Talk:Privacy and blockchain

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Funfettiqueen. Peer reviewers: Rainbowdolph, Breadyornot, PandaFantasy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trueedits1009. Peer reviewers: Connormem.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review by MY

The lead section is very clear and well-written. You introduce the definition of blockchain in ways that is easy to understand, describes briefly how it works, and mentions the privacy aspect regarding blockchain technology. For the sentence “User information and data is often stored, mishandled, and misused, causing a threat to personal privacy.”, The “is” should be “are” if user information and data are two separate parts. “

In the second part, the sentence “A key aspect of privacy in blockchains lie in the use of private and public keys.” Here the “lie” should be changed to “lies”; in the sentence “This tactic avoids the possibility for a malicious user to trace a particular address' past transactions in an attempt to reveal information.”, add the “an” into it. Otherwise, the paragraph uses the encyclopedic tone and introduces private and public keys in an easy-to-understand way. In the “peer-to-peer network” paragraph, the sentence “a large amount of users' personal data is stored on a single device, posing an extreme security risk if an authority's system was hacked, lost, or mishandled”, “was” can be changed into “is” to keep the tense consistent. The three paragraphs all discuss how blockchain, compared to other transaction method, protect privacy in a better way. I feel it’s really easy to understand what you’re talking about although they look super technical, good job!

In the private blockchains part, the sentence “Private blockchains (also referred to as permissioned blockchains) are different than public blockchains.”, “than” can be changed into “from”. Other than that, I like how you structure this paragraph because you first talk about the strength of private blockchain than public blockchain, but then also mention its potential cons. It makes the readers feel that you’re describing the concept in a unbiased way.

In the financial transaction parts, the sentence “A large hurdle in current designs are due to centralization.”, “are” should be changed to “is”. Also, since in the last sentence, you mention that many banks are trying to utilize this technology, I’m curious if there is any real-world example that you can briefly incorporate into this paragraph. In the health care records part, the sentence “A large part of this is struggle is due to the fact that health providers regularly send data to other providers regarding a specific patient.” I think the “is” is redundant here? I like how you introduce there different practical applications of blockchain, and it can be more related to the readers’ life if you can drop some names or organizations that have already started to use these technologies.

In the GDPR part, the sentence “questions have arose regarding blockchain's compliance with the act.”, you can replace “arose” by “arisen”. And the sentence “there exists potential complications if an individual who made transactions on the blockchain requests their data to be deleted.”, the “exists” should be singular form here. In the fair information practices part, make sure to write “third party” as “third-party”. The legality of blockchain and privacy part is very informative and encyclopedic, and I feel I learn a lot from how you present your ideas in an objective and formal way!

In the first sentence of transparency part, “push” should be in plural form “pushes”, and you can delete the “for” after “allows” because it feels a little redundant. In the decentralization part, the sentence “Because public blockchains are not controlled by a an all-powerful third party”, delete this “a”. In the private keys part, “If someone simply has access to another user's private key, they are able to access and spend these funds.”, change “they” to “he/she”. In all, the “concern regarding blockchain privacy” part makes the article more objective, since you take about many positive implications of blockchain in the previous paragraphs, and this part helps point out what might be some potential problems. I like the last part too, because you connect the theoretical knowledge to some real-world empale.

In all, I don’t find any problem with the structure and content, since I feel they’re already very organized and complete by this moment! I just read carefully through the article and find out some grammar mistakes that you can fix really quick~ Great job, and thanks for your peer review! It helps me a lot with how I can fix the tone of my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzy732993 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Week 10 Peer Review Response

I was super excited to read that MY’s peer review of my article dived deep into my grammatical errors, because I haven’t focused much on editing my article for grammar. Instead, I’ve been very focused on adding to it, so it is very helpful to receive feedback on that end. I will definitely be updating it using these suggestions, as all of them are very well-thought out and will better my article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funfettiqueen (talk • contribs) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article

Hi! I've just joined Wikipedia as part of a Simon Fraser University edit-a-thon, and I'm a Bitcoin/blockchain educator, so I'd like to "tag in" to own the cleanup for this page!

There's a great solid framework but I see a lot of room for updating/improving. My first focus will be on citing some more mainstream and recognizable sources, as a lot of these are fringe articles, which doesn't make sense when we have classic open access resources like Antonopoulos' Mastering Bitcoin.

Since it's such a thorough article, I will probably break down the editing process over a period of time, rather than all at once. Feel free to ping me in this talk thread if you desire justification for any of the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiselinccc (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes to "Comparison of blockchain privacy systems"

A citation was needed, so I added one from a reliable source that compared blockchains, including Ethereum.

HanMiKC (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarifications in IRS Section

Made clarifications as to when the GDPR was adopted and who skips on putting cryptocurrency transactions on tax reports.

HanMiKC (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)