/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11423809
>Only because you didn't read it.
I read it. You're still not able to point where's the contradiction.
>The security of data transfer is incidental.
The entire last paragraph is about security, but the article is about oracles in general, not just api oracles like link.
>Or 'we want to do it in a decentralized way', you peabrain.
that's not what decentralization means. Bitcoin is decentralized but its protocol is constant.
>would imply centralized control over all oracles.
no, it would imply they are able to design a secure way to do that, just like satoshi invented pow as the consensus mechanism.
>Because operators can tamper with enclaves, riiiight?
Not even wrong. Trusted enclaves can be used to identify a particular cpu, so several nodes executed on one machine wouldn't work, requiring renting several machines to perform a sybil attack. That's it, that's how secure enclaves are supposed to help.
>>11423826
staking in link doesn't solve it, because there's no penalty for incorrect responses, only for responses that diverge from the temporary majority. It's a pointless gimmick, which is perhaps why there's no requirement to own link to run a node.
>>11423832
a 'network with kyc' = using several oracle companies at once. There's zero added value from chainlink and the whole project becomes pointless.

>>11225627
it's next to impossible to monetize open source protocols. That's just the truth.
EOS for all its centralization is one of the few icos that made some sense.
Those icos that weren't protocols (like golem, raiden) would work as ipo with shares, eg. spankchain.
>>11225658
>because you will need collateral to make money running node which will shrink the supply?
yeah, about that...

>>11040447
>Penalty payments for not doing the job and payments for doing the job.
except the team confirmed link is not needed for nodes.
If I was running a node I would certainly prefer to be paid in ether, or even USDT or GUSD, not link with its illiquid market. It's very hard to prevent that - and according to the screenshot, they're not even going to try.
Remember than penalties and all that are smart contracts. It's trivial to make a slightly changed contract that doesn't use link

>>10443023

Here's evidence that nodes will be free to run (aka need no LINK at all).
>muh circulating supply locked in nodes