Talk:The Open Network

The Open Network was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 July 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Open Network. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Cryptocurrency C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article The Open Network, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

On 10 November 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Open Network. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because the subject is notable with all needed references. Should be discussed then at WP:AFD instead of speedy deletion.--Александр Мотин (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in The Open Network

Merge in The Open Network article. As it details a continuation of the project not a separate project. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest moving any content to this article? Myuno (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reverse the merge and move current article to The Open Network link? Community has gone a long way in building the project and improving the blockchain. Mylongusername (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. ММЛ (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think @Jonpatterns @Myuno? ММЛ (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed

The followed text was embedded as an article comment. Doesn't seem to be a comment to help people editing the page.

"Sadly, the US judge is right about one thing: we, the people outside the US, can vote for our presidents and elect our parliaments, but we are still dependent on the United States when it comes to finance and technology (luckily not coffee). The US can use its control over the dollar and the global financial system to shut down any bank or bank account in the world. It can use its control over Apple and Google to remove apps from the App Store and Google Play. So yes, it is true that other countries do not have full sovereignty over what to allow on their territory. Unfortunately, we – the 96% of the world’s population living elsewhere – are dependent on decision makers elected by the 4% living in the US," said Pavel Durov. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it. The quote used to be in an early version (even before the content was moved from Telegram to a separate article). Myuno (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ton.org

As the domain name was moved to another party, it doesn't lead to the original Telegram Open Network website and represents just one of the groups that aim to continue the development of TON. I guess it should be either removed or replaced with a link to an archived copy at Wayback Machine (this way it most probably won't be re-added). If said post-Telegram TON blockchain will become notable enough, the link can be added there as pointing to an official website. Myuno (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiate projects, network and technology

'... the independent developers continued the development of TON under its second name The Open Network' This line is confusing or wrong. Previously Telegram Open Network was the name of the project and the technology being developed. The technology is now referred to as 'The Open Network'. There is no project referred to as 'The Open Network', they are at least two called Free TON and the TON Foundation. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that in the past edition 'The Open Network' was only used to emphasize the withdrawal of Telegram. The name was later added as the link to another article that claimed 'The Open Network' to be a different software (which is incorrect).

Finally, when you added the statement about TON being referred to as 'The Open Network', I oversaw it and re-wrote the sentence, leading to confusion.

A Free TON representative once referred to TON as 'The Open Network' in a Cointelegraph article, admitting that 'Telegram Open Network' and 'The Open Network' are the 'same technology, but different networks'. But I guess we can ignore it for good. Myuno (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic removal of phrases

Systematic removal of the phrase 'The Open Network' and mentions of Newton / the TON Foundation. Both projects should at least be mentioned. There is probably too much detail/none notable information about the Free TON project. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There also was a Chinese group that announced the launch of TON-based blockchain back in May 2020. Same as NewTON, it hasn't been heard of since. In contrast, there are undoubtedly reliable sources about Free TON, such as Forbes (a staff article), RBC (a Russian equivalent of Bloomberg News), CNews (a wannabe TechCrunch with some emphasis on telecommunications). That's why it's pretty reasonable to provide some details: the origination, the size of the community, and so on.

Payspace named Free TON the main alternative network and mentioned NewTON as the project that intends to create bots and apps with built-in wallets. In case the reliability of cryptocurrency outlets in questioned, there will be no sources about NewTON and/or TON Foundation (not to be confused with TON Community Foundation, that's a different thing). There are also no reliable sources to claim that NewTON = TON Foundation. Yet you keep re-adding things based on an anonymous Telegram channel and the links to the publications that don't support the statements you added. Myuno (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once the clearly reliable sources (independent, published, verifiable and so on) are provided, it will be legit to include the information in the article.

BTW, it looks like the reliability of cryptocurrency outlets is questioned because of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 251#Pay-for-coverage crypto sites and other compromising cases listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Myuno (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonpatterns do you mind getting back to discussions you started? Myuno (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer service Jonpatterns (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto blogs are not reliable sources, and CoinTelegraph is trash. Can you really find no RS that even mentions Newton etc? When you find actual RS coverage mentioning these things, use that - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No prejudice against renomination in due course. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram Open Network → The Open Network – Telegram Open Network no longer exists, they transferred their GitHub organization to The Open Network, and their website has also renamed to The Open Network. Telegram Open Network is a historical part of The Open Network, but not the current state. SolingLiu (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, too soon to change, wait until proposed title became WP:COMMONNAME. BeanGreenCar (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename to The Open Network

I suggest to rename this page to The Open Network.

Why:

1) History of TON (from https://ton.org): Telegram Open Network testnet2 is launched in November 2019. In May 2020, after the SEC prohibited Telegram from issuing Grams to investors, Telegram ceased its work on the TON ecosystem. testnet2 tokens are placed into Proof of Work Giver smart contracts. The Newton-blockchain team continued to work on the blockchain after Telegram. In May 2021, by majority vote of network participants, testnet2 was promoted to mainnet. Coins continue to be distributed by Proof of Work Giver contracts. So, it's the same project, but it's managed by a new team and with the updated name The Open Network.

2) Pavel Durov, CEO of Telegram and author of Telegram Open Network, supported The Open Network team (ex-newton-blockchain) in a Telegram post https://t.me/durov/175. He mentioned that the this team continues developing the open TON project (https://t.me/toncoin).

3) The TON team managed by the TON Foundation. "TON - The Open Network" is a verified GitHub organization (https://github.com/ton-blockchain).

4) https://ton.org is the official web site of TON. It used to be the official site of Telegram Open Network (http://web.archive.org/web/20201218134341/https://ton.org/).

5) Telegram verified the official Telegram channel of The Open Network (https://t.me/toncoin).

6) Many large exchanges listed Toncoin (https://ton.org/buy-toncoin) as the TON cryptocurrency. Tsivarev (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add more TVM networks

I suggest to add more information about networks that came from Original TON:

Venom Foundation https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/leadership/leaders-insights/peter-knez-advisor-at-venom-foundation-building-an-ecosystem-block-by-block Everscale (ex-Free TON) https://www.forbes.com/sites/tatianakoffman/2021/07/29/how-a-group-of-russian-engineers-revived-telegrams-blockchain/?sh=32bac4104b31 Kraken Dead (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as uncontroversial (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram Open Network → The Open Network – Native TON community doesn't refer to TON as Telegram Open Network and existing name of the article sometimes causes confusion in the conversations. TON is listed at different exchanges and as of 12:58, 9 May 2023 [[1]] on the 28th place by Coinmarketcap under the name of "The Open Network" Mylongusername (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Diverging Diamond ^{To the left! To the right!} 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 18:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate my request for the move of the 'Telegram Open Network' (TON) article to 'The Open Network'. I initially requested this move based on feedback from the native TON community and the current listing of the network on various exchanges. As I mentioned previously, as of 12:04, 17 May 2023, TON is listed on the 26th place 1 by Coinmarketcap and on the Toncoin token page [2] blockchain is referred to under the name of "The Open Network".

The current title can cause confusion as the TON community doesn't refer to TON as Telegram Open Network. It is important that Wikipedia reflects the most current and accurate information, and in this case, that would mean changing the name of the article to align with the widely accepted name within the community and on financial exchanges.

I understand that page moves require consensus, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to have this discussion. I kindly urge those who have not yet participated in the discussion to please provide your thoughts and perspectives. This decision will greatly affect the accuracy and usability of the article, and your input is highly valued. Mylongusername (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think @Jonpatterns @Myuno ? Mylongusername (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.