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)

Grayfell is now terrorizing the article out of spite (See the recent history). How do we proceed from here? HmmInterdasting (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@HmmInterdasting: The article is under WP:1RR. I would normally post a warning to your talk page, but the single warning I posted prompted you to accuse me of harassing you. Based on existing comments on your talk page, you have previously been temporarily blocked from editing, due to edit warring at this article. Until consensus has changes, please self revert.

You have not sufficiently addressed my concerns with the changes you've made to the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you treat any disagreement as "terrorism", don't be surprised if problems like this continue. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I noticed the misstatement of consensus requirements in an edit summary - WP:ONUS requires you to get consensus support to include information, you cannot reverse that burden to place it on others who revert to the status quo. Accusing Greyfell of 'terrorizing' will not help you get your way here - you have to work with them to get consensus. We do have dispute resolution procedures, but all of them will require you to work collaboratively, without making those sorts of personal accusations. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

My version was the status quo! I'm restoring information Grayfell is attempting to remove, and everything is sourced. Grayfell does not have consensus to remove this information.HmmInterdasting (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The stuff you just added is unquestionably not the status quo. You must get consensus to include it. As I just said, you will not be able to reverse the burden onto those who are reverting you. MrOllie (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Which stuff are you talking about? Here is the article in March of 2023. That version was up for years. Here is the article from earlier this month. Both of those versions have information that Grayfell is attempting to remove. Even if you somehow discount the Sept 6 version as not status quo, this is a classic case of Status quo stonewalling. Grayfell has not made a substantive case for why that information should not be in the article. Instead, he just says that he personally finds it confusing, and instead of rewording it, he removes it.HmmInterdasting (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I have brought this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we just vote on the two versions here?

Option 1:

There are two types of accounts on Ethereum: externally-owned accounts (EOAs) and contract accounts. Both types have an ETH balance, may transfer ETH to any account, may execute the code of contracts, or create new contracts, and are identified on the blockchain and in the state by an account address.[70]

EOAs are the only type of account that may create transactions.[70] Each EOA is controlled using its associated 64-character hexadecimal string known as its "private key", from which the account's address is derived.[71] For a transaction to be valid, it must include a "signature", which is a string created using a private key, the transaction to be signed (not including the signature), and the ECDSA signature generation algorithm.[72] Validators use the ECDSA public key recovery algorithm to derive the sender's address from the signature.[72]

Contracts are the only type of account that has associated bytecode and storage (to store contract-specific state).[70] The code of a contract is evaluated when a transaction is sent to it.[72] The code of the contract may read user-specified data from the transaction, and may have a return value. In addition to control flow statements, the bytecode may include instructions to send ETH, read from and write to the contract's storage, allocate temporary storage (memory) for reading and writing that vanishes at the end of code evaluation, perform arithmetic and hashing operations, send transaction-like calls to other contracts (thus executing their code), create new contracts, and query information about the current transaction or the blockchain.[73]

Option 2:

There are two types of accounts on Ethereum: externally-owned accounts (EOAs) and contract accounts. Both types have an ETH balance, may transfer ETH to any account, may execute the code of contracts, or create new contracts, and are identified on the blockchain and in the state by an account address.[70]

EOAs are the only type of account that may create transactions.[70] Each EOA is controlled using its associated 64-character hexadecimal string known as its "private key", from which the account's address is derived.[71]

Contracts are the only type of account that has associated bytecode and storage (to store contract-specific state).[70] The code of a contract is evaluated when a transaction is sent to it.[72] The code of the contract may read user-specified data from the transaction, and may have a return value. The bytecode may include instructions to send ETH, read from and write to the contract's storage, store information in volatile memory that vanishes at the end of code evaluation, perform arithmetic, send transaction-like calls to other contracts (thus executing their code), create new contracts, and query information about the current transaction or the blockchain.[73]

HmmInterdasting (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. MrOllie (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That page doesn't say we can't or shouldn't hold votes. It just says that we shouldn't make the decision based solely on the vote. HmmInterdasting (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

*To explain the substance of these changes, here's a template:textdiff for the relevant section comparing 7 Oct 2025 to today:

−

There are two types of accounts on Ethereum: user accounts (also known as externally-owned accounts), and contract accounts. Both types have an ETH balance, may transfer ETH to any account, may execute the code of another contract, or create a new contract, and are identified on the blockchain and in the state by an account address.[source which doesn't support the statement]Contracts are the only type of account that has associated [[bytecode]] and storage (to store contract-specific state). The code of a contract is evaluated when a transaction is sent to it. The code of the contract may read user-specified data from the transaction, and may have a [[Return statement|return value]]. In addition to [[control flow]] statements, the bytecode may include instructions to send ETH, read from and write to the contract's storage, create temporary storage ([[Volatile memory|memory]]) that vanishes at the end of code evaluation, perform [[arithmetic]] and hashing operations, send transaction-like calls to other contracts (thus executing their code), create new contracts, and query information about the current transaction or the blockchain.[unreliable source template]

+

There are two types of accounts on Ethereum: externally-owned accounts (EOAs) and contract accounts. Both types have an ETH balance, may transfer ETH to any account, may execute the code of contracts, or create new contracts, and are identified on the blockchain and in the state by an account address.EOAs are the only type of account that may create transactions. Each EOA is controlled using its associated 64-character [[hexadecimal]] [[String_(computer_science)|string]] known as its "private key", from which the account's address is derived. For a transaction to be valid, it must include a "signature", which is a string created using a private key, the transaction to be signed (not including the signature), and the [[Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm|ECDSA]] signature generation algorithm. Validators use the ECDSA [[Public-key_cryptography|public key]] recovery algorithm to derive the sender's address from the signature.Contracts are the only type of account that has associated [[bytecode]] and storage (to store contract-specific state). The code of a contract is evaluated when a transaction is sent to it. The code of the contract may read user-specified data from the transaction, and may have a [[Return_statement|return value]]. In addition to [[control flow]] statements, the bytecode may include instructions to send ETH, read from and write to the contract's storage, allocate temporary storage ([[Volatile_memory|memory]]) for reading and writing that vanishes at the end of code evaluation, perform [[arithmetic]] and hashing operations, send transaction-like calls to other contracts (thus executing their code), create new contracts, and query information about the current transaction or the blockchain.

(Textdiff doesn't handle citations).

The recent changes I made to the article are much closer to that status quo, while also preserving the source improvements.

And again, the article has a one-revert rule as a contentious topics. The status quo is the old version of the article, so what is and is not part of that status quo needs to be established on the talk page before edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That isn't an explanation, that's just showing the differences. Why do you think that the information in my version should not be in the article? The accounts section should not explain how a private key secures an EOA? The explanation of what contracts can do should arbitrarily leave out control flow, creating and reading from memory, and hashing? Without knowing that control flow is possible, the reader cannot understand the vast scope of what contracts can do. What possible justification can you have for deleting this information? Not every change on Wikipedia needs a Talk-page consensus. I added information that is necessary and sourced. That should have been the end of it. If you found the writing confusing, you should have reworded it, not removed the information. Let's hear your justification. HmmInterdasting (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If the goal is to convey the "vast scope of what contracts can do", than I don't accept that your edit succeeds. More importantly, this article is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. A reliable source directly saying this should be summarized. Any specific conclusion (such as how "vast" this is) needs to come from the source directly. Otherwise it's a form of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH.

Further, a section on Accounts is a poor place to explain any specific smart contract algorithm, or the presence of flow-logic in the virtual machine. Ideally, the Virtual machine section would make more sense, but that section is also currently very poorly sourced and very poorly written. One approach to fixing this is to briefly summarize this in this article, and link to Decentralized application and Smart contract, so that readers who need more information can find it without this article getting bogged down in jargon and minutia taken from original research and poor/absent sources.

Wikipedia is intended to be a general encyclopedia. If writing in an article is too confusion, too technical, too disorganized, it drifts outside the scope of the project, and that is a valid reason to edit it down to be more understandable. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that what I wrote is too technical or in-depth or that it didn't belong in that section. Conveying to the reader that contracts have all of the logic and capability of typical programs is integral to understanding what contracts are and what Ethereum is and why it matters. Telling the user that an EOA is "controlled using" a private key without explaining anything just leaves them confused. Who issues the key? How does a validator know that a transaction was created by a certain EOA? The point of an article is to convey an understanding of the topic, not to throw jargon at them with no explanation.HmmInterdasting (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Obviously you disagree. The burden is on you to change consensus. I think this article should explain that the EVM is Turing complete more clearly, and probably earlier than it currently does, but readers are not going to understand why being Turing complete is only obliquely introduced in a subsection on "Accounts" before it's mentioned, with only a primary source, in the intro to the section on "Applications". This would be yet another example of the article getting ahead of itself. The article constantly dumps information anywhere it fits, often without sources, or with unreliable sources, or with cherry-picked sources, or with reliable citations that don't actually support the attached claim. Wanting to name-dropping the ECDSA doesn't justify adding even more confusion to an already messy article. Grayfell (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

You made changes to the status quo version. Where was your consensus for that? HmmInterdasting (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

As I already said, I attempted to included the source fixes which were reliable. These are not disputed and appear to have consensus. Otherwise I've attempted to preserve the status quo version. Or did you mean these recent edits? If you have a problem with them, since those are not reverts, start a new discussion. If you, please do so without casting aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

My changes to the status quo (Sept 6) was not a revert. YOU reverted ME. You did that without starting a discussion. You took issue with the sources. So I restored my version with only reliable sources. Then YOU reverted that. You never got consensus for your reverts. Then you changed the section to something different than the Sept 6 version, and I reverted that. Then you restored it and claimed that your version was the status quo when it wasn't and that I needed to get consensus to revert you. So your reversions are allowed without consensus but mine aren't. Your changes to the status quo (both from the Sept 6 version and with your recent edits) are allowed without consensus but mine aren't. Do you not see a problem with any of this? HmmInterdasting (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Once again, Greyfell does not need to get consensus for reverts. You have the burden backward. Until you understand this you will continue to have difficulty editing Wikipedia. They also do not need to get consensus in advance when no one objects (and no, sour grapes you can't edit because I couldn't is not a valid objection). MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

He doesn't have to get consensus for reverts, but I do? HmmInterdasting (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You need to get consensus to add material, if someone objects or reverts. That is what I wrote above, that is what WP:ONUS (which has already been linked for you) says, that is and has always been the standard. Please read and retain the information this time. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

You also need to get consensus to remove material from the status quo if someone objects. Grayfell removed some material from the Sept 6 version, and I objected to those removals. When I am able to edit the article, I am going to restore only that material. He will then have the option to seek consensus to remove that material again. HmmInterdasting (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

You also need to get consensus to remove material from the status quo if someone objects.. No. False. Absolutely not. This is the core of your misunderstanding of policy, and this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response to all corrections is disruptive.

When I am able to edit the article, I am going to restore only that material. If you were to resume edit warring after your block expires, I'm sure that will be immediately reported and that you will just get blocked again. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is what Claude Opus 5.5 says:

Prompt:

According to Wikipedia's rules, if someone removes material from an article and another person objects to it and reverts that change, does the person who originally removed the material need to get consensus before they can remove it again?

Answer:

In practice, yes: once the removal has been reverted, the expected next step is the talk page, not a second removal. Strictly speaking, though, the rules say "discuss instead of reverting again" rather than "obtain formal consensus first," and a few situations change the picture.

Why removing it again is a bad idea. The guidance most people cite here is BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss), which boils down to: if your edit gets reverted, don't revert again. BRD itself is optional, but following the editing policy's talking-and-editing section and the edit-warring policy is mandatory. A second removal would count as a revert, because any edit that undoes another editor's work, in whole or in part, qualifies. You can also be sanctioned for edit warring without ever breaking the three-revert rule.

If the discussion deadlocks, the rules conflict. The consensus policy says that when a discussion about adding, changing, or removing material ends without consensus, the usual result is to keep the version from before the bold edit. For long-standing content, that means the material stays. But the verifiability policy puts responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion on "editors seeking to include disputed content." Some editors read that as covering any challenged content, even long-standing text. Others say the burden falls on whoever changes content that already had consensus. This is still unsettled; a discussion about moving that sentence into the consensus policy was underway in late December 2025.

The answer also flips if the material was newly added. If someone added it, you removed it, and they simply put it back, they're the one restoring disputed content without discussion, and the burden leans toward them.

Cases where the remover is on firmer ground:

• Living people: If material about a living person was removed on good-faith BLP grounds, it can't be restored without significant change unless consensus is reached first. In BLP disputes, no consensus often means the contentious material comes out.
• Unsourced material: Whoever adds or restores material has to provide a source. Uncited claims may be removed and shouldn't be put back without an inline citation. Outside BLP, though, removing it again isn't exempt from edit-warring limits.
• Vandalism and similar: Reverting vandalism, reverting edits by banned or blocked users, and reverting to enforce certain overriding policies isn't considered edit warring.

The obligations run both ways. Keeping the status quo during a dispute is only meant to prevent edit warring, and editors defending the older version are expected to give substantive reasons. If the material is sourced, the person removing it must explain specific problems that justify excluding it. If the two editors can't agree, the usual next steps are a third opinion, a relevant noticeboard, or a request for comment (RfC).

Sources:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Consensus

HmmInterdasting (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Chatbots frequently make up nonsense no one cares what they have to say. MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)