurcation of a road. The starting point is the same as I explained it in my previous comment (genesis block, verifiable on the blockchain, which is immutable and, imo, is a valide source). The second important event is the point in time when the chain split occurred and two currencies were born: Ethereum Classic (the object of this article) that decided to continue with the original chain, and Ethereum that introduced new rules to undo the DAO hack. Before the split, both were named "Ethereum". After split, there was Ethereum Classic and Ethereum. AhmedDjoudi ( talk) 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Jorge Stolfi: This is a controversial subject being discussed here, and this edit [1] relies on weak sources, so i reverted it. I hope no offense as I see you are an apparently uninvolved editor. Just thought this better to be discussed here first. @ David Gerard: and @ Retimuko: what do you think here? The content relies on weak sources. Do we keep the content sans the sources, add the weak sources, etc? What do you guys suggest? Just thought we could discuss here first since this is clearly a controversial topic (aka the 'my blockchain is older than your blockchain' argument). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The very first block, called "genesis block", has been created on July 30th, 2015 [8]. It distributes the 60 million ethers of presale and 12 million ethers to developers. Since then, the issuance of new ethers has only been possible through "mining", a process whereby transactions are verified, recorded securely and immutably in the blockchain. Miners earn 5 ethers per mined block, and a block is created each 15 seconds, on average.
In December of 2017, an update to the Ethereum Classic protocol will reduce the block reward by 20%, from 5 ethers to 4 ethers, and this process will be repeated each 5 million block, creating a virtual cap of 230 million ETC for the total supply. [9] [10]
Ether can be subdivised into multiples and submultiples [11]:
Multiples | Equivalent | Submultiples | Equivalent | Origine of the name [12] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Thousand (103) | 1 kEther | 1 thousandth (10-3) | 1 Finney | From the name of the developper
Hal Finney, first user of Bitcoin, after Satoshi Nakamoto. |
1 million (106) | 1 MEther | 1 millionth (10-6) | 1 Szabo | From the name of the
cryptographer and computer scientist Nick Szabo, who invented smart contracts. |
units above the million don't make sense since there will never be that much Ether units. |
1 billionth (10-9) | 1 Gwei | From the name of cryptographer and
cypherpunk
Wei Dai, who invented b-money, referenced in section 2 of the original Satoshi Nakamoto paper. | |
1 trillionth (10-12) | 1 Mwei | |||
1 quadrillionth (10-15) | 1 kwei | |||
1 quintillionth (10-18) | 1 wei |
References
@ GitR0n1n: welcome to wikipedia. I see you are adding a large amount of content to this article. Please be aware of a few issues. One this article is the subject of sanctions WP:GS/Crypto, along with the rest of the crypto articles. Second there is a strict sourcing policy that we are following for all crytpo articles, and we are only using high quality mainstream sources. So no crypto sites (coindesk, bitcoinmagazine, etc), no contributor content (such as forbes contributor), no blogs, etc. Basically we are only using very clear high quality sources, such as FT.com, wsj, nyt, etc. CCN, and other dubious news sources are not ok. Please also dont add too much info about the DAO event, as that has its own article and we dont duplicate content. I will also loop in David Gerard since he is often on this crypto articles as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
@ GitR0n1n: since you seem to be new here, I would also suggest making much smaller changes and waiting for a while to see if they stand before making more changes. I suspect your latest huge change will be rolled back again since there are too many problems with it (primarily lack of sources). Retimuko ( talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
url= https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/11/coinbase-will-add-ethereum-classic/ |title=Coinbase will add Ethereum Classic to its exchange 'in the coming months' |website= TechCrunch|publisher=Verizon Media |type=Blog|accessdate=5 March 2020
Article leads with undefined reference
GenacGenac ( talk) 23:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the source for total host (node) numbers in the article? It is mentioned that ETC have total of 616 nodes. Is it accurate? 149.108.95.250 ( talk) 13:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I can only see that the ECIP is mentioned once in the article. I want to write more about ECIP such as how it works and who can contribute. The reference will be ethereum classic's website: https://ethereumclassic.org/blog/2022-12-20-how-to-contribute-to-etc-the-improvement-proposal-process-ecip . Should it be under characteristics? Yaqdhannn ( talk) 05:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)