/biz/ - Business & Finance

so you're literally just proving why decentralization is needed ?

>>16199574
The decentralized scenario I outlined doesn't work.

Unless you create multiple segmented groups across a city. Then you start to run in to resource problems because a city doesn't need 300 rainfall collection nodes to validate data when a news station can produce more accurate results with 10 of them.

>>16199574
Decentralization only works if the data you start out with is inherently trusted. Like if you sign a bitcoin transaction to send to an address. You start with valid, trusted data and its validated in a trustless manner.

You can't start with "trustless" data collection because it doesn't exist. Therefore trying to implement the same style of consensus in a similarly trustless manner doesn't work.

Two trustlessnesses don't make a trust.

you’re confusing oracles with APIs and aggregation with voting. oracles are required for smart contracts to operate on the blockchain, regardless of whether those oracles are centralized or not. decentralized oracles have many advantages over centralized ones, not the least of which is distribution of authority over the system to ensure fairness, which is why they are attractive

>>16200032
>>16200049
Nobody has fallen for this bait for nearly two years

>>16200049
>>16200032
>>16199438
The network will see the strange and large decrease in rainfall for that particular "quirky" node which means that it disagrees with the consensus of the other nodes who have normal rainfall. It will lose staked LINK, reputation, and eventually if it keeps on happening, nobody will use that node until it relays reliable data like the rest of the non-"quirky" nodes..

>>16199438
>Lower ranked nodes start seeing that they're not being rewarded for their "incorrect" voting and decide to modify their collection to better match the senior rainfall node.
This is literally false. The only disagreeing node is the one which the false rainfall data. The rest get paid since they have consensus while the disagreeing node loses LINK. Have you even read the whitepaper?

>>16200464
based, do you care to argue the inherently centralized API fud?
for market price data, there are multiple feeds collecting the price, which get aggregated, so in OPs example it would be the same thing if the 300 IOT weather devices were controlled completely by independent sources right?

>>16200503
>for market price data, there are multiple feeds collecting the price, which get aggregated, so in OPs example it would be the same thing if the 300 IOT weather devices were controlled completely by independent sources right?
Basically yea. The nodes collect the data and it CAN be aggregated, but that's up to the creator of the contract. The aggregation happens AFTER the data has been collected by the nodes.

In terms of companies of one data source like the NBA not providing data: that’s the greatest misunderstanding that people have when discussing this topic — the idea that oracles offered by the data sources themselves (fx Cisco or Samsung) will COMPETE with the Chainlink network. It is far more likely that while they may offer their services directly to a user (representing a single point of failure), they would also happily offer their services (in return for a fee) to a Chainlink node who then relays that data to the smart contract alongside as many others as that contract deems necessary for their own level of security and trustlessness. Google is a recent example of an enterprise using Chainlink to monetize its new datasets that give insights into different blockchains. Bear in mind that other nodes selected by a smart contract may provide the same kind of data but from a different provider, again reducing any trust in a single party. That’s the decentralisation layer. That’s the whole point of Chainlink.

>>16200365
None of this matters if the API data needs to be trusted.

>>16200548
That's where something like DAG comes into play and validates the integrity of the data going to the Chainlink network. You can read more about it here: https://constellationnetwork.io/pdf/Chainlink_Constellation_Network_Technical_Integration_Overview.pdf

>>16200422
But what if the network only started out with a few nodes and grew with the flaw.

Or what if the node had so much reputation that its vote outweighed enough of the rest of the network.

There's so many caveats that make this system so fragile.

>>16199438
You’re not real you glownigger fudster. $1000 END of THIS YEAR

>>16200464
refer to>>16200561

Operators will do whatever keeps them getting paid. This is very true.

>>16200561
Brainlet tier fud

>Wouldn’t holding millions of LINK automatically rank you to the top above the other nodes?
No, holding LINK is just one of the factors when determining a node’s reputation. Having LINK on a node helps get the node started, but there is a point of diminishing returns for how much LINK to hold. Nodes that simply have enough reputation may be eligible for the job. From that, node selection will be random.

https://github.com/thodges-gh/ChainLink-Node/blob/master/NodeFAQ.md#what-is-the-process-for-how-the-link-token-is-used

>>16200518
Why not just get two api feeds from the api source and make sure they match. Same thing without jumping through hoops and paying extra.

>>16199438
this guy gets it
1. The only backing a cryptocurrency can have is by value stored on it's own blockchain
2. Decentralised Oracels are impossible without general AI
3. POS is superior to POW by utility
4. Pocketnet.app is better than Steemit

Fundamentally, I’ve noticed a lot of new posters in the last 69hr (SIXTY NINE) asking about Chainlink and just wanted to warn you. Chainlink is shilled HEAVILY here and it’s very hard to understand so this background is crucial to ensure you stay safe.

Basically, a bunch of RACIST WHITE CIS MALE 4channers tried to force it as /ourcoin/, during the presale ico phase of chainlink there was a minimum requirement of 300eth to enter the presale.

Coin continued to get shilled and pumped up and hyped for the sibios event that link was attended, whole event turned out to be a flop chainlink had a presentation in a room of like 18 people (IT WAS BESIDE THE FUCKING TOILETS FOR FUCK'S SAKES, YOU COULD HEAR THEM FLUSHING), literally no news or partnership came from the event.

Now during this alt bull run lots of anons and took advantage of this and shilling this coin to all the new money and newfags.
The coin is HEAVILY manipulated by a literal TRANNY DISCORD who pump and dump this coin more than their boyfriends pump and dump hot cum into their asses, and the supply is dried up from huge fucking chink whales (xi jinping is rumoured to hold link) who accumulated below ICO price to create a artificially lower supply.

In regards to actual project that chainlink aiming to achieve it's nothing more than a basic json parser (OH MY GOD ITS JSON PARSER...) for smart contracts (LOL HOW CAN A CONTRACT BE "SMART"???), would take like a day to add to ethereum by itself.. literally making links whole concept pointless and definitely no need for a token. You're literally just buying a wh*tepaper.

They only have 2 devs who are literal pajeets who are payed in big macs (non beef) and Surgay NAZAJEET is a literal psychologist (trusting a shrink? is he gonna tell us to go clean our room next?). So FUNDAMENTALLY, it's a scam, ok thanks.

Now go do the needful and fundamentally buy a real coin with fundamentals like [insert pajeet p&d #23457].

>>16200571
You get paid to perform a function, if you don't perform it, you're not included. Bitcoin kicks out a miner if he tries to change transactions and has less than 51% of the network. Same with Chainlink where those with bad data are kicked off essentially because the market refuses to deal with those whose data is in disagreement with the rest of the nodes.

>>16200585
Let's say they do that, still no way to relay that data to a blockchain.

>>16200597
Before you buy, let me tell you a story.
I was visiting San Francisco to see one of my friends. We went to a strip club, and while I was there, I saw Sergey, surrounded by women. He was throwing tons of money at them, but not just bills. It was stacks upon stacks of $10,000, sealed up with the white paper bands, like he had just come straight from a bank.
I went up to him and congratulated him on the success of Chainlink as of late (this was about a month ago), and he started laughing. He took a hefty swig from a bottle of Dom Perignon, and said, "Yeah? You think I care, stinky?"
Confused, I asked what he meant, and said that he had obviously put a lot of work into LINK and he should be proud.
"Fundamentally, I don't give two fucks about Chainlink, kid."
He was about to say something else but one of the strippers tapped him on the shoulder. Sergey pulled out from his pocket the biggest ziplock bag full of cocaine I've ever seen in my life. It looked like one of those gallon bags, almost bulging at the seams. The stripper ran off into a back room with it.
He then pulled out a Zippo lighter.
"You wanna know what I think about Chainlink?"
He snapped his fingers and a stripper handed him a bottle of Hennessy. He then pulled about 20 stacks of bills from a duffel bag, threw them on the floor, poured cognac all over them, flicked his Zippo, and dropped it onto the pile. Almost instantly the whole stack caught.
I stared at him, speechless.
"It's called a 'PUMP and DUMP,' kid."
He laughed as he watched the pile burn before losing interest and going into a back room with his entourage of strippers following carrying duffel bags full of what I assume was money and coke.
This is the man you are supporting by buying LINK.

>>16200582
>brainlet
not an argument

Any way reputation is calculated, its still weighted popular voting at the end of the day and still is inherently prone to lopsided flaws.

>Oh no, the way I set up my sensors' calibration has been off for five years, I've controlled 60% of consensus through multiple nodes and the remaining 40% just replicated my flawed calibration. Our entire data set has been wrong for half a decade aaaaaaa
>Oh no, I picked this API feed as good but it's wrong all the time, enough people picked the wrong api feed too and we have the majority of popular voting consensus, aaaaaaa

>>16200617
pro-tip for all anons out there: you can get an incredibly high-paying job working in the service industry if you work on seaworthy yachts. It's all billionaires and their bro's and they tip like saudi princes. Its just a few blowjobs per day and you get all living and expenses payed PLUS a per diem. My brother did that shit for years and met this dude. We all got thrown out of a gay bar together when he was in port and became fast friends. He trusted us on this with his play-money. We'll operate a CHAINLINK node together once shit gets real.

>>16200597
How do you know if its performed correctly or not. What if enough people are performing the wrong way because it gets them paid.

>>16200611
This. I'm a tcp ip developer at a fortune 50 big data company with 25 years experience in database infosec, I've looked into chainlink and all I can tell you if that the cryptographic measures implemented in regards to the decentralized security paradigm in the API and IoT structure of chainlink's github code is fundamentally flawed after the Pivotal tracker server crashed due to the core attacks on the network enabled by its corrupt data inputs and outputs, what this really means is that by attempting to solve the oracle sybil resistance issue it instead allows customers to bypass the encrypted hardware and even hack into the smart contract Intel SGX mainframe, unless they manage to increase the signatures and scalable nodes, which isn't likely considering the Google backend isn't compatible with the legacy JSON systems and Solidity language from the EVM in the Truffle stacks, that's why the ic3 and SWIFT engineering teams developed the ISO 20220 standards but it's centralized and susceptible to the 51% front running program so yeah basically Sergey didn't foresee that the enterprise customers and cloud blockchain dapps would never allow their protocols to rely on these permissioned host mechanisms thus rendering the LINK ERC 677 token obsolete and no serious developer would consider DLT technology in these conditions, sorry linkies I'm just telling it how it is.

>>16200617
You're saying that the results are aggregated which is not true. In a large network of nodes, if a smart contract creator thinks a certain group of nodes aren't delivering him good data, he'll just blacklist them from his contracts. It's impossible that every single node operator has a tree that blocks the rain from his sensor. btw why would anyone use some pajeet tier node instead of an actual node from a company who has their own CL node?

>>16200630
They perform correctly if the consensus for data matches. If 9 nodes say it rained x amount, the 1 that disagreed is going to lose

>>16200609
Sure there is. If your two separate sources match, then write it to the blockchain. About the same process as when you send a BTC transaction.

I can write a script in like thirty minutes.

>>16200640
then it's centralized garbage and there's no point of using a smart contract in the first place

>>16200640
Whoever is sending it is a single point of failure. The whole point of using decentralized infrastructure is so my contract executes reliably. Large companies will not use centralized oracles to trigger their contracts running on decentralized infrastructure, because why would they want a highly secure and reliable mechanism, to be triggered by a highly unreliable mechanism? End-to-end reliability is absolutely crucial for high value transactions in low trust environments.

Ride Defi pumps instead. Buy Ferrum.

>>16200639
I'm using a simple aggregation example because its easier to understand.

Part of why oracle talk is easy to fool people with sleight of hand is that the API data feed is a more abstract concept in the normie mind.

>1 disagreed
What if one person controls three nodes whose cred makes up 60% of that group's consensus? He's a retard and has all three nodes under a tree.

>>16200646
No it wouldn't. I'd give my script to the other party and let them run it and let our scripts refer to each other before writing to blockchain. Easy as that.

This is a much more realistic scenario for multi million dollar corporations. Give everything to some devs, code review everything, black box it all and let the systems consense.

It's a much better system that "oracle solutions" don't improve on.

>>16200667
why would someone write a contract aggregating so few nodes that one retard could ruin it? strong argument for a large oracle network instead of a singular or small group of oracles

>>16200650
You can decentralize without anonymous nodes.

>>16200667
You're talking about an unknowing Sybil attack. This is the whole point of decentralization. Why would anyone in their right mind use multiple nodes that is from the same person? If it is somehow unknown to the SC creator that multiple oracles are from the same user, they will still have random nodes bidding to be part of the contract. What happens is that let's say 200 nodes and those 3 disagree, then they lose reputation which will make it less likely to be used. If it happens again, then again they will lose reputation and will no longer be used and this pajeet node has to start giving reliable data or never be used again.

>>16200686
Will JPMorgan use Morgan Stanley's oracle for a futures smart contract?

>>16200691
How expensive is oracle data going to be if it can only operate with 10x the nodes actually needed to perform the task?

>>16200709
Why would I tell anyone I'm the same person operating nodes if running them independently is going to get me paid more?

The most profitable mode in any popular voting setup is to be able to pose as as many separate voters as possible.

>>16200713
assuredly cheaper than what is being paid now, with results that are faster and more secure

>>16200713
>>16200702
>>16200640
You do know that it's possible to use a centralized oracle in the Chainlink network? All a company has to do is become a node and sell its data. Literally no reason not to. So either way, we win.

>>16200726
How can a pajeet with 3 nodes compete with 10k nodes providing reliable data? Try to take down the BTC network with a couple of miners. Obviously the LINK network is very small right now so Sybils can occur which is why they are doing KYC. Remember that at one point, BTC network was small enough to get Sybil'ed.

>>16200686
yes sorry its centralized garbage
literally no point of using crypto or blockchain if we're just going to rely on centralized actors again

>>16200740
Ten times the eqipment
Ten times the network traffic
Ten times the maintenance
Ten times the administration

Is going to be cheaper? Don't forget this is API data that's going to be marked up on top of its initial cost.

>>16200746
That's fine, but why would anyone buy a more expensive version from an "oracle" provider when they can just get the exact same thing from the source? It's not more secure going through an "oracle", we know that. SSL exists to prevent MITM attacks.

>>16200746
How are you going to find 10k rainfall collection data enthusiasts in a small town.

>>16200747
But it's two parties, or three. No anonymous parties helps with trustlessness issues.

I don't see the point in not just getting a really nice secure channel to the API provider. Maybe across a nice networking protocol project.

>>16200753
say what? the contract issuer isn’t responsible for any of those costs, they pay a fee in link tokens. API data and its associated costs will also vary widely from contract to contract, so speculation in that regard would have to be on a case by case basis. If a decentralized oracle network becomes successful you can be certain that data providers will compete in to provide api access to the network at low costs to facilitate high volume of calls

>>16200787
Where do they get the API data from then.

>>16200787
And where does the "oracle network" get the api data from.

Someone has to buy it, and that cost has to be compensated somewhere.

In link's case, why do you think Google was so keen to salivate over it? They know it's pointless but crypto oracle autists will spend big money on buying data from Google 10x over what they'd normally sell.

>>16200791
>>16200811
its specified by the contract. A lot of your complaints would go away if you understood that sure, in some cases a contract issuer might want to use a centralized oracle and a centralized API. That’s fine, no one is saying you can’t or that it’s a bad idea to do that in certain cases. But there are certain common transactions - such as sales, crypto conversions and money transfers, insurance fulfillment, for example - where a large decentralized network provides security to the transacting parties that one or both cannot get from a centralized oracle. For something like derivatives trading there will presumably be a high API cost due to the multitude of costs but a network can respond more quickly and in greater accord with the market than a single centralized API.

A decentralized oracle is a useful tool for a wide range of transactions, it does not preclude the use of centralized services in cases where those services would be more convenient, and it has never purported to do so

>>16200877
Name a use case please. Explain its value.

>>16200597
Consensus doesnt ensure the external data is correct, it only ensures internal consistency of the network.
Ofc being correct may not even matter. If everybody believes you, youre right

>>16200924
Then why even pretend to consense. Just cut the middleman and get the API data.

>>16199438
>arbitrarily chooses seniority to cater to his example
>doesn't mention penalties
It's like you're bl**k

>>16200971
Why do businesses and their customers both pay a delivery service to deliver goods?

>>16200975
If you had the majority of consensus through seniority or past number of accurate votes or any other metric you want to pick, the result would be the same. Only nodes that don't fall in line with the true or untrue majority holder would be penalized.

I'm English by blood with a traceable lineage back to my family's coat of arms.

>>16200985
Why did Amazon introduce its own delivery service.

>>16200582
As far as I understand, contract creators select their nodes manually, or has this changed?

>>16200910
Use case where a decentralized oracle is required: MakerDAO ETH prices.

The price updates are necessary to ensure makerdao has sufficient collateral to cover all outstanding DAI in circulation, plus an arbitrary cushion to protect the system against price volatility. CDP holder will be liquidated and have their ETH holdings sold on market if the price oracle updates a price below their liquidation limit.

There are a large number of CDPs reliant on the price updates. None of them could or should be trusted to provide a price update because they would have reason to manipulate the price feed in their favor. MKR holders shouldn’t be trusted because they might find it profitable to target CDPs for liquidation. The system is pretty complex and there are a large number of actors involved.

It’s in everyone’s interest not to trust any other actor in the system. There’s no simple answer of how decentralized access to their price feed should be. It should probably scale to be more robust as the total value of CDPs goes up. Never should trust be placed in a single entity, however, when so much value from so many actors is hinged on the accuracy of one data point

>>16201095
How do they figure out which one is me and which one is the node at my brothers house and which one is the node at my sisters house and which one is the node at my work and the other fifteen that I operate as pseudo individuals to control consensus.

>>16201019
So that other businesses and customers would pay them to deliver goods. You still haven't answered why people pay for this service.

>>16200763
Lol people in this thread....
You're all being baited. Oracles don't guarantee the validity of the data, as in whether or not its objectively true or false, they sinmply insure that whatever data has in fact been given has not been tampered with by bad actors. Never once, ever, anywhere, at least that I know of, has Chainlink claimed that their oracles attest to the validity of the data itself. In any case it's a completely moot point because that's not the value proposition of the network.

>>16201122
So the average high level api feed is $700/mo

Let's say you get three different api sources.

Is MakerDAO going to pay any more of $2100 than they have to? How much profit margin are oracle nodes going to make? 10%? 5%? 25?

Let's be generous and divide $210 among what, 100 nodes? $21 a month? 1000 nodes? $2.10 a month?

Or MakerDAO could just get three API feeds and compare them to each other for the price get the same results with the same security for less price.

>>16201128
You severely underestimate the difficulty of running a node. Serious nodes for serious contracts will be akin to running a full time business. The scenario you describe wherein some actor will set up multiple proxy nodes all under his control will not be a relevant issue, especially for high value contracts , given how steep the penalties will be for slipping up. Moreover, you assume that it will be trivial for any actor to gain such undue influence over the network in ANY subet of node services, let alone ones that offer types of data that will be used for high value services. This is what KYC is for at the start of the network; to bootstrap the network with the trust that already exists in the real world with known companies. Even if you had the perfect scam scenario where you manged to corner the data market for your niche, the likelyhood of that would be the highest at the earliest point in the life of the network, (now) but competition would mean a fluid market wherein keeping your monopoly would be harder and harder. (Again; assuming cornering useful markets would he trivial in the first place.)

>>16201201
I don’t think the numbers would break up that way. MakerDAO would end up paying a premium for data if the api cost $700/month, but indirectly. They would be paying the oracle whatever makes it worthwhile to that particular oracle. And that oracle might be servicing multiple contracts with the same api so they might have something of an economy of scale going that they can afford to discount the price they charge MakerDAO.

MakerDAO can pass the oracle fee onto CDP holders in the form of an already existing stability fee. So while it may become more expensive to support their oracles overall as the CDP pool grows, that fee is distributed among all users. I think having a system that has a very high assurance of data accuracy for a price will ultimately attract more value to the system than a cheap oracle system that relies on only a few trusted parties.

A data provider can be an oracle. When you say an API feed can be used for the price, I assume you mean just have the data provider who owns the API be the oracle? Yes, if the data provider wishes to capitalize on the smart contract market, they’re probably a solid backbone for building a middleware for your contract. It would also be good to have independent verification from more nodes that gives the whole system a higher assurance of uptime and accuracy.

>>16201287
This. OP is a brainlet tier fudder. You had two years.

>>16201163
Why did they want to cut out the middleman. Everyone wants to pay no more than they have to for this service.

>>16201189
Then why not just securely transmit the data. There's no benefit over a secure websocket.

>>16201287
That sounds like outrageous price bloat for very little benefit.

>>16201299
And yet you can't argue my points. FUD or harsh truth?

>>16200597
Imagine a scenario where data providers collide with node operators and Sc developers to return false data to a high valued contract.
LINK BTFO overnight

This will be our Mt. Gox and drive links price from $374 to 4 dollars overnight. Be prepared for the battle marines.

>>16199438
That's right anon, chainlink is just a pump and dump json parser written by a philosophy major in a toilet in sibos 2017, which is why it shows up as a pump and dump scam when you try to google it. It is a solution seeking a problem for gravelcoin which was thought up in about 5 minutes.
I just sold 100k because of your additional insights though. Thanks very much for looking out for everyone here and asking the big questions.

>>16201310
>why not securely transmit the data
Wow, it's almost like that's one of the main things chainlink is offering to do! What a coincidence! They should hire you.

>outrageous price bloat
Not sure what you mean by this. Prices at this stage for most types of data are speculation given early days and all, but you can be sure that whatever prices currently exist for current types of data will be subject to change, (trending towars cheaper as is the nature of technology), and more importantly whatever prices do end up manifesting, they will be subject to economies of scale and spread across repeat consumers of said data. Ie: price per call or some other competing model. If you think contract creators will eat some insane fee for a monthly data feed, so insane so as to constitute "bloat", then you clearly haven't done your homework on this project. Honestly it shows. You have bad assumptions and a bad overall understanding of the project. Did you just find out about Chainlink 3 days or something? This is all shit that has been brought up and addressed two years ago, and it's just as true today.

>>16201364
ok yw

>>16201412
>securely transmit
You're going to love this then, SSL is crazy and already works and tons of tech already supports it.

>>16201412
For example, CoinPaprika is free. Other services charge a few hundred depending on use. You're telling me that oracle operators are going to be running nodes like a small business? And people are going to pay that much for a "kind of popular vote validated data, we think" service? Highly doubtful.

>>16199438
Ah, baby's first link q&a thread.
Stick to lurking until you've read through the archives for the answers to these questions which have been asked to death by newfags and concern troll fudders alike.

>>16201472
Nah, I've talked to you guys before. You always use the same basic mean girls infantalizing tactics.

Remember Prime Lohan? She probably believes in oracles now. What a waste.

>>16201494
they’re mean to you because talking to you is like talking to a wall, your leading questions and at times nonsensical sidestepping of rebuttals come across as deliberately antagonistic rather than as good faith debate, especially when you just do it over and over again every week

>>16201522
Oh, I'm aware, my arguments are pretty solid.

>>16201494
> engage my brainlet questions o-or i win you big meanie bullies
Lol, no. I don't care about what you do or don't understand. Refer to the archives if you aren't trying to deliberately waste people's time, which could be a possibility at this point as well.

>>16201535
I didn't say I don't understand. I understand all too well and that's why this thread is here.

I think the topic is interesting and it seems that not many people have figured it out.

>>16201532
they’re really not, which is why posters quickly get frustrated with you because they put actual effort into their replies and you dismiss them with arguments that are either based on idiosyncratic speculation or dont even make sense. given the nature of these boards it’s fairly natural for posters to assume you are trolling to waste other people’s time

>>16201433
>ssl
Not familiar with how you would use ssl in the context of smart contracts.As far as I understand, once again, single point of failure.

> nodes as a full time business

Depending on the type of data, you can bet your ass on it! You have to keep in mind that the current target focus is, at least at the start, is institutions dealing in low frequency, low trust, high value contracts. They will gladly pay a penny to save a buck. A decantralized oracle network that's ISO compatible with legacy imstitutions.Trust will be made cheap. How valuable do you think that is?
Again, you have bad assumptions and a bad understanding of the project. You think you're the first person to say what you're saying?

>>16201553
I can understand that it's frustrating, but that's only because most of your specific posts in response were just repeating canned talking points.

>>16201310
>Why did they want to cut out the middleman. Everyone wants to pay no more than they have to for this service.
They make money to be the middleman, and they took on the risk of the middleman as a result. Why do their customers pay them for this service?

>>16201546
> I understand all too well
Judging from your questions, no. You do not.
If you actually want to understand why, you will need to start with the basics. Whitepaper. Interviews / panel discussions. Archives. Etc. Really basic shit that you clearly haven't done but insist that people do for you.

>>16201562
Use more than one connection and compare the results. Single point issue resolved.

>>16201581
Because they believe it to be somehow more valid. When they discover its actually not, or that there's more reliable ways to perform this, they get amazon delivery'd.

>>16201586
If you have then you should easily be able to refute my claims.

I've done enough reading to know the concept of attempting an oracle service in this scenario is pure fluff.

>>16201578
I’m not personally frustrated with you, I’m pointing out to you why your style of discourse is not particularly productive, especially as you’ve been repeating the same talking points for weeks and seemingly made zero progress in your understanding. At times it just seems like you’re blogging about how unnecessary you believe decentralized oracles are and our input doesn’t really even matter to you, which begs the question of why you even post here to begin with

>>16201596
>dude just become a parcel service lmao

>>16201621
What's there to progress? I've made a few of these threads and I'm right in every one.

I'm the teacher here, that was determined like ten posts in.

>>16201607
crypto juuuuiice we know this is you!!!

#IGOTDAJUICE

>>16201596
My patience has wained. You clearly know better than than Ari Juels, the Chainlink team, and hundreds of autists with combined hours of research and discussion totalling in the tens of thousands, on exactly the points you and other newfags have raised for years.
>just ssl from multiple sockets bro
My fucking face when.

>>16201641
You’re the guy who shills SKY aren’t you? I remember this exact thread like two months ago

>>16201652
Business is business. They're well fed so why would they rock the boat.

>>16201596
Not to mention you ignore half of the post

>>16201607
> please engage my brainlet questions
Here we go again... let me repeat this for you. Try to follow.
Your questions indicate that you're either a retard, lazy, or trolling at this point. If you are the first, nothing can help you. If you are the second, you need to do your own legwork. If you are the third - you're just a waste of time.
These concepts have been discussed to death. The questions you're asking and assertions you're making are just rephrased garbage which people are tired of answering. But maybe you're a troll and that's the point I guess, which is why I haven't been bumping this thread and probably won't bother responding to your drivel anymore.

>>16201645
Who is this boogeyman.

>>16201654
Used to, Skycoin is dead ended though. Need some more shills?

>>16201641
So it’s just about being right? Literally no one has been convinced by your arguments despite weeks of your attempts to “teach”, does that not tell you anything? Do the overwhelmingly negative responses you constantly receive never indicate to you that your approach may be flawed? Do you understand why this comes across as an elaborate pantomime performance and not genuine conversation?

>>16201662
Dont engage with them king. You are too smart for these brainlets

>>16201665
That's out of kindness, tbqh.

>>16201679
Negative responses are expected, everyone knows there's a thousand link shills on this board. Stop grandstanding about intellectual integrity.

I'm being genuine in my analysis. If there is any value in trying to validate api feeds, its extremely low. You simply can't trustlessly put real world data on blockchain. To pretend that API consensus is any different is silly.

>>16201682
I don't like this image.

>>16201709
Low iq link fudder

>>16201697
These are your opinions, and I don’t particularly trust you to be objective given your apparent animus against link. We’re talking about oracles and their development, not a coin. You may think it’s silly, but the idea that in an age of artificial intelligence we cannot develop a distributed system to securely aggregate API data is even sillier. It’s inevitable that we will develop a decentralized
system parallel to centralized oracles/API, it’s just a question of how.
But regardless, I suppose we’ll all just have to put up with your own (by your own admission) grandstanding until you realize that

>>16201742
u rn

>>16201767
I honestly didn't want to talk about link in this thread but these people show up regardless.

I agree that valuable consensus systems can be developed. The core of the issue is whether or not real world data can trustlessly be placed on blockchain, to be able to get to start being consensed on. I think many people don't realize that it can't. There is no how.

>>16201800
This, for example.

>>16199438
this literally sounds like the ideal way to collect and track data you retard

>>16202110
>lets make data collection 100x more inefficient while not removing the trust needed

uh, ok