Talk:Chainlink (blockchain oracle)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi Wikipedia! I'm A at Chainlink and I've been paid by Chainlink to seek some changes to the page. I won't make any edits myself to make sure I stay compliant with the rules, and have disclosed my COI in the banners above. I have some suggestions that I think can improve the accuracy and sourcing of the article.

For starters, I'd like to offer some more information in the history section about how the network got started and when some integrations were made. I've drafted what that might look like:

If anyone is interested in seeing my overall goals for the article, I uploaded a draft to my userspace. I also welcome feedback and understand editors may change my proposed content. Thank you so much for your help and consideration! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: hello and thank you for following protocol, much appreciated. I think the history section addition you are making looks good in general. I think the source regarding DECO should be improved, as it seems more like a press release. It's therefore making more of a marketing promise, rather than stating an objective fact. It would also be good to support primary source [2] with a secondary source. BeŻet (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Hi BeŻet, thanks for your response and your constructive criticism! It's really helpful.

• Regarding the DECO acquisition source, I do see what you are saying. The only other source I could find that speaks about the acquisition is this CoinTelegraph source, but it is my understanding based on this RfC that editors prefer not to use CoinTelegraph. Do you think this would be an acceptable use in this case? I'd love some additional thoughts from you on this.

• Regarding an additional secondary source for source 2, I am not sure what specifically you would like additional sourcing on.
  • Source 1 mentions that the white paper was published in 2017
    • "Chainlink's whitepaper, published in 2017, tries to address this on the technical level."
  • Source 4 mentions that Juels is a Cornell professor
    • Without that, they are “like a city with no electricity,” says Ari Juels, a computer science professor at Cornell.

Can you clarify what you would like additional support for? I am happy to try to dig something up for you. I really appreciate the help and you taking the time to offer feedback! A at Chainlink (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: Thanks for your reply, and you are making a good point about the secondary source - I would just re-use source 1 with source 2 in that statement. Regarding the DECO aqcuisition, perhaps we can remove that part for now, or at least trim it to just the part mentioning the acquisition itself, and removing DECO is a protocol that uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to prove information is true to a blockchain oracle without revealing sensitive information, such as birth dates - this part is the problematic one, as we are making a factual statement, but if all that supports it is a press release, we should either rephrase (e.g. "the authors of the protocal say that it allows users to...") or just remove it all together. BeŻet (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Hi BeŻet, thanks for the quick response and the clarification! Could we rewrite that sentence to something like this?

• In 2020, Chainlink integrated DECO, a Cornell project co-created by Juels. DECO is a protocol that uses zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to prove information is true to a blockchain oracle without revealing sensitive information, such as birth dates, according to its authors.^[1]

As for the other citation, can we just move it back later in the sentence? Please let me know what you think! Cheers! A at Chainlink (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: sorry for the delay. I think it looks good, but maybe it could read something like DECO is decribed by its authors as a protocol...? Might just look better structurally. This is just a personal opinion though, otherwise I think it's good to go (of course another editor may disagree). BeŻet (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Thanks, that is fine with me! And no worries, I know you are busy. Do you mind implementing this request with the changes? A at Chainlink (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem, that's been added now per discussion above. BeŻet (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I am closing this edit request, since it seems like it has been answered. If this is not the case, please open a new request at the bottom of the page, outlining the proposed changes. Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi editors, A at Chainlink here again. I thought while BeŻet is reviewing my first request, I'd put up something else for the community that I hope isn't too controversial.

I'm proposing removing the Chainlink Token section and replacing it with one about the technology behind Chainlink in general. I think this section should go after the History section. This adds additional information about how Chainlink works and some of the features of the network and should address the citation needed and self-published source tags in the current section.

I am trying to follow all the rules by not making any direct edits and welcome feedback on my requests here or on the draft in my user space. I really appreciate all the help! A at Chainlink (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the above. I think to widen consensus, I might let someone else review this change - hopefully it won't take too long. BeŻet (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet, thank you for adding the history section! And I definitely get wanting to wait for more consensus. Can I ping you after a while if no other editors respond to the request? Thanks again for taking the time to review the other section! A at Chainlink (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep sure, let's give it another week or two and then I can have another look. Just want to make sure there's more eyes looking at this. BeŻet (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll keep a lookout. A at Chainlink (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I thought I might split the difference on the timeline you established. It doesn't seem like we've generated a lot of interest from other editors, so I was wondering if you might take a look at this section now? No rush! Please let me know A at Chainlink (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are several cites that won't past muster and will likely end up being reverted. Cites in crypto articles are extremely strict and should be to perennial reliable sources. See WP:RSP. See if you can find alternate sources instead of arXiv, crypto sites like Decrypt and The Block, and self published sources from Chainlink or Google. The Forbes and ZDNet cites are ok. Hocus00 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hocus00: Thanks for the feedback! I've posted a new draft without those sources below:

Thanks again for the feedback and for pointing me in the right direction! A at Chainlink (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hocus00: I was wondering if you had a chance to look at the new draft I posted without those sources. Also, I noticed an editor added "like Tellor" to the introduction, but I don't really see how that fits in with WP:Relevance. Can we remove that? Please let me know. Thanks! A at Chainlink (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink:Thanks for your patience with this. I'm fine with these changes and the page has been updated. Hocus00 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello editors, A at Chainlink again. I saw an editor had added "like Tellor." to the article's intro. That looks like WP:Spam. It's also the only edit that editor has made. Is there any chance someone can remove this? I don't want to make any direct edits because I have a COI. Please let me know and thanks in advance for your help! A at Chainlink (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Hocus00 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Already done by Hocus00 casualdejekyll 02:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again, A at Chainlink here with one last batch of requests. I thought I might put them all together so I don't fill up the request queue.

• First, I was hoping we could delete the Chainlink token section. I couldn't find any sources that are acceptable to replace the two in that section and thanks to Hocus00 (thanks again!), the token is mentioned in the Technology section. That way we could cut the two self-published sources.
• Second, I had a proposal to change up the introduction so we could remove another self-published source tag.

• Third, if those changes are okay with the community, I was hoping we could remove the self-published sources tag at the top of the article and see about changing the disambiguation to "blockchain oracle." Chainlink is not a blockchain, but it does work with blockchains.
• Finally, I was hoping you might consider adding an External links section to the end with a link to our white paper, something like this: Chainlink 2.0: Next Steps in the Evolution of Decentralized Oracle Networks, v1.0, April 15, 2021.

Please let me know if you think these requests are possible! I know it's a lot but I'm hoping they are small enough that they won't be too much trouble. BeŻet and Hocus00, you've been so helpful so far, would either of you consider taking a look at these requests? Thanks in advance! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: My thoughts: 1. The Link token section does not have any RS's right now but that is one of the most important aspects of the project. I think deleting that section outright should come from the consensus of the editors here. I would keep it. 2. There are still several cites to the Link website/github so I don't think we can remove this header. 3. It's referenced as a 'blockchain oracle network'. I think that's accurate. It's not a blockchain, but it's an oracle network. I think the naming of the page "(blockchain)" should be reconsidered however. 4. The whitepaper and website are linked already in the infobox. Hocus00 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hocus00: Thanks for taking the time to respond to the multi-part ask! 1. Understood, will defer to the community on the relative importance of this section. 2. Got it. As additional sources become available I'll be sure to highlight them. 3. My suggestion for the naming of the page would be Chainlink (oracle network), as I haven't seen other similar disambiguations used (would defer to those for consistency if they do exist). 4. Understood. Thanks again! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This request has been open for a long time, and no other editors have opined to comment. As such, I will defer to Hocus00's assessment above and close this as answered. If anyone would like to open a new request, or have text above reconsidered, please open a new request at the bottom of the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Citing:, I noticed you made some edits to the page recently. I was hoping to understand them a little better. The first one, removing the DailyCoin source and the integrations, I do understand that DailyCoin is not an ideal source. I worked with BeŻet on that content and we chose to include the integrations with the AP, Google, and Deutsche Telekom because they were written about in reliable sources (by Forbes staff and ZDNet). Might you be willing to replace those as use case examples?

With the second edit, I am concerned that the wording doesn't accurately represent the content of the source, and implies an unconfirmed event. As the writing states, one analysis "suggested" a pump and dump scam. Because nothing was confirmed, should this be included at all? Do you think we could remove that sentence, or if editors think it's worth keeping, can we add more context? Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks! A at Chainlink (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@A at Chainlink: Listing a business's clients is almost always promotional in tone and not useful for readers, often ballooning into uninformative and repetitive prose. It's better to explain what the business/product does (e.g., with how the Forbes reference is currently used in the Technology section). The pump-and-dump bit looks like it was an independent analysis reported by a reliable third party who contacted the researchers and Nazarov for comments, and given the company's relatively short existence it's worth noting.Citing (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)