/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12426511
pee pee poo poo

It's not "correct" information per se. It's correctly relayed information. It's still on whoever needs the data to choose enough decentralized oracles to make sure they end up with "the correct" information.

What I'd like to know is why anyone would invest in any specific supply-chain contracts token when Chainlink can be seamlessly adapted to any of them.

>>12426520
This. Times x 1,000 eoy.

>>12426591
Low IQ and susceptibility to marketing.

>>12426591
This. AMB and VEN holders are in store for a rude awakening

Be potential huge stake investor
Invest $1mil and buy 10.000 LINK - $100 per coin
4chan autist whales coordinate and dump their ICO bags at $100
Link is priced at $80
Late link investor lost $200k in couple of hours and could bought later and have 20% more link for higher collateral.
Huge investor is dissapointed, news are spread, network is dying because of fucking volatile and manipulated crypto shit.

Chainlink will never work with this "free" manipulated volatile crypto market, network would be better with stable coin and late staking investors would rather buy 1:1 coin than some speculative shit.
Accept an API request demanding $10.000 worth of link as a collateral
4chan autist whales coordinate and dump their ICO bags dropping the price by 20%
Your collateral is worth only $8.000
You provide bad API
Bad API fucks the whole smartcontract
Oracle requester gets LINKs worth of only $8.000

Nice decentralized oracles you have there
Run a broken API
Request oracle to that API
It's broken so they don't respond
Pocket the collateral

>>12426580
sure, but compared to OTHER things like oracelize, isn't this a big step in the right direction?

>>12426591
exactly this, chainlink is like the Math or datetime library of open source, it will be needed at most places when external data needs to be verified

With that said, some kind of supply chain blockchain could ALSO be used but not without LINK

I know we like to meme about "all in " here but to spread risks is never a bad thing

>>12426634
OK, so a lot of ifs and maybes

What happens if the admins at oracelize decides to fake their data ? It's about feasability

>>12426659
>What happens if the admins at oracelize decides to fake their data ? It's about feasability

We just have to trust them. Just like we trust Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Of course we all know, that Microsoft/Windows for example is full of backdoors for NSA and Americans etc. but we still choose to use it.

>>12426677
what if there was some kind of decentralized staking solution

>>12426682
Of course we know that LINUX is better than Windows or anythign by microsoft etc.

But lets face the reality: only some sad incel fucks use Linux

>>12426685
You know that you can run linux at Azure right?

A decentralized oracle is a contradiction in terms. An oracle represents a trusted data source. Trust implies a relation, and reputation.
In the end, the data real world companies need must come from a trusted source. They pay for the reputation and relation, gladly even.

>>12426511
Unironically, one of the questions that still needs to be answered is whether crypto can scale to the levels that are going to be necessary to support a vision as grand as what is being put forward. See Ethereum 2.0. Right now, a stupid simple game about cartoon cats is enough to overwhelm the network.

This isn't even really a Chainlink problem, except by dependency.

>>12426713
well it's the TRUSTthat are decentralized, but i guess you are too autistic to understand that

>>12426511
>>12426736

Why the fuck everyone is so smuggishly sure Blockchain as a technology will even succeed/have major adoption? We might have something better in 5-7 years

>>12426736
Chainlink's already solved cryoto's scaling problem by doing most of its work off-chain.

Link is supposed to be used as collateral as an oracle provider.

Who wants to use such a service is the underlying asset is fluctuating in price?

The token will most likely be capped at $1 in the future because of this

>>12426511
There are other solutions out there, at least concepts for them. Oracles have a use case that can be filled and eliminated by other methods. Like a universal code for API sources to sign their data with a unique key and the blockchain would check the input for that key to see if the info is valid. This method in particular is very realistic and a really good long term, cheap solution, the industry just has to adapt towards that but many industries have done the same thing in the past (all sorts of ISO standards and codified forms for software). There are other solutions that aren't discussed at all here, that's the biggest fud for me. If a government would enforce a regulation that would require apis to use this signing method to make their data safely accessible to blockchains, it would make Chainlink unironically a bandage solution at most.

>>12426793
"other solutions"?

Please name them then, and describe what they are doing

Not saying you are wrong but blanket statements like that are quite useless

>>12426753
Correct

>>12426761
And when Chainlink sits on top of a blockchain (presumably Ethereum) with something that doesn't scale? Think "CryptoKitties 4: The Computationally-Expensive, DDoS Nightmare". What happens then? What happens when your decentralized Oracle node is sitting on a choked network? How large do the blocks need to be to get all of the TXs through? Do we reach a breaking point size-wise?

Chainlink is what service now did to the service desk and SAP.

This is going to be fucken crazy.

>>12426812
I gave you one, I've read about others but haven't looked into them nor did I understand them. I remember a thing about direct computation partly on the blockchain so that the data was already on there but that seems like a niche thing. All I'm saying is that a decentralized oracle network isn't the only way attempting to solve the problem. But imo it's still the best way. All I'm saying is that Chainlink could be to solving the oracle problem what a mule is to transportation. It also could be a lambo, time will tell. So far it's looking good.

>>12426780
not even that, its simpler:

link requires a secondary blockchain to work. that secondary blockchain is that outsourcing its security to a completely separate chain. no blockchain has done that before, especially platforms, and for good reason.

>>12426839
eh i did not see any name mentioned?

its a network layer 2 solution w on chain consensus on a blockchan that was crippled and caused $10+ fees by a simple cryptokitties game, no company will let their business and profits be subject to a random cripple and skyrocketing of fees when some kids over the world want to buy an imaginary cat. imagine a business paying 1 link per api call and then network gets clogged and they have to pay $10 in ETH fees to even stand a chance for tx to be included in the block. link is a pump and dump until eth can scale their tx/s up to 1000 at least.

>>12426887
ok, fair point. so from tech perspective no arguments but more usage because slow scaling

i accept that

>>12426873
He wasn't shilling any companies you degenerate, he was talking about the approaches that exist on paper, to solve the problem.

>>12426904
so ? In business execution it what makes money not ideas

>>12426887
Why the fuck ETH is so shit?

>>12426891
you underestimate the impact of what i wrote.

cryptokitties is like a pacman game on commodore 64

chainlink with just 3 companies using it is like trying to run crysis on commodore 64

>>12426830
Keep talking anon. You bring some valid points about potential problems and other solutions and I want to hear more. Way too many circle jerks about lambos and mansions and shit. So much so, I'm beginning to think something is being majorly overlooked because so many poor faggots on here think they are automatically going to be rich.

I'll bite on your second point. This is why TEE usage for Chainlink will be huge. All computation doesn't have to be on chain if it's in a secure enclave. This will act as a form of scaling to an extent.

>>12427736
Ditch your Commodore and install Temple OS. Get right with the Lord while you shoot Crysis niggers.

>>12426830

>What happens when your decentralized Oracle node is sitting on a choked network?

I'm not technically savvy enough to adequately explain or expand upon this but my understanding is that chainlink will be able to change the blockchain it sits on top of if need be.

>>12428071

Also, as this anon said offchain computation (enabled by LINK) will play a huge role in solving the scaling problems that face certain blockchains today.

Link is retarded because blockchain is retarded
There is no problem in the markets such that blockchain is the easiest and simplest solution
If no one uses blockchain technology anymore, what good is link?

>>12428135
Retard.

>>12426736
Thats where satoj's vision comes in

>>12426713
Holy fuck we could have just had a trusted database for btc instead of this decentralized shit.

>>12426511
I have a PhD in crypto economics and mathematics. Crypto incentives in Chainlink are a legitimate concern. I saw Ari Juels speak at a conference recently where he mentioned tokens and asked him about the token economics of a node staking system like the Chainlink network is planning to use. The problem is that node operator incentives are fuzzy at best and not even figured out fully by the team (see the gitter for Steve stuttering about this). When I brought it up to Ari Juels, I told him that in the way the network is expected to be used, the fees payable to node operators would actually decline as requests become more ubiquitous because as the network grows it becomes cheaper to use. This makes sense if you took a few advanced cryptoeconomics courses. Ari admitted that it was a great question but that they were "actively pursuing research in that area." I sold my LINK immediately after that and saw a significant dump on the binance charts. It's pretty clear these guys are pulling you along making you think they're doing something revolutionary when the incentives aren't even fully determined yet.

>>12426780
You can't "cap" the price of a token. If someone is willing to pay more than $1 then that will be the price will be higher than 1.

>>12426634
The nodes will be responsible for covering whatever the agreed upon dollar amount is.. meaning if Link token drops they have to advance more Link, if it increases they pay less in tokens in the event they are required to advance funds. They will have all this covered fudboy, now run along and dig up some more retarded fud, cause this one is officially refuted.

>>12428162
>I can't prove him wrong so I'll call him a retard
Let me guess, you went all in Dec 2017

>>12428217
No.

>>12428213
Actually this is bullish for Link because the node will likely be required to stake a surplus to cover any variance, which in turn will tie up even more tokens thereby reducing supply and increasing price (supply and demand). In summary, your fud on this issue is 0/10 and is actually a Larp.. lol, nice job Fudder!

It's a fucking shitcoin

To me this question is the same as "Can anyone provide a serious argument against search engines and Lycos, Alta Vista, etc." I think Oracles will be important but I'm not sure that Chainlink will win the race, despite their first mover advantage.

>>12426580
Making sure the data itself is correct would require something like an AI, otherwise technology that is far beyond our current capabilities, this is not chainlink's role anyways.

>>12428341
They have already won the race, they are working with "100s of teams".

>>12428446
You all stay poor, I am not selling fudders.

>>12428179
The more adoption takes place the higher the amount of circulating supply is needed . Instead of paying a $5 dollar reward with 5 link, they are worth $2.50 and you only use 2, thereby doubling the available use of the circulating supply. Adoption requires more jobs and demand of token use, simple supply and demand. You may have a PHD, but you clearly possess shit for common sense. Move along Fudder, we aren't selling.

>>12426511
It's not decentralized. Oracles are literally backports into the network. Hence in this case, i give link credit for building on top of ETH instead of starting their own chain. However, I'm still standing on the sidelines. I think that we are still a few years away from oracles and smart contracts being usable/functional in everyday life. Currently we are stil working on scaling. This includes plasma, lightening, atomic swaps, lightblocks, bulletproofs, etc. The tech is still to immature to focus on computing (look at cryptokitties kek).

credits: owned linkies for a while, made some nice profits on it last year on it. traded my linkies for turtle a few months ago. Looking to buy back into link when it either crashes or the market seems more interested in smart contracts/oracles.

>>12426634
>Run a broken API
>Request oracle to that API
>It's broken so they don't respond
>Pocket the collateral

That's not how it would work.

>>12426511
This thread is full of low iq mouth breathers
There are some serious arguments against link
Most of them are similar to all other startups
- The project has been delayed multiple times now (ruby to go etc.) and there is always the possibility that a less elegant but more immediately available/useful competitor wins out
- There is a chance that an early aspect of the network will function in a manner that is not intended (eg DAO in ETH) and this will significantly harm the reputation of the project
- Link is a second layer protocol that is tied to ETH (but most anons don't understand just how agnostic it is, for example Thomas' answer as to when gas is required to be paid/writing to the chain is required within the life cycle of the service agreement) If ETH does something very stupid with respect to scaling that compromises security or otherwise makes projects built on ETH tainted, link will have a major problem

That said, this is an early stage project that has not even launched yet. All of the above are about standard for any project at a similar stage.

>>12428845
Retard, when interest is higher the token price will be higher, duh. Please be sure to get interested when I am prepared to sell some of my stack at $5. Yes, nobody is interested in Smartcontracts, it's only the most vital piece of crypto. Morons are among us Marines, Hodl on.

>>12426511
FPBP

>>12426634
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You have this idea in your head like you completely understand LINK and you are above it all.

You are a stupid nigger.

The collateral doesn't lose value as it is an instantaneous transaction.

Just pump my bags

>>12426887
Link does not care what blockchain it is on. So which blockchain is built to have that type of transaction speed?