Talk:Decentralization

citation tool hanging up

I'll have to come back to thisGreyStar456 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Reference to 'Blockchain disruption and decentralized finance: The rise of decentralized business models'

@Grayfell The phrase “This is seen as having the potential to create new ways of doing business in the finance industry” is a terse summary of the paper. Would you prefer me to quote directly from the paper: "As a new area of financial technology, decentralized finance may reshape the structure of modern finance"? Or I could expand by summarising the section: "Blockchain technology can reduce transaction costs, generate distributed trust, and empower decentralized platforms, potentially becoming a new foundation for decentralized business models. In the financial industry, blockchain technology allows for the rise of decentralized financial services, which tend to be more decentralized, innovative, interoperable, borderless, and transparent. Empowered by blockchain technology, decentralized financial services have the potential to broaden financial inclusion, facilitate open access, encourage permissionless innovation, and create new opportunities for entrepreneurs and innovators."GreyStar456 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Arguing in bad faith to preserve bland filler language is not persuasive. All of this is still far, far too vague to be informative, and none of this is falsifiable. Perhaps it hypothetically could "empower a new era of innovative blah blah blah" but Wikipedia isn't a platform for insipid hype, so you would need a reliable source to directly explain both what any of these buzzwords actually mean and why anyone who hasn't already bought into this hype should care. Because as it is, this is basically meaningless. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

"SoK: a stratified approach to blockchain decentralization"

@Grayfell Why do you say this paper is not reliable? It has been peer-reviewed for a well-established conference.GreyStar456 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As above, the cited statement was facile and uninformative. Even if the source was reliable, which is absolutely not a settled issue, this vague filler language would not help readers understand the topic. It would, however, artificially inflate the significance of this study by implying that it has some lasting encyclopedic significance. People study things all the time, but this is an tertiary source. We should summarize this according to reliable, WP:SECONDARY sources. This source doesn't appear to be reliable, nor is it a secondary source for this extremely vague claim.

The cited source appears to have been a pre-print submission. If it was published, your citation did not indicate where it was published.

Please also disclose you conflict of interest with Aggelos Kiayias, as a significant percentage of your activity on Wikipedia has been to subtly (or not-so-subtly) promote this academic.

Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not an unreviewed pre-print. The paper was peer reviewed for the conference. As the call for papers page says: "Research papers should describe novel, previously unpublished scientific contributions to the field, and they will be subject to rigorous peer review. Accepted submissions will be included in the conference proceedings to be published in the Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) series." The version published on the website is the "Final pre-proceedings paper". https://fc24.ifca.ai/cfp.html

This conference is run by the International Financial Cryptography Association. These conferences go back to 1997. The IFCA predates cryptocurrencies.

I shall address to so-called COI on the Kiayias talk pageGreyStar456 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, the cited statement was facile and uninformative. If the best case for its inclusion is that the cite is technically reliable, than it still doesn't belong at all.

If a paper has been published, cite that version of the paper, with a clear indication of where it has been published. Template:DOI is good for this.

But even so, that list of nothing but shady cryptocurrency companies in the "Platinum", "Gold", and "Silver" sponsors on the side of that submission page doesn't really assuage my concerns. The age of the conference itself is mostly irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)