Talk:Ethereum

The repository linking to Go Ethereum in the infobox isn't quite right.

Go-Ethereum is an implementation, client, or engine of the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The URL for the repository would be better as "www.github.com/ethereum". However this is compounded by the repository URL apparently being taken from the reference to the Go Ethereum repository for the license, being the only place that the reference occurs. Furthermore there are more licenses than GPLv3, LGPLv, others have been used such as MIT in many repos, Apache 2.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, MPL-2.0.(unsigned Talk page comment added by User:Jamesray1 on 2018-01-11T05:33:35)

References

Ethereum Max?

This has been highly reported recently, abetted by Kim Kardashian's pumping of it. Surely it should be on Wikipedia by now.

E.g. From

He [Charles Randell, chair of the UK Financial Conduct Authority] then trained his attention on Kardashian, who, he noted, recently plugged "Ethereum Max" to 250 million Instagram followers.

"In line with Instagram's rules, she disclosed that this was an #AD," Randell said. "But she didn't have to disclose that Ethereum Max — not to be confused with ethereum — was a speculative digital token created a month before by unknown developers, one of hundreds of such tokens that fill the crypto-exchanges."

Randell acknowledged that he can't say whether this particular token is a scam. But he emphasized that regulators needed to do more to rein in this type of online activity. Platforms like Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and TikTok, he said, also need to "step up."

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/07/investing/kim-kardashian-crypto-regulators/index.html

And:

Kim Kardashian has been criticised for promoting an untested cryptocurrency on Instagram, by the head of the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

Charles Randell said Ms Kardashian had "asked her 250 million followers to speculate on crypto tokens" by promoting an advert for Ethereum Max.

He called it "a speculative digital token created a month before by unknown developers".

And he accused influencers of fuelling the "delusions of quick riches".

Mr Randell was speaking to the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime.

The FCA chairman said Ms Kardashian's Instagram post, which he noted had been correctly flagged as an ad, may have been the "financial promotion with the single biggest audience reach in history".

The promoted token Ethereum Max was, he stressed, not to be confused with the Ethereum cryptocurrency.

"I can't say whether this particular token [Ethereum Max] is a scam," he said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58462517

use "Dencun" as stable release

The "Stable release" field in the infobox should probably contain the name of the current protocol version ("Dencun" as of writing this) and not the version of any client implementation. Adu1000 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It makes no sense to have a stable version of a single client since there are 10+ clients (across the consensus and execution layers). I've now updated it to Fusaka. HSukePup (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2025

from:

who invited reporter Morgen Peck,

to:

who invited reporter Morgen E. Peck,

References

2601:646:203:E7B0:A26B:8CD1:B6E4:B736 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The article reflects the usage in the cited source, and the first source you provide also excludes the initial. I could see an argument for change if there were a bunch of other Morgen Pecks out there, but I think this is fine as is. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

Shouldn't the well reported origin story of Buterin inventing Ethereum after WOW nerved his character build be included in the history section? See — jonas (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Grayfell reverting sourced, true, and necessary information

Grayfell has reverted my recent edit of the Accounts sub-section of the article, even though the text was 1) sourced, 2) true, and 3) necessary, basic information about the subject matter without which the section is incomplete. In his/her reversion, he/she wrote "Removing/reverting editorializing, overly-granular details, and unreliable sources. Cite and neutrally summarize reliable sources proportionately". There was no editorializing. Every sentence was supported by the sources. It was not overly-granular. It was basic and necessary information. The sources were not unreliable. The sources were the book "Mastering Ethereum" by Andreas Antonopoulos/Gavin Wood/Carlo Parisi/Alessandro Mazza/Niccolò Pozzolini, Ethereum.org, and the Yellow Paper. The reverted text is as or more sourced and necessary than the rest of the Design section, so it makes no sense that Grayfell would revert this text but keep the rest. Let me know how we can proceed from here. HmmInterdasting (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the information that you added is important in the context of Ethereum's design, so I think you should re-add it, but that it should also be copy-edited to present a more concise and condensed reading. For example, this part reads both bloated and confusing:

When a validator executes a transaction, they use the "public key recovery" part of the ECDSA to derive the address associated with the private key that was used to create the signature, and this is taken to be the sender's address.

Something like this (I don't insist on using it verbatim, it's just an example) would read much smoother:

A validator uses ECDSA public key recovery to get the sender's address from the transaction's signature.

Vgbypw (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The book appears to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher. So you can cite that here. It would help to include the chapter and page number. The yellow paper seems to be a self-published source. And etherum.org is a primary source about Ethereum itself, so I would limit use of that as a source, as well. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

In the phrase To begin using a "new" EOA, one simply needs to create a random private key and keep it a secret. the use of scare quotes and the term "simply" are both forms of editorializing, while the term EOA is not well-supported by the attached sources. The bulk of the edit was confusingly written, and this poor writing undercuts whatever informational value the edit had. The mix of sources did not help.

Focus on using reliable, independent sources to summarize this for the benefit of disinterested readers. As one example of the problem, "ECDSA" is not meaningful without context, and this article is the wrong place to attempt to explain what the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm is, so dropping that as an acronym into the article as jargon fails to provide useful informational to readers. Grayfell (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

"the term EOA is not well-supported by the attached sources": It is supported by BOTH of the attached sources. Apparently, you didn't even bother to look at the sources before making this claim. That's wild. "EOA" is the main way to refer to that type of account in the literature. "poor writing": If you don't like my writing style, then you should REWORD what I have written. You should not REMOVE information that is sourced, true, and necessary. "summarize this for the benefit of disinterested readers": That is exactly what I did. My tone was that of a tutor explaining the subject to someone who isn't very tech-savvy. That is the tone I used for the entire Design section. "ECDSA is not meaningful without context": I linked it to the ECDSA article. It wasn't just an acronym with no context. The way I wrote it was the same way it was written in the "Addresses" subsection. I suppose it's better to write out the entire name the first time it's mentioned in the article, but either way, it belongs, and we don't need to explain what it is to the reader when we're linking to its article. HmmInterdasting (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

EOA is not in the Bloomberg source, which was the only reliable source used for that paragraph. That source didn't mention accounts at all, so it was likely added in error. I've removed that source.

Wikipedia articles are expected to use independent sources for things like this, not first-hand knowledge.

The purpose of this article is to provide context to readers. Adding more unexplained jargon is not beneficial. Instead, look at how general audience sources attempt to explain these, and use those sources to determine proportionality. After that, use technical sources to provide context, not as an excuse to cram in more acronyms and misleading details. Don't use unreliable sources. Avoid primary sources as well. Ethereum.org and the whitepaper are primary sources, and are very poor for demonstrating that any particular detail is encyclopedically significant. It doesn't matter how obvious it is to you that this is important or necessary, sources are what matters. "Rareskill.io" doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all, and should not have been cited. Grayfell (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2026 (UTC)