Talk:Ouroboros (protocol)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 17 November 2020 by reviewer Jehochman (talk · contribs).

Cryptography: Computer science

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Cryptocurrency

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Sourcing

A lot of the academic references aren't peer-reviewed - they're just preprints. This is annoyingly common in blockchain land, to give a sciencey feel to an article when really it's just blog posts in PDF form. Even proceedings are dodgy in cryptocurrency/blockchain land, because a lot of the conferences are highly questionable ... I haven't checked every one; at least a few are in journals at a glance, I think. But functionally, a lot of this is cited to blog posts. Not going to go mad with an axe just yet, but it could do with close review - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was created by a paid editor and is possibly part of a public relations campaign. I figured we should indulge their wish but this will involve our reviewing the material closely and potentially balancing it with strong criticisms. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aaahaha. Yeah, that's closer to edit-with-an-axe time - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! This is marketing for Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, taken the axe to it. There was a ton of puffery, and cites to blog posts and literally a Reddit post - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should almost certainly just be merged into Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) - it has no other relevance - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a relevance also to other projects, which have chosen some flavor of Ouroboros as a foundation for their work, for example MINA Protocol uses Ouroboros Praos and adds recursive ZKSnarks to keep the blockchain size O(1), there are other works and more importantly research papers based on Ouroboros protocol family.

In addition, you have reverted my modification which actually corrects factical errors in the articled such as that Ouroboros (now called Classic) was powering Cardano till 2020 when they moved to Ouroboros Praos, which is false, permissined Ouroboros BFT (really nothing special about that protocol except that it was powering "Decentralized Cardano" while in-fact being super-centralized).

So keep you axe approach for others, but be more gentle with my controbutions, ok? I am onjective and Cardano community hates me for it. 3 out of 5 papers I have added as references underwent peer-review on cryptographic conferences, all of them have been cited by different publishers at minimum 12 times. Just because "something makes it longer" does not mean it makes it "more promotional", there can also be critical sentences involved.... I can add a whole paragraph on that if you'd like... M4r3k (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Notability is asserted, do not tag it with notability tag. European parliament & Telegraph are enough for notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The European Parliament is a democratic structure, open-minded and not subject to dictatorial opinions. The fact that they not only deal with it, but also publish it transparently on their websites is a clear sign of its importance. notability is established. I rather think that short, argumentation-free rejections are meaningless Gufmar (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really enough to be clear for WP:CORP. The Telegraph article doesn't even mention Ouroboros, so you can't cite that for notability. Your sole source for the claim is then EP - and that's just a passing mention in a 103-page document. Frankly, the article should be merged into the main Cardano article - David Gerard (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard:@Spada2:@Gufmar:@M4r3k: - it may not seem notable to you however in the "crypto" community Ouroboros is one of THE most sighted papers ever produced (close to 800 times for the original document and several hundred more for revisions). In any field* of research having hundreds, or in this case close to 1000 citations, is massive. B_Maximus (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raw citation counts are generally not sufficient - there's a detailed list of criteria at WP:SCHOLARSHIP - and even a popular single paper doesn't warrant an article.

You seem super-keen on claiming that this is an article worth having, and coming up with convoluted arguments that don't involve supplying independent, third-party, reliable sources, or academic peer-reviewed papers. Do you have any of those, though? - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convoluted arguments? I seem to have only posted once above and only commented on its notability which you seem to be continuously be trying to cast doubt upon. In my post below I did supply a reference however you don't seem to consider "deloitte", the largest of the "big four" firms, as a useable reference... Here's a whole bunch of research pertaining to IOHK including numerous versions relating to Ouroboros: https://iohk.io/en/research/library/. However since wiki doesn't regard these as valid sources I guess that makes it a bit tricky. B_Maximus (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest I took a look at the Deloitte wiki page itself and noticed numerous references were from Deloitte itself. Why don't you go ahead and delete all of those references since you don't think they are credible or is your bias uniquely crypto-focused? B_Maximus (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you don't understand how Wikipedia sourcing works, and are not taking the time to understand how Wikipedia sourcing works. I urge you to read the policy and guideline pages that multiple editors have already suggested to you - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks don't really work. I have indeed read the sources you posted regarding WP:RS, are you disputing/insinuating Deloitte isn't a reliable source? You still haven't answered how the inclusion of similar sources in the* Deloitte article on wiki have different standards to this one. B_Maximus (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because there it's a primary WP:SELFSOURCE and on this article you're trying to use it as evidence of notability. As I said, the evidence is that you don't seem to understand Wikipedia sourcing, and get belligerent when it's suggested that you read up on it. This, combined with your continued direct advocacy for Cardano, suggests you see your purpose on Wikipedia as evangelism or marketing for Cardano - David Gerard (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in Cardano and blockchain technology. I am merely stunned that wikipedia apparently does not consider a source coming from one of the "big four" accounting firms a valid source that is all. I will drop it and leave it. My apologies for becoming a bit heated. B_Maximus (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throughput

@David Gerard: Why was this particular section removed?

One of the defining features of Ouroboros is a high throughput.^[1]

It is a piece of relevant information sourced from one of the world renowned "big four" accounting firms. If you disagree with the wording could you suggest an alternative to convey the same instead of deletion? B_Maximus (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's to a non-technical marketing whitepaper from consultants. This is not an independent third-party RS from mainstream press or an academic peer-reviewed source, or similar high-quality RS - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this clear: you are saying a source from one of the biggest consulting firms on the planet is not "reliable enough". You can't be serious? B_Maximus (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not for the purpose you're trying to use it for, no. I suggest yet again that you read up on this, and how we use sources as evidence of notability. The guideline you're after here is WP:NCORP as it relates to products - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Deloitte are not a reliable source for this purpose. @Blockchainus Maximus: nice username. Are you a blockchain advocate? Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed interested in blockchain tech as are most people who edit these type of pages I suppose. "Blochain advocate"? I am merely interested in the topic as is probably clear from me editing these pages :) B_Maximus (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Blockchain Galaxy A comprehensive research on distributed ledger technologies" (PDF). Deloitte. 6 May 2020. Retrieved 29 October 2020. The distinctive feature of Cardano is its "research-first" approach to design.

[Deloitte-1] "The Blockchain Galaxy A comprehensive research on distributed ledger technologies" (PDF). Deloitte. 6 May 2020. Retrieved 29 October 2020. The distinctive feature of Cardano is its "research-first" approach to design.

[1]