Talk:Decentralized application

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

This is way, way too thin. I strongly suggest making it a section in smart contract until there's enough to break it out as a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I've added some more references. Jonpatterns (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So are there any sources that are mainstream third-party RSes, or academic peer-reviewed? (If not, this should just be in Smart contract I'd think) - David Gerard (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with User:David Gerard that non-primary sources are required, I do agree with him that this should be a section in Smart Contracts. A decentralized application is really just "smart contracts with a frontend" or sometimes just "a collection of smart contracts", so integrating it there seems appropriate. If it ever grows to the point where it is consuming a lot of space there we can always extract it back out into its own page. Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard and MicahZoltu: I've added some sources from the IEEE. Smart contracts seem to me to be a subset of dApps not the other way around. There may be more useful info in the following two paper:

Jonpatterns (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a peer-reviewed source I have found useful:

  • Wu, Ma, Y., Huang, G., & Liu, X. (2021). A first look at blockchain‐based decentralized applications. Software, Practice & Experience, 51(10), 2033–2050. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2751

Sneakbaron123 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC) How do I Know what is a good source and a bad source, tried to implement some references to smart contracts, DeFi and the lightning network but they were rejected. Sorry new to Wikipedia trying to get some insight on what links I can/ cannot use. This is the reference I was trying to add (With some information from that page) Smart Contracts <spamlink redacted>, Bitcoin's contribution to DeFi <spamlink redacted> Ricktoshi (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning[edit]

@Thisgate and Smallbones: Article has been heavily pruned in last few months particularly this diff. It was a bit heavy handed so I'm likely to restore some. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That diff was cited to no Reliable Sources at all - if you can find enough to support the material, that'd be great - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NEAR Protocol[edit]

Hey WorkOnBlockchain, thanks for contributing. Is there a Wikipedia page for NEAR Protocol? If so, that should be used instead of linking out to the company website. If there isn't, that may suggest that the NEAR protocol doesn't yet meet the notability requirements for having one, and if that is the case then it probably doesn't meet the notability requirements for being included in this list. This list isn't meant to be exhaustive (it would be way too long!) but instead just list a handful of notable example Dapps. Micah Zoltu (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard In the future, it would be preferable if you give the user a little time to respond and adjust their own edit rather than deleting so quickly after making a request of them to resolve their own problem. We want new editors to feel welcome here, and opening a discussion with them facilitates that better than deleting their additions. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that we leave poor content up indefinitely, but I think it is reasonable to give the user a day to make the edits themselves. Undue harm will not befall Wikipedia readers by having an extraneous item in a list for a day. Micah Zoltu (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't let articles fill with spammy promotional edits just in case, and particularly not the crypto articles, which are under general sanctions from precisely this sort of thing. I urge you to read up on the history of the general sanctions in this subject area. While I appreciate your urge to be welcoming to new editors, perhaps a subject area under harsh sanctions is not the place to start - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to the policy or policy discussion where it was decreed or decided that WP:INCLUSION and WP:DONTREVERT are overridden in such cases? The general sanctions page doesn't appear to mention anything about this. The closest thing I can find is "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." However, WP:VANDAL doesn't appear to include this type of edit, and WP:NOTVANDALISM does appear (in my interpretation) to include this kind of edit (I would tentatively classify this as either "Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia" or "Boldly editing"). Micah Zoltu (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INCLUSION is a disambiguation page; WP:DONTREVERT is a personal essay, not any sort of policy or even guideline. There is literally nothing to "override" here. The appropriate policy - not essay or guideline - is WP:NOTPROMO - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTPROMO applies here (from a reversion standpoint) only if you do not follow WP:GOODFAITH. However, even if the intent of the author was to promote (something you cannot know for certain), that doesn't mean that it is deserving of instant deletion, because of WP:GOODFAITH. You are correct that WP:DONTREVERT is an essay, but I believe it does a good job of summarizing the ethos of Wikipedia which is part of the editorial conduct and guidelines in articles such as WP:NEWBIES and WP:ETIQ (which says "Avoid reverts whenever possible").
    • I would like to circle back to the question I posed above. If you believe there is a policy or policy discussion that I am unaware of that overrides the combination of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:ETIQ on a generally sanctioned page I would appreciate it if you could link me to it. Micah Zoltu (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a question about a particular edit, not a general answer. It's an edit adding an inline link to a non-notable product, and closely resembles the sort of promotional edits that cryptocurrency articles have long received. WP:PROMO pretty clearly applies. Promotional editing of precisely this sort on crypto articles tends to attract topic bans or blocks if persisted with; I urge you to perhaps think for a bit why this might be the case, before asking the same questions again - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry if I was unclear, when I said WP:PROMO doesn't apply I meant that you cannot argue that this edit warrants speedy deletion due to intent unless you ignore WP:GOODFAITH. I agree that this particular edit should likely be removed, but I believe there is value in educating the new user rather than just insta-reverting their addition, per WP:NOOB.
      • I have read up on the history of why there are general sanctions on cryptocurrency pages. My disagreement lies with your approach to dealing with the problems that lead to the general sanctions and whether it aligns with Wikipedia ethos, Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines#Behavioral, or Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies are quite specific in what is covered, which is cases of administrative action (something that doesn't affect you since you are an involved party) and 1RR instead of 3RR. Additional latitude is not given to editors to ignore other Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Micah Zoltu (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I think at this point you're just saying the same things over again - David Gerard (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Swarm"[edit]

In the Characteristics section, we have : "A DApp […] frontend can be hosted on decentralized storage such as Swarm or IPFS." What's "Swarm" ? I looked in Swarm (disambiguation), where Segmented file transfer looks like a possible candidate, but i'm far from certain, so i flagged it here as ambiguous. —Jerome Potts (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sections In Progress[edit]

I'm aiming to update the 'Characteristics' section with more information on the desirable characteristics of DApps, as per Cai et al. (2018). Also, I'm currently updating the 'Operation' section with mechanisms for token distribution of a DApp, and formation and development of a DApp, as per Johnston et al. (2014). Sneakbaron123 (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have completed my goals in the 'Operation' section and am now completing the 'Characteristics' section, in particular finishing the part on desirable characteristics of a DApp. - Sneakbaron123 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CSECTION. Grayfell (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ninamn7 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decentralized_application&oldid=1201415610"