Talk:Ethereum Classic

Way too many primary sources
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)


 * I just did a massive trim. All of that content was either unsourced or sourced directly to the entity mentioned.  Entirely OR and spam, and not what we do in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * +1 - thanks for getting to this - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 9 July 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)

COI header
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)
 * Please see your talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the COI header as long as the edits are in the article history - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 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)

Pick a logo and stick with it
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)

Public ETC bounty to update and fix this page
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)

Gobbledegook
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. Users of most ETH exchanges have demanded their ETC be made available to them.

-- Jytdog (talk)


 * It's not, but it is written entirely in jargon. I'll try to explain it in English:
 * After the fork, ETH and ETC had the same blockchain. If you'd had 100 ETH from before the split, you had 100 ETH on the ETH chain, and you also had 100 ETC on the ETC chain.
 * Because both chains had the same code for transaction confirmation, replay attacks were possible: if you got ether in a transaction on one chain, you could replay the transaction on the other chain, and you'd get that variety of ether there too.
 * The exchanges didn't realise this, even the ones trading both.
 * It was a massive clustercuddle.
 * Is that somewhat clearer? - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Kinda. So you are saying that people who held this currency could effectively double their money on any given transaction? Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorta, yes, and it was a mess, per the reference. There's probably a way to write it up in comprehensible English that is supported by the refs that have been in the article ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * there should be little consideration for attempting to explain doublespending and 51 percent attacks without properly describing, at least in vague terms, what a DAO is (this section was deleted) IMO Bobbtheman (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

Regression changes
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)
 * I see the infobox, maybe you already re-added it? Yes, it should have an infobox. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should reflect sourced content in the article. That needs to come first.Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 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)
 * DAO hard fork
 * Yes, the DAO section should be on this page. Especially since this article was birthed by the DAO event. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just propose well-sourced content that a decently educated person can understand. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * perfect, lets start with the first paragraph under DAO and hard fork in this previous version. What, if any, objections do you have with that paragraph Jytdog & Jtbobwaysf . I'm happy to help assist in fixing it.  Bobbtheman (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum_Classic&oldid=790246541   Bobbtheman (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ===== 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.[9] 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).[10] The DAO set out to operate as a venture capital firm that assisted and promoted decentralized businesses and desired to promote the sharing economy.[11] 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. [12] 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. [13] 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.[14][15] ===== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman (talk • contribs) 16:59, 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)


 * jytdog it is true that a proposal is an iterative process here? If my proposal has errors or could be improved, we could work together to improve it. This is correct? I will review the prior snippit now before posting again. im not certian what yo mean by source code .. maybe source code tags in the wysiwyg. Ill try Bobbtheman (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is above, looks like you copied the old content and pasted it here - this has no actual refs, etc. it is just the surface text. To make an actual proposal please provide the actual refs and (if you want them) actual embedded links, etc) Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

market capital
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?


 * original statement in dispute
 * Ethereum classic is the 5th largest cryptocurrency by market cap totaling approximately 1.5 billion USD as of July 2017.


 * updating statement for resolution
 * Ethereum classic is the within the top ten largest cryptocurrency by market cap totaling approximately 1.5 billion USD as of July 2017.


 * Is this any better? Bobbtheman (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ive seen no dipsutes, are we ok with adding this statement to the page? Bobbtheman (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still a datapoint. Please think encyclopedia and long term --- what will matter 5 years from now?   Not a data point. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

-- Bobbtheman (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is point data and constantly changes as the currrencies move relative to one another. We are not a stock ticker. Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can put a top 10 crypto. There is some value to state that it is at least a notable crypto. Thoughts? I have also seen a similar removal of ranking from the Dash page, makes sense to me in general, we are not a stock ticker. Maybe someone will make a widget that has market cap like on Microsoft Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Jybobwaysf glance at apples infobox on wikipedia close to the bottom and look how much stockish info we are ticking for that page. Net income, total assets, number of employees, revenue, etc.Bobbtheman (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * these are from other similiar pages JYTDOG
 * *Litecoin reached a $1 billion marketcap in November 2013.[9] As of May 9, 2017, its market capitalization is US$1,542,657,077 at around $30 per coin.[10][11] -- litecoin page


 * * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization


 * * As of June 2017 total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies is bigger than 100 billion USD and record high daily volume is larger than 6 billion USD.[56] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency


 * * Moneros page lists its market cap


 * * zcash page "Zcash entered the top 10 cryptocurrencies by market cap"


 * * dashes wikipedia page - "According to CoinMarketCap, in June 2017 the daily trade volume of Dash was approximately $100 million per day[9] and the market capitalization of Dash exceeded $1.4 billion.[10] Dash has become the most active altcoin community on BitcoinTalk reaching more than 6400 pages, 133k replies, 7.9M reads."


 * do you still stand by your prior statement that we should refrain from posting market cap details on wikipedia pages? Bobbtheman (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes all these cryptocurrency articles are beset by people flogging them. Its a problem. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

inadequate, borderline stub, Merge considerations
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.

Bobbtheman (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Rather than wasting time with dramah please consider proposing well sourced NPOV content to replace this spammy/unsourced stuff. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think this is a standalone article, not a merger candidate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, also, however we must admit that currently there are literally like four sentences that differentiate this ETC page to ETH (not including the timeline graph). This leaves us with only two options, its inadequate and revisions or rollbacks are needed, or its merge/deletion/stub classification time.   Bobbtheman (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more dramah. Really - just proposed well-sourced NPOV content to flesh this out. This is basic WP stuff.Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * please remember the fourth pillar Bobbtheman (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Civility is about getting work done. Dramah is not getting work done.  I am not going to take time to respond to further comments here that are not directed to building policy-compliant content. Again, please just propose the content you want to see; please make sure it complies with the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

proposal 1
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. 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). The DAO set out to operate as a venture capital firm that assisted and promoted decentralized businesses and desired to promote the sharing economy. 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. 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. 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.
 * DAO And Other Hard Forks

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not bad.  But there is an invalid embedded URL (see WP:EL) and a crappy SPS/blog reference.  I don't understand why the reference about Grayscale is there. The content is also a bit incoherent - "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..."  And generally we don't use vague language like "some would argue"-- someone will inevitably come through and tag that with "who?".    I need to go through and make sure that this content is actually all supported by the sources cited, but those are some problems.... Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

proposal 2
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
 * Supported Wallets

Ledger Nano S — Hardware wallet

Trezor via My Ether Wallet

Classic Ether Wallet

Emerald wallet


 * I think for JAXX and the classic ether wallet, they need at least a primary source. A primary source is acceptable in some cases, and I think the non-controversial nature of this content is fine for a primary source. Others might disagree... But I think you need a source for each one, otherwise adding it is WP:OR


 * Here is a source for JAXX.


 * In general I would look for sources for everything you are seeking to add, the content was already deleted once, so you should be prepared to defend the content you add. These crypto articles in general have a lot of issues, so the patrol on them is warranted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * and a statement from Jaxx https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypeSa9PwLas Bobbtheman (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jaxx homepage also lists both ETH and ETC logos https://jaxx.io/   Bobbtheman (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * here is a source for CEW https://themerkle.com/top-5-ethereum-classic-wallets/
 * I think this is the source you want to use. More than good enough in my opinion. No Need for multiple sources, this is good enoughJtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added the wallet content back to the article and deleted the ether classic wallet that doesn't have a citation. This article needs cited content only. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Disgusting spam. Stop it. We are not here to provide spam links to service providers. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * after speaking with a member of the dispute resolution team (off the record) as well as a member (Huon) in the IRC channel for wikipedia help (#wikipedia-en-help) there seems to be a growing consenses that wallet support should not be listed for claims of spam. Also, the wallets listed on the Ethereum wikipedia page, and also the bitcoin dedicated page to wallet support are also within that spam claim. I am placing those pages on notice, per these prior conclusions, to grow greater consensus and make a final decision within the coming days. Bobbtheman (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets submitted for deletion. Talk page of ethereum has been notified  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbtheman (talk • contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * you recently reverted my edit re-adding the list of wallets. Please explain why the wallets dont belong. Are we not adding wallet lists to all the crypto articls now? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum_Classic&oldid=790748991 Noting that Ethereum has a wallet list at Ethereum and Bitcoin has an abreviated section at Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets (that is up for AfD. Sincerely Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Too much spam sourcing. If there are independent sources that discuss the "wallets" and that can be used to generate encyclopedic content about "wallets" I would have no objections.  Listing wallet providers and providing links to their websites as "references" is not encyclopedic. It is just spam. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Only one of the references even bothered with the trappings of reliability, and that said, in its fine print: "Any ideas shared are the personal opinions of the authors and we make no guarantees about its accuracy." That's not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine for this section, no content here is controversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Listing these companies without reliable secondary sources indicating their significance amounts to promoting them. Having a website is not sufficient for being mentioned in an encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What kind of "reliable secondary sources" would work in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedDjoudi (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

DAO And Other Hard Forks
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. 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). 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. 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. 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.

-- — 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)
 * I suggest to strike the content coming from the slock.it blog (source #3), no need the primary source here. Can just wikilink to The_DAO_(organization), we don't need to explain here what the dao did, and if we do it must be with an RS... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * changes made Bobbtheman (talk) 10:32, 14 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)
 * I have edited the text per your request, note I did not check the source to confirm the source supports that content. Please check the source. But there should be lots of sources with people making this claim 'hey we are the orginals...' The claim doesn't really merit too much coverage in this article, if any. But we can add it and see what other editors think...Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I like it. I think anyone within the community understands that last sentence .. and I think its important for an onlooker to understand or be aware of that strife. However Im not sure of the best way, or any way, to source it. I'd vote to keep it. Any additional comments on this sentence and the entire paragraph? Bobbtheman (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

no dispute to this content then, correct? Jytdog? Bobbtheman (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * about the first sentence and the phrase " the first smart contract platform". Is that true?  this ref says that "In 2015, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corp. (DTCC) used a blockchain ledger to process more than $1.5 quadrillion worth of securities, representing 345 million transactions."...  and there appear to be a lot of misconceptions about hypoethetical "use cases" and hype about "smart contracts" per this.   As I understand it the DAO was hacked and died before it made any actual investments, which as i understand it, what it was intended to be used for.  Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe add that is was first "decentralized smart contract platform." Smart contracts are just computer programs Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am struggling with the "first" part; smart contracts were an essential part of ethereum itself, as i understand it. the source provided also doesn't support the 2015 date.  Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * the first sentence, its linked source was posted in 2015. This, althought a primary source, also confirms the statement.

https://twitter.com/slockitproject/status/682500174632083456


 * emphasis on "began the process of developing." Then, in 2016 it was released. Then hacked. I can probably dig up more sources if needed. Thoughts and comments? Huon, Jytdog, others ? Bobbtheman (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually tried tracing the history of this (see Talk:Smart contract) - Ethereum is basically the first "smart contract" platform anyone used. There were a few attempts to do smart-contract-like things that called themselves "smart contracts" on Bitcoin, but AIUI even those initiatives moved to Ethereum. Of course, finding a source that says so will be tricky. Maybe if I become a Reliable Source myself ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's sort of funny that we are discussing a project that failed to ever do anything (except explode and the resulting creation of Ethereum and Classic). I am thinking that Counterparty (technology) predates Ethereum, is that correct? I know this company storj migrated to Ethereum, so that would make me think that initially, they developed on counterparty first as maybe it was available earlier??? http://blog.storj.io/post/158740607128/migration-from-counterparty-to-ethereum ..., do you know about this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we in agreement to add this paragraph?


 * If a dispute still is present, what about changing or removing the first sentence?


 * 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 to be used on blockchain technology.   Bobbtheman (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is other unsourced stuff or awkward writing in it. I will implement something now, leaving off the first sentence. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bobbtheman (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Milestones section
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 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)
 * I removed the release date. I am not sure about the rest of the content if it is kosher or not, but I guess it is as long as it has WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Initial release
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).
 * The block on Gastracker Blockchain explorer
 * Ethereum Classic website, timeline section
 * Specialized news website CoinDesk, about Ethereum Classic launch


 * Please read and apply WP:RS - we need verifiable third-party reliable sources to support that any of this is even worth mentioning. Blogs and wiki articles are not usable sources for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 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)

This is a controversial subject being discussed here, and this edit 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. and 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)
 * I claim that the information about the date of the split of the blockchain into separate ETH and ETC branches is both (1) true, factual, objective and undisputed, and (2) very important for all readers, whatever their feelings about the coin (more so than the subsequent maintenance forks, for example). Why should that information be omitted? The previous paragraph already explains why ETC was created, and that it retained the protocol that ETH used before the fork. In a chain split, obviously the two chains are equally 'old'.  The sources are about as good as one can get about cryptocurrency-related subjects; and a weak source is always better than no source. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS. I normally don't edit cryptocurrency articles, but I needed the date of the split for a discussion I was having elsewhere. I came to Wikipedia for help, and found it surprising that the article did not have it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the moment of the split is of interest for this article, but I don't think it has to be mentioned even if there is no reliable source. I don't support the view that a weak source is always better than no source, especially for a controversial topic. It is fine to admit that we don't know for sure and don't mention. If something is not mentioned in reliable sources than, perhaps, it does not belong in encyclopedia.
 * Let's see if there are better sources. How about CBC/Radio-Canada? It does not have precise time and block number, but does mention July 20. Retimuko (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt whatsoever about the precise block number of the split, since it is when the ETH protocol change was activated. The ETC and ETH blockchain browsers are categorical about that; the articles are needed only to satisfy the general WP requirement for "published sources". The Bitcoin Magazine was at one point a printed periodical, and is more reliable than any mainstream media -- since the reporters of the latter are likely to get their information from crypto websites and forums, anyway. I can imagine that some ETC supporters may want to hide that bit of information for (bogus) "marketing" reasons. Wikipedia articles should not take such wishes into account. Consider that an UTXO on the ETC blockchain can be spent also on the ETH blockchain if it is located in blocks 0 to 1,919,999, but not if it is located in any later block.  Isn't that reason enough to include this information in the article? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Issue here is this is a controversial subject. Promoters of both blockchains would claim to be the "true ethereum." We have seen this same arguement pop up a few times on the Bitcoin Cash article as well. That was just the reason that I pinged a few people so we could discuss it. If we know we are discussing a controversial subject, and we know we dont have good sources, and if we editors cant agree on the 'truth' then what should we do? Those are my thoughts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Which is the true Ethereum, ETC or ETH" is a subjective question with strong "marketing" implications and passionate defenders on both sides who have high stakes in the game. The article definitely should not take a side on that question.  But that is not the point. "When did the split occur" is an objective question with no such implications.  No one, not even the most ardent promoters, will dispute the fact that the two chains shared a common segment and parted ways at some point.  The paragraph just above my edit already says so.  No one will have any reason to dispute the fact that the split happened at block 1'920'000, nor the date when that blocks was mined on the ETC chain.  And, again, that information is important for everybody -- including those ardent supporters of either coin. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Jorge Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, this particular fact of the moment of split and the block number is not a subject of a dispute, but what do we cite? There has to be some source. I oppose the idea of making an exception and citing a low-quality crypto-rag-fan-news site. Let's not set a bad precedent and give them credibility. And we don't want this to be an original research either. The point is that if this is truly an important fact in history worthy to be in encyclopedia then there must be no problem finding a reputable source. Retimuko (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, what about these two, from Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance:
 * The information is given also in a few printed books:
 * By the way, the article The DAO (organization) gives the splitting block number, but gives as source the following article from the Ethereum blog:
 * Will these do? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The bloomberg source looks like an obvious RS. Also I think the Antonopolous book is also a good one, two are more than enough in my book. Nice job to find these! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Boomberg looks good. Retimuko (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I restored that sentence (minus the precise time of day, which is uncertain -- block timestamps may not be accurate) with those two sources. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the article The DAO (organization) gives the splitting block number, but gives as source the following article from the Ethereum blog:
 * Will these do? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The bloomberg source looks like an obvious RS. Also I think the Antonopolous book is also a good one, two are more than enough in my book. Nice job to find these! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Boomberg looks good. Retimuko (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I restored that sentence (minus the precise time of day, which is uncertain -- block timestamps may not be accurate) with those two sources. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Boomberg looks good. Retimuko (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I restored that sentence (minus the precise time of day, which is uncertain -- block timestamps may not be accurate) with those two sources. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

General characteristics

 * Suggesting the addition of this section to the article. David Gerard, though, reverted the changes stating that the sources don't comply with WP:RS, saying that most sources were blogs and wiki pages. Is official announcement considered as blog post? Is the white paper of the project, published on GitHub, an unreliable source? We are not talking about controversial content, but general knowledge, verifiable by everyone. I leave the text here in case someone finds a better way to integrate it. AhmedDjoudi (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The very first block, called "genesis block", has been created on July 30th, 2015. 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.

Ether can be subdivised into multiples and submultiples :

Large addition of content
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 since he is often on this crypto articles as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * "I see you are adding a large amount of content to this article." Yes, this article was severely dated and lacking MOST of the history of one of the oldest cryptocurrencies. All of this information is well documented and accurate. I'm new and not entirely sure about your process. I do know that this page needed a serious update, so this should bring it generally up to 2020 from what appeared to be 2017.


 * "primarily lack of sources" I believe every section there is directly sourced from the Primary source of the information either an EIP or an ECIP is cited (the official documents constructed to convey the information from the projects to the networks/world. But I'll let you guys do your thing. Lots of that should stick as its generally sourced from accurate areas. Also, forgive me if this isn't how people respond to you. I have no idea how else I would communicate with you. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GitR0n1n (talk • contribs)
 * > "sourced from the Primary source of the information"
 * And this is a problem. We need independent reliable secondary sources for the most part. In some limited cases some basic facts can be confirmed by primary sources, but large sections should not rely too much on them. Retimuko (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * >  Ah I see!, My fault. I can grab all those pretty easily if they even cover cryptocurrencies. This is still a small industry, it seems strange that you would expect CNN and others to be covering a sub $1B asset to be honest. Also I don't know what's better than sources from a version controlled third-party like github. Do you guys want me to start in on that now before you dig too deep into the review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GitR0n1n (talk • contribs)
 * If you have good sources, add them before unsupported claims are challenged and removed. Github is essentially user-generated content. We do not expect CNN and such to bother covering small things. We expect Wikipedia to describe notable things. If there is no independent reliable source for some claim, it should not be in encyclopedia. Maybe one day industry sites like, say, Coindesk will get enough recognition and reputation of doing quality journalism, but not yet, I am afraid. Retimuko (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * GitR0n1n, We understand that this sourcing requirement will limit the quantity of content in the crypto articles. However, we have found that this makes the articles more reliable. We (I mean we wikipedia editors as a whole) choose reliable and accurate content over completeness. The reader can always google and read blogs to get a more complete picture of any subject (be it politics, crypto, etc). We only want to provide the summary here, and make sure the summary is reliable. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed a lot of content today. Please do not re-add it without making sure it has high quality sources. Feel free to discuss here first. Please note that this article as well as all other cryptocurrency articles are subject of sanctions and additionally we have consensus on these articles to use much stricter sourcing policies due to the promotional content on some of these articles. It results in the articles of the smaller coins being shorter, and we view that as a necessary tradeoff. Please only use high quality sources such as techcrunch, wsj, nyt, spiegel, bloomberg, etc. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Jtbobwaysf, how would you like me to contribute to this article moving forward? Would you like me to do a commit per paragraph with the aforementioned reputable sources? I'm asking so we get the valuable (properly sourced) information in this article with minimal back and forth. If you have a standards link you would like me to follow, I'm happy to read prior to making another commit. Thanks for taking the time for the review. GitR0n1n —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like you to follow our suggestions above related to sourcing. There is a citation on the article that says this

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


 * This is clearly not ok. It is not a blog, verizon is not the publisher see TechCrunch. Please go through the article and remove all sources that are not real news sources. No self published, no Stephen Tual blogs, no SSRN, etc. If you dont comply with this, this page will get protected see Protection policy. This will limit some editors ability to edit. No more discussion on seeking further justification to circumvent the policy on sourcing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * > No one is trying to "circumvent the policy". As you noted, I am brand new to wikipedia and thought I was doing a good thing with the big edit and primary sources. Since you informed me of the need for independent sources I should use, I have only added TechCrunch and Bloomberg per your recommendation of reputable sources on March 4th. "Please only use high quality sources such as techcrunch, wsj, nyt, spiegel, bloomberg, etc. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf" The other sources were already in the source list when I started my second round of edits. I simply cleaned up the references to meet wikipedia formatting and added a few more facts from those sources. Again, no changes were done in malice. Regardless, I removed the sources you cited. The page is a drastic improvement from when I came across it last month. comment added by GitR0n1n (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I took out one remaining poor source which was a crypto site, we are not using those as sources. I also cleared out a couple sections which didn't fit in that they essentially copy content from other articles. If someone wants to read about Ethereum (not classic) they should read about it at the Ethereum article, same goes for reading about Vitalik. So we will not duplicate that content here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Jtbobwaysf You are removing content related to Ethereum Classic's history prior to July 20, 2016. This project was named Ethereum up until July 20, 2016 when the Ethereum Foundation created a new chain and moved the brand identity to that chain with a controversial voting event called the carbon vote (source: WSJ article and Mastering Ethereum book). I recognize that it is unpopular to address that fact, but wikipedia isn't about rewriting history. Removing all events prior to July 20, 2016 from ETC when they exist on the ETC blockchain's history is an inaccurate depiction of facts and misinforms the general public. Please reinstate the ETC history from 2013-2016 that you removed. Thanks!


 * If you can find mainstream RSes to support this viewpoint, then by all means please list them - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! Reference #2 and #8 in the page accurate depict how Ethereum Classic is the "older" version of Ethereum and that the "new" ethereum version was create on July 20, 2016. By your logic modern day ETH would have no histroy prior to July 20, 2016 as it was a sister chain that was created on that date. However this approach is flawed, because these two projects share the history prior to July 20, 2016. Every action that occured on ETC from blocks 0- 1,920,000 also occured on the new sister chain ETH. You can verify this by looking at any block number in that range and see that they are identical on both networks block explorers. After 1,920,000 is where thier history splits and you can witness different events.


 * Also if its easier to relate this to a more well know fork like BTC and BCH; ETC = BTC (older existing chains) and ETH = BCH (new chains in the fork). The major difference here is that the Ethereum Foundation owned the trademrk to "Ethereum" and "ETH" and got to apply it to the chain they favored. If you're unsure about any of the details, please ask. It's import that wikipedia is factually accurate. comment added by GitR0n1n (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is an infobox with this entry "The DAO Bailout	2016-07-20	1,920,000". Did Ethereum Classic have a Dao bailout? My recollection was it didn't have any special update relating to that event. Or did it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, block 1,920,000 was an event for ETC. The ETH side created a new version of the blockchain with some edited balances and split from ETC. The effect on each network was different as I've tried to document on this page, but you've erased most of the detail at this point. This block forced the entire ETC infrastructure to shift. Examples: EVM Chain ID shifted from 1 to 61 (http://EtherumVM.net), BIP44 Coin Index from 60 to 61 (Satoshi Lab Repo), Name (Ethereum to Ethereum Classic), Ticker (ETH to ETC), Social accounts/websites, etc. I hope that's helpful. comment added by GitR0n1n (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without really good sources we are not going to be able to include this WP:POV. All the sources we have seen indicate that ETH and Ethereum represent the blockchain project from the beginning, regardless of what happened on the blockchain. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am at the mercy of editors. All I can do is present that the facts of the topic and see what sticks. - GitR0n1n (talk —Preceding undated comment added 10:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We are all at the mercy of what is covered in mainstream press, this goes for most of all wikipedia articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

What is Frontier
Article leads with undefined reference

GenacGenac (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Total node numbers
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)

More about the Ethereum Classic Improvement Proposal (ECIP)
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)


 * As a continuation, I would like to look into the community efforts in the past to support the project. I would like to know if this is appropriate or if there any known controversies surrounding some the ETC communities such as the ETC cooperative. 98.61.150.125 (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)