Talk:Filecoin

@JasonCarswell: i reverted [1] a large amount of content you added to the article. It had excessive external links and also a strange quote that looked non-neutral. Please feel free to discuss here (I could have been wrong about the quote). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Thanks for discussing this. I don't think you were very discerning in your reversion.

I don't know if I had forgotten to add this image before, but it was taken out, then I added it back after I made sure the image existed: File:Filecoin-logo.svg. It needs to be returned.

So filling out the infobox I was looking for the filecoin symbol in ASCII or whatever. I stumbled upon the funny flurbos thing. In retrospect I should have added it to a new "In media" section as parody, but there's not much to say about it other than to just list it. I don't think Steemit is considered a "legit" source so I suppose a thousand words could describe the Rick & Morty image. Prolly less. I never did find the character code for that Filecoin character.

I added the "repo = github.com/filecoin-project" because I hoped it would show up. I think it's a terrible oversight that Cryptocurrencies don't show whether they are open-source or not, like software. If they don't display a repo then they can at least offer some similar or licence description "open-source" / "freeware" / "proprietary" or whatever.

New: Juan Benet should be Juan Benet (computer scientist)

New: Filecoin should be added to List of cryptocurrencies. I found github.com/topics/cryptocurrency-symbols (gosh there are a lot) and found that "FIL" is the symbol for Filecoin, but I think that's for stock markets. I just wanted the "flurbos" symbol, and can't find a character map with it. The closest I found was this unicode_character_map.php with a very short list of "Currency Symbols [20A0 - 20CF]". On online-toolz.com/tools/character-map.php type in "f" and you get a some close variations but not the correct one. I learned that we're looking for a "Latin small f with hook = function = florin" or "ƒ" named "fnof" and unicode 00192 - but with an extra cross, though I don't know that "extra cross" is the technical term for it. There's probably a really obvious solution but I'm not into cryptocurrencies. But I am into decentralization and solutions, like IPFS/Filecoin which I think should be the same article because they are so inter-related, as well as the other 3 Protocol Labs projects, IPLD, Multiformats, and libp2p. I proposed to User_talk:David_Gerard#IPFS that we start a generalized Decentralized Web article that might also include Solid, Indie Web, and Dat. What do you think?

The quote was appropriate, perhaps not in blockquotes, and perhaps worded differently as it describes the interrelated connection between all of the Protocol Labs projects - and beyond.

You didn't even try to be selective about the "See also" section either. I think most should all be restored if not all of them.

The External links are mixed bag. I copied some from other similar articles some better than others, and some are very specific to Filecoin, all of which I think belong, except for the white paper, which is already in the infobox.

Filecoin is also about file sharing - it's in the name - so the "File sharing template" should be restored. Not mentioning the rampant censorship on Wikipedia and elsewhere, the entire reason d'etre for IPFS/Filecoin, etc is to circumvent censorship so that template should also be restored.

All of the removed Categories still apply, except perhaps Anonymity. I haven't followed up on this yet, but I think one of the good things about IPFS/Filecoin is that it's not anonymous. If everyone shares a picture of Mickey Mouse perhaps Disney won't like that, but if someone shares child porn they can trace that and stop it. I need to look into this further, because it's confusing - what if it's political information that needs to get out but is being repressed. Maybe the NSA would record it and go after the source, but the info would be out, so then it would be state revenge or whatever. Anyway, Distributed FILE systems = FILEcoin. FILE transfer protocols = FILEcoin. Free software, etc. all appropriate.

If you don't want to restore these things then I can do it with whatever adjustments I mentioned and you may respond with.

As I'd mentioned to User:David_Gerard, I think the Filecoin article should be folded in with IPFS or perhaps under "Protocol Labs projects" because they are so fundamentally inter-related projects. It's a suggestion that may not be as good as I think. I'd like your perspective.

I look forward to hearing what you think about all of these ideas. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I suspect that some of the changes are fine to make, and some are not. Just please be a bit tighter with sourcing. The quote is not suitable for an article of this size, even if the the quote was ok (we don't do quotes of technology comparisons). Also the external links were way too many. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Cool. Ish. Not very specific. Thanks for responding at least. I think I'll do it tomorrow, unless I get inspired later today. I found some more stuff because I feel spurred on by "obsticles" and the utter lack of content so I started digging. (Meanwhile Evel Knievel has a ridiculously long article. Alternatives and solutions seem to be enemies of the establishment while distractions and nonsense (but not "fancruft" if you can dare draw a line) are encouraged.) Also, FYI, that quote was not a comparison, that was a clarification about different roles within the same system. IPFS actually has FIVE parts to it, Filecoin being only one of them. That's what I'm trying to get across but I got censored on IPFS with little or no response from David. And I haven't really even started to delve into the Filecoin thing yet. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jason, there is a lot of extra strict patrol on these cryptocurrency articles. I wouldn't say you were censored, it was just that you were questioned, which is the wikipedia process. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jtbobwaysf: Potato, potato (said differently the second time). The edits were not selective and there were no questions until I asked them. I understand the need for caution, especially against scammers. I wish Wikipedia would spend more caution on the propaganda and corporate media problems, not to mention WP's own rigged rules that serve the corporatocracy and keep the public in the dark about so much. It's annoying at times but over all its mostly an enjoyable process of discovery and learning, about systems of control as well as these topics of interest. It actually forces me to learn more about them in order to craft better articles. And when some folks share knowledge it's nice, even if through a keyboard. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Juan Benet link disambiguation is for sure ok. The github link looks ok to me as well. Might also want to link to the homepage of the official site as well, as I think this is a post-funding ICO that must have an official website (maybe link to both?). Regarding Wikipedia:External links this should be minimal and relevant, adding a lot of external links to a stub article doesn't help the article to grow, the article rather needs content. The Wikipedia:Quotations isn't needed from my point of view and would be a WP:WEIGHT issue given the stub size of this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Example: some of the problems listed at this tokeneconomy article. -- (2018)

Other good reference, "Is Filecoin a $257 million Ponzi scheme?", M. Juchli and J. A. Pouwelse. (and responses/discussions) --Krauss (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Krauss: I reverted your edits because they don't use WP:RS sources (crypto sources, github, etc are not deemed reliable), and your commentary is biased (violating WP:NPOV). For example, "the terms and the way the ICO has proceeded are far from ideal" is both vague and opinionated, not reliable or accurately sourcing views that represent all significant viewpoints. I don't know why you want criticism added here, so please make a case for why this is a useful, unbiased, and necessary part of this article before proceeding. Happy to discuss! --Nala28 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Nala28: Thanks, and also happy (!), it is the first reply of after 2 years. No hurry, let's start here with a list of consensual references. Could you (and any other reader) indicate which references are valid?

• JuPo17. M. Juchli and J. A. Pouwelse (2017), "Is Filecoin a $257 million Ponzi scheme?"
• Berna17. Stefano Bernardi (2017), "The analysis Filecoin doesn’t want you to read"
• Coin17. CoinList (2017), "Filecoin Token Sale Economics"

--Krauss (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Krauss: None of Github pdf downloads, Coinlist, nor TokenEconomy are WP:RS sources. Is there something listed in an academic journal, a reputable publication (New York Times), or another peer reviewed source that you think is important to reference? Why do you want to reference "criticism" in this short, informational article? That seems like a causal factor for creating WP:NPOV edits - which won't be accepted. --Nala28 (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Suppose I want to provide storage space on Filecoin. What if anybody stores illegal contents on it? In Switzerland, it is illegal to store e.g. kid porn on your hard drive. So, if anybody stores illegal content and I provide the space for it, I can be sued. And I certainly won't review all contents I provide storage for. And if I take down contents by a malware scanner (which may also recognize kid porn), Filecoin is going to fine me.--Stonux (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, WP:NOTFORUM applies to this. At wikipedia we dont discuss things like this. If you have a source (in any language pretty much) that is from a high quality news source, we can add this type of content to the article. The question you raise is a valid one, however discussion of it here on these talk pages is off topic per the wikipedia policy I linked to. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is the "Advert" template still appropriate for this article? What statements in the article are "written like an advertisement"? I just learned of Filecoin's existence within the last hour and came here to find out something about it, and none of the article strikes me as justifying the template. I propose that it be removed. Insulation2 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I did a little cleanup and removed it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The initial release date given for Filecoin, 15 July 2014, matches that of the whitepaper. However, there is no indication that any actual code existed at that time. All three implementations have public first commit dates after that point:

• https://github.com/filecoin-project/venus/commit/b459c34ee2542e9bf4ec9875185f16e2aec33611
• https://github.com/filecoin-project/lotus/commit/1969c6618eea73c3ac8a94df477d54118ac49fcf
• https://github.com/ChainSafe/forest/commit/8344e2b82701d132848c5eb7cb893d814aa4736c

For Venus, the first numbered release is https://github.com/filecoin-project/venus/releases/tag/0.0.1 while the first release by the GitHub terminology is https://github.com/filecoin-project/venus/releases/tag/a13e39f7e83f3fae . 20kdc (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply