/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>23586639
thanks just bought 100k used band brand Chinese condoms on Alibaba

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-0-387-35568-9_18

>invents blockhain

>>23586639
Nice content anon well written very nice

>industry standard
>the industry doesn't actually use it
0 paying customers.

Why does everyone ignore the fact it’s open source....it’s like crap, people will just use their own private chain....

>>23587682
3 years

>>23587705
irrefutable fud just sold 100k

>>23587817
Just trying to do my part. Autocorrect also changed xrp to crap lol

>>23587682
Not true, Sergey is paying millions to keep the nodes running. LOL

>>23587801
It costs $450 to ping the LINK network and you get the same answers you get off etherscan or binance, because that's where the nodes are scraping their data from. Why would ANYBODY pay that much money for something they can get for free? The nodes don't actully do any work, they just sit there and collect fees. Pic related.
There is a reason not a single dapp in the industry uses LINK.

>>23587968
This is what is really happening. The network needs new buyers to pay nodes so the nodes can collect fees and dump on new buyers.

Band is kill

>>23588117
Followup image from the whitepaper. In 2017 Ari and Sergey said this would make the oracle network useless. In 2020 this is exactly what is occurring, but /biz/ pretends it's not a big deal, and they wonder why nobody uses chainlink.

>>23588117
This is baseless and you can easily see profits at market.link or reputation.link, nodes are making a killing. Seethe and cope.

>>23588572
Think about what you're saying.
Where do the profits come from when there are no customers? The incentive wallet.
What gives the incentive wallet value? LINK tokens.
What gives the tokens value? Speculators.
The nodes are making a killing by dumping on you.

The nodes provide no value but collect fees. The fees come from people like you buying the token, not from real paying customers. Because the nodes provide no value, there are no customers. Anybody who needs an oracle solution, like MAKER, or literally any other crypto dapp which needs price fees, uses their own, because the nodes do nothing that the end user can't do themselves *for free*.

>>23588639
>Where do the profits come from when there are no customers?

There are paying customers, AAVE for starters. The rest of your fud is rooted in this, and thus is dispelled by undermining your central point.

>>23588671
AAVE gets subsidised by LINK. They have paid a grand total of $0.00 real dollars. They have paid in link tokens which were given to them by the incentive wallet.
SNX and AAVE are theoretically customers, but they do not pay their own money. They repay *some* of the link tokens given to them by sergey, and sell the rest.

>>23588693
>They have paid in link tokens which were given to them by the incentive wallet.
And of course you can show they received these tokens for zero US dollars, being that the transaction is on the blockchain.

Why is there a thread about this old article? They literally just published a new one today.

>>23588743
>the fact that 40,000,000 tokens have moved out of the incentive wallet and onto the market, to subsidize users of the link network, in line with the whitepaper, can't possibly be true
The incentive wallet is literally there to subsidise users so they don't have to pay for the pings. It's outlined in the whitepaper. There are another 600,000,000 tokens lined up to do the same thing. You read the whitepaper right?

>>23588572
Bullshit. Stop lying to the newcomers. It’s a JSON parser. That’s about 10 kB of info. You really think 10kb is worth $13? Lol

>>23588864
That's NOT an etherscan link, anon. You're asserting that SNX and AAVE are being given tokens from the incentive wallet, so go do the work and btfo us stinkies.

>>23588167
Bu-ut KYCed nodes would stop this right? Ohh.. you're just fudding

>>23588149
band is a mess.

>>23588994
Band would have to be something for it to be a mess.

>>23588864
Are you paid to do this or just retarded?

>>23588994
band is the weakest link it's laughable

>>23588982
>>23589018
I'm not fudding and if you have nothing to add why are you even replying.

>>23588927
There are plenty. Here's 500k LINK given to AAVE back when they first partnered.
https://etherscan.io/address/0x43d74a0080094d4f188eb8896a968712a7ad0391#tokentxns

I have no idea why this is the hill you've chosen to die on when this is exactly in line with what Sergey said he would do with the incentive wallet - subsidize people using the LINK network.

>>23588117
>>23588167
kek it's this API3 jeet again

>>23589082
> link funds the entire industry as a proof of concept for additional data formats
> new data formats use and pay for link
> chainlink sponsors growth by paying for it
> everyone who touches link dumps it except for cultists
and yet the price continues to crab hmmm really makes you think

>>23589082
>links to the AAVE wallet
>transactions of 500k aren't from the incentive wallet

c'mon anon, you can do better than this.

>>23589082
I want a 500k link handshake by Sergey under the table. Maybe I'll wear a cute dress like my friends on discord say I should. Maybe Sergey will accidentally touch my feminine penis and we'll head back to my hotel room to continue the partnership together. Maybe Sergey would be into that I donno.

>>23589082
Because you spew bullshit

>>23589202
that's 42 on the left

>>23589130
Exactly. I'm not saying it's something under the table. It was in the whitepaper for fucks sake. What I am saying is that there is a difference between "customers" and "paying customers".
Link has 0 paying customers. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. But to argue that the network is being used and paid for is just being dishonest.

>>23589202
I bought link at $3 and sold at $14 after doing DD. I'm wondering if I should buy back in after BTC shits the bed, but I have found serious glaring issues that nobody seems to be able to address. Seeing as /biz/ holds the most LINK I thought you guys would know the answer.
So far I see that it's just hype funding a network with no users, and the industry avoids using link like tha plague unless sergey pays them to use it.
The majority of nodes do not provide original data, and they even try pre-empt slashing by simply using th same sources as other nodes. This means the majority of nodes end up using the same source and it defeats the entire purpose of an oracle network. Sergey said this would be a huge problem in the whitepaper. This is how chainlink currently functions. There is no mention of how they plan to fix this problem.

For the record BAND is a shitcoin and doesn't even pretend to do what LINK can, and I've never read that turkish shit or their apis. I think LINK is great technology (in terms of collateralising apis) but the nodes are just scraping publicly available apis and the schelling point is diverging to whatever every other nodes is saying, and thus it is untrustworthy. Which is why I can't find any examples of customers who actually pay to use the network of aggregators when they can just aggregate prices themselves.

BAND still has a lot of upside, but what makes it so bad? Can someone explain?

>>23586639
crypto oracle and clg are such fucking brainlets, good god

>>23589322
> I bought link at $3
opinion discarded.
> inventing something new and using tokens to bootstrap the network is dishonest
Don't you know how Google started? They had to rely on external funding and no-one paid for their search engine because alta vista and yahoo were doing it for free and still managed to create new income streams with new products just like link at doing.
> nobody seems to be able to address
dude you had three years of in-depth conversation covering everything years ago. The reason why you don't know is because you bought above a dollar post mainnet when most ogs went radio silent.
How many sources of data exist for shitcoins versus forex?
You know AP is providing election data from a single source (themselves) and they still need chainlink to push the data on to everpedia's blockchain.
Ari will release a blogpost about eliminating lazy nodes but reputation should cover it. Besides it's up to contract creators to pick nodes.

>>23589322
>BAND still has a lot of upside, but what makes it so bad? Can someone explain?

Hey fren...

I've been trying to get an answer to this question for about a year now...

All I get back from people is "you had X years"...

Which lead me to believe that they had no answers for the valid concerns...

It lead me to sell some LINK at higher levels and I've had my finger on the trigger to dump the rest of the bag.

>>23589357
>>23589476
read the op article you absolute retard

>>23589528
Can I get a tldr version.. i dont want to read all that.

>>23589459
> inventing something new and using tokens to bootstrap the network is dishonest
I never said it was dishonest, ever. It's even a good business practice. This was simply some anon above saying the network produces value by people paying for the services, which is patently untrue.

>dude you had three years of in-depth conversation covering everything years ago.
Yes. Because in the whitepaper, they said they would avoid this. 3 years later, not only have they failed to avoid this *exact* problem, but over 75% of nodes are more or less dishonest, collecting a fee for doing 0 work. There is now a huge disincentive for me, as an example data provider, to buy linkies and become a node, because I am guaranteed to get my linkies slashed when my data clashes with the 75% dishonest/lazy nodes.
Saying this problem was addressed 3 years ago in some thread is ridiculous. This problem didn't exist 3 years ago. It is an entirely new problem, which was foreseen, and not avoided.

>Ari will release a blogpost about eliminating lazy nodes but reputation should cover it. Besides it's up to contract creators to pick nodes.
The only way I see this can be done in a decentralised manner is a token curated whitelist, like in kleros' curate system, where dishonest or lazy nodes can be voted out. The problem with that is, suddenly collateral isn't necessary. Reputation becomes collateral itself, because being kicked out of the oracle network for having a shit reputation means you no longer collect call fees. And then the reason for LINK itself falls apart.

>>23589540
yeah band is shit for all the reasons listed in the article whereas Chainlink is the standard.

>>23589552
SOMEONE RESPOND TO THIS GUY AND REFUTE WHAT HE SAYS

>>23589552
this line of argument only applies to shitcoin feeds not to forex or actual real world data feeds.
lazy =/= dishonest.
Why don't you bring it up in the node operators channel?
> conflating reputation with collateral
These are not the same.
> Chainlink should just follow in the footsteps of random shitcoin x
umm probably not dude. Again contract creators specify nodes for jobs on a contract by contract basis. Nodes that under perform will not be used. They will still exist on the system but no one would use them for anything important.
These nodes would be better off focusing on vrf jobs because they seem to be the simplest jobs any node can perform with the only consideration being uptime.

>>23589552
oh and the reference data can be customized for the contract I believe. It's more of just an example (it being a reference) of the stuff Chainlink is capable of doing.

>>23589552
>where dishonest or lazy nodes can be voted out. The problem with that is, suddenly collateral isn't necessary. Reputation becomes collateral itself
This is incorrect. You'd still have the list of honest nodes that need to get paid in link. Eliminating dishonest or lazy nodes doesn't change anything for the subset of nodes which are hard working and honest

>>23589552
It almost seems like collateral and reputation would be two separate parts of proving a node quality score. But then you already know that since you read the whitepaper.

>>23589632
Why don't you do it?
>>23589703
So if i was making a contract that only draws from X number of sources I might only have Nx2 nodes drawing from each source and that might be decentralized enough for me for that particular contract.
More data sources might require more nodes and etc depending on the type of data and the trustworthiness of the source.
It will be cool to see how many nodes push voting data on chain for everpedia as that will illustrate a single data source versus node count.

>>23589703
>conflating reputation with collateral
If reputation is what earns you fees by being called on as a node, then yes, reputation is collateral in the form of future earnings.

>Chainlink should just follow in the footsteps of random shitcoin x
I'm not going to shill you kleros but basically you could vote in a decentralised, honest manner on "slashing" nodes, or lowering their reputation, instead of doing so automatically when the price diverges. This solves the lazy nodes problem (a node which steals another nodes data can get kicked out, even though they report the same price as everyone else) and also ensures that random spikes don't slash honest operators. The problem is nodes have an incentive to provide the exact same data as other nodes, so they never get slashed, until you have the majority of nodes reporting on a single source, which is what is happening right now.

>this line of argument only applies to shitcoin feeds not to forex or actual real world data feeds.
"lazy" in terms of collecting somebody elses information and charging a fee for it. That is dishonest. The price might be accurate, but when you're paying 15 nodes just to get the number that binance/uniswap has, why even bother? This question is why orgs like Maker don't use link nodes but rather their own, free aggregators.

>>23589766
>You'd still have the list of honest nodes that need to get paid in link.
Who decides what an honest node is? Only the price and their response time decides that, which is why most of the nodes simply piggyback on other nodes data, collecting fees and ensuring they're never slashed. This cuts into the profits of honest nodes which aggregate their own data.

>Eliminating dishonest or lazy nodes doesn't change anything for the subset of nodes which are hard working and honest
It cuts into their fees, and it means that if the honest nodes disagree with the lazy nodes, the fact that lazy nodes are the majority means the honest nodes lose money.

>>23589782
If you choose nodes only based on their reputation, then the nodes have a huge economic incentive to have a good reputation. Good reputation becomes the collateral. If they steal data/provide the wrong price, their reputation gets slashed, and they no longer are called upon for tasks, and no longer earn fees.

If you choose nodes based on how close to everyone else's price the node is, then nodes have a huge incentive to provide the exact same rice as everyone else. This means nodes all end up using the same data source/price feed, so they can maximise their fees and minimise how often they're slashed. They just steal data and piggyback. This is the problem sergey mentioned in the whitepaper but hasn't been able to solve.

This creates an oracle where anybody can just scrape the same apis that everyone else does, link up their oracle to the network, and collect fees, all while taking profits from the honest data sources who have their own markets and information. See >>23588117

>>23589794
I'm responding to the point that if there was a mechanism (for example voting) to decide, then reputation would be the currency and link would be useless. This makes no sense. You can't pay the bills with reputation.

Fuck CLCG and fuck API3.

>>23589856
>I'm responding to the point that if there was a mechanism (for example voting) to decide, then reputation would be the currency and link would be useless. This makes no sense. You can't pay the bills with reputation.
That's what I'm saying too. But you can pay the bills with reputation. With a high reputation, you get called upon more often as a node, and make more money. You can pay the bills with that money. LINK suddenly becomes useless, I agree.
This is the problem I'm trying to rationalise. Why is the token needed when reputation determines income, and therefore can act as collateral?

The ideal system would be nodes "must" provide their own data, and if they are caught stealing it, they are slashed. Fro example, uniswap, coinbase and binance could be 3 nodes. If cz is caught manipulating price, his reputation is slashed, and therefore his weighting in the network. He gets called upon less, and earns less money being a node. It is in his interest that he provides honest data, and doesn't steal it, because that guarantees future income.

>>23589849
>Good reputation becomes the collateral
No, good reputation becomes a collateral multiplier.

>>23589794
Reputation is your historical performance. Collateral is the amount you stake for that particular contract. Collateral will change with the contract. Million dollar contract might require historical performance of a certain calibre (over time) plus X dollars in LINK for collateral.
> PNK indian voting
voting can easily be gerrymandered to suit an agenda. This is not a solution it is an extra piece of subjectivity being layed on top of Chainlinks deterministic system.
Chainlink is middleware not data sources.
You keep avoiding the question of how many sources for shitcoins exist? to my knowledge there are not that many sources and the AP everpedia example really kills this line of reasoning. Link will still aggregate between data sources to smooth slippage.
Again contract creators specify nodes. If some nodes just piggyback off of others why would you design your security solution to include them?
Chainlink is versatile for the contract creator not the lazy node operator that doesn't contribute unique data to the contract.
> Who decides what an honest node is
the contract creators make this decision! how hard is this to understand?
Chainlink is providing security so why would you want x number of nodes providing the same data unless you as the contract creator want this?

>>23589891
This is also fine. There's no problem with that at all. The problem is that reputation is currently "how close to everyone elses price can you get", which incentivises lazy nodes, and rejects honest ones.

The voting system currently works. MakerDAO has hired kleros to look at their oracle solution, and I believe they are going to use a system similar to the one I am describing. A system like that could kick out lazy nodes, and maximise fees for honest ones, while reducing the price for the end user.

>>23589890
>and make more money
So at best, you're saying that some other token can serve this function. You can't sell "reputation" to pay your power bill.
So it just boils down to
>all the Link token does is act as a medium of payment and anything can be used for that

>>23589875
this. no wonder Sergey kicked them out after three years of listening to the same basic confusions I'd do the same. Sergey must have the patience of a saint.

>>23589914
>just piggyback off of others
Can't this easily be solved by not making the results known publicly until all nodes have submitted their answers?

>>23589947

ChainLink confirmed into yRISE

This blowing now:

https://www.dextools.io/app/uniswap/pair-explorer/0x386c98653e536fba33d1263adbcaf8e5d6f635fb

>>23589918
No, not that at all. See >>23589916

>>23589914
Historical performance is (a) how quickly do you respond to pings and (b) how close is your price. This is a huge problem, because you just have lazy nodes piggybacking and collecting fees for doing nothing.

>Again contract creators specify nodes.
Why have them in the system at all? If you wanted to specify nodes you could aggregate them yourself. That's what most people in the industry do currently. How is the contract creator supposed to know who is piggybacking off who? Look at the LTC example above - 7 nodes reporting from 2 sources. How is the end user supposed to know which of those is honest?

>You keep avoiding the question of how many sources for shitcoins exist?
Few. There are about 30 active chainlink nodes, and around 100 dead ones. I agree the real world has plenty more potential nodes, but there's also huge potential for piggybacking and stealing data.

>voting can easily be gerrymandered to suit an agenda. This is not a solution it is an extra piece of subjectivity being layed on top of Chainlinks deterministic system.
Sure. You could vote out lazy nodes who do nothing but collect fees. That would be a workable solution to what is currently a huge problem. But it isn't the ideal solution.

>>23589947
Yes. This is the solution on the whitepaper - blind responses. however, it hasn't been implemented, slower nodes are still rewarded, and they're still all reporting the same price so they're clearly getting it from the same source. The only solution is to stipulate that every node must provide their own proprietary data.

>>23589995
> it hasn't been implemented, slower nodes are still rewarded, and they're still all reporting the same price so they're clearly getting it from the same source. The only solution is to stipulate that every node must provide their own proprietary data.
Why not? Wouldn't it be a solution to just implement it?

>>23590039
Yes and no. They currently do this already using a commit + reveal. Nodes have to provide their info before they can see what other nodes have said. The problem is, it isn't working. Most nodes still report the same number every time, and are clearly using the same source.
Some nodes even frontrun Chainlink's calculation itself and get the exact number link gives every time.

Clearly they are all using the same source and aggregation algorithm. There are some exceptions - BTC/USD is pretty good, because there are lots of markets for this, but the problem still exists of lazy nodes just taking data and selling it as their own. When the majority of nodes report the same number, from the same source, the outcome is no longer decentralised - it is just the number from that source. You might as well bypass LINK and get the number directly from that api, which is what the industry currently does.

You need a way to kick out lazy nodes, and saying "just pay the honest ones" doesn't work when you have no idea which are honest and which aren't when everyone is providing the same price. In theory, this is good because if everyone is providing the same price, then surely it must be correct. In practice, it puts the entire oracle onto a single point of failure.

>>23589995
I can see you want to transform node operators into some sort of teamsters union where they have voting rights and pick and choose work etc like the mob would have done from your arguments.
>>23589947
well I was under the impression that results were submitted fresh for each round and they were timestamped so it just seems like they're drawing from the same source which seems to indicate honesty but obviously this is not enough for our teamster node union CLCG/API3. atleast they write responses instead of copy-paste old threads kek.
Timestamped data should be ontime I never knew this was an issue because all nodes are pinged at about the same time.
> how close is your price
close to what? the aggregation should determine this from total not individual responses.
If just feels like you want the collective hivemind of autismos to do your thinking for you.
>>23590144
> front running
they literally solved this with Fair order sequencing and a meme pool or was that after you got kicked out?
> more markets mean more data sources
yawn wow so chainlink are still waiting for roads to be built hey?

wait, so what happened to the clcg people and the chainlink people? I'm out of this loop

>>23590297
> JUST
kek

>>23586639
Standard shitcoin? Yeah, I’d agree...

All this band pasta. Its all so tiresome.
Never selling my linkies

>>23590419
> zkp
isn't that just security through obscurity?

>>23590200
What an interesting level of fud this has been.m Thank you anon, for clearing this up for us brainlets here

>>23589322
>I've never read that turkish shit or their apis
"I've been found out"

>>23588753
Thanks

imagine the hubris required to write something like this
imagine being a backstabbing megalomaniac turkroach

>>23590200
>I can see you want to transform node operators into some sort of teamsters union where they have voting rights and pick and choose work etc
What are you on about. Nodes wouldn't have control over such a system. They could create a case and provide evidence that another node is stealing their data, sure, but they wouldn't have the vote. And with infinite appeals, you can't stack a court. Go read up on kleros and tell me why link couldn't use a system like that.

>close to what? the aggregation should determine this from total not individual responses.
Individual responses are incentivised to be as close to the aggregate as possible or they get slashed. This is why all the nodes are pumping out the same number from the same sources. Because it's the easiest way to collect fees without getting slashed. There is no incentive to provide your own data, and if you try do so, in the long run you're just going to get slashed over and over and over again.

>they literally solved this with Fair order sequencing
Not implemented yet and doesn't solve the end problem of the schelling point being the most easily accessible (read: what every other node is doing) api.

>>23590801
First party oracles are what link is trying to do with signatures though. First party oracles are the end goal. Otherwise you just get freeloaders who provide nothing new but still take a cut of the linkies.

>>23589322
>bought at $3
Lol, no wonder. It's because you're new

>>23590298
>early linkies bored on biz when link was still stealth mode
>one anon starts a thread, 'maybe we can help speed up chainlink adoption and create a biz company'
>dozens of motivated biztards getting together on discord, sharing resumes and spit balling ideas
>turns out most biztards are well educated and successful professionals
>biz meme company takes shape, becomes chainlink consultancy group
>elect a Finnish loser as their ceo but their cto is a 300 IQ autistic PhD college professor
>try to launch their own token, massive failure and backlash on biz because one of their guys announced he was shorting link on Twitter the day before, henceforth known as Timo the tranny, reputation destroyed before they even started
>despite all the hate and no money they actually still try their best to build their little api marketplace, reasonably successful development for a team of literal biz tards but there's no adoption
>one of their guys become employed by chainlink officially, another becomes a telegram janny, their lawyer also starts a DAO backed by openlaw, they're running a node...
>chainlink launches grant program, gives money to all the ecosystem companies, but vlc is weirdly absent
>turns out they not only stopped working on it, but they were actually building a competitor to chainlink
>et tu, brute
>rebranded as api3, trying to run a token scam once again now that normies are aware of oracles
>now trying to smear link to prop their scam up
>it's a fucking governance token that runs on kleros and xdai (lol)

>>23590850
>you bought late so you obviously can't have an opinion on the fundamentals
This problem did not exist 3 years ago because they assumed they could avoid it. Now the whole network is clogged with useless nodes which outweigh the honest ones, and so there are no paying customers. Why would I pay $450 to people who provide me with the etherscan data?

>>23590852
from all their public footprints it's clear it's the same core team as honeycomb, ie it's still dave the janny, midhav the pajeet and ari the israeli, all people who have zero (ZERO) actual skills
ari's biggest accomplishment is being a telegram janny for linkpool
dave used to be a telegram janny too
midhav, not even skilled enough to be a janny, he's literally an indian street shitter, literally lives in india, look it up
they're all deadbeat biztards who just got in link early
most of them are still like college students, not even in anything engineering or business related
why are they still there instead of actual business hires? where are the devs?
is timo still here too? I bet he still has vested interest
heikki of course is a loser and infamous for losing that quizz show on finnish tv (lol)
first ico? that went nowhere
you already tried whoring yourselves to private funding and fucking cardano ventures (lol)
that went nowhere
their biggest business development achievement in two (TWO) years was making a """partnership""" with a literal pajeet codemonkey firm that went of course nowhere, not even wrote a single shitty dapp
and here you are now shilling your new scam with the lowest of lowest tactics "wow biz you shouldn't miss out on this amazing moon!!!" tier garbage instead of simply breaking down the problem you're supposedly trying to solve
you couldn't even run a fucking node

>>23590881
timo the tranny acting like he "just found out" about this "exciting new opportunity" before they revealed themselves
absolutely abhorrent

>>23590910
This is not what I'm saying though. That's just insurance payouts using kleros and doesn't solve the problem.

I'm saying you need to curate nodes by having node collateral be subject to slashing if they lose a kleros case - aka they can still get slashed even if they provide the same price data as everyone else. This removes any lazy nodes stealing the data of other nodes and provides an incentive to rat them out - you can steal their stake. It also means the reputation system becomes crucial because that can be what determines if you get chosen for a job. Having slashes occur based on pricing doesn't work.

>>23590622
You're welcome anon. These are probably the same jeets behind PNK shilling which has sealed that token's fate for me.
>>23590881
>>23590910
>>23590852
This is completely accurate. Fuck Timo the tranny and the rest of those fucks. I was actually interested in their work and installed discord at the time but it was an absolute shitshow. These faggots just have a bit of working knowledge of the debates behind Chainlink nodes (note that Ari Thomas and Sergey have all mentioned they're figuring out how to best implement steaking in terms of incentive structures not the actual coding which is not much of the work apparently).
Timo actually shorted link right before a pump kek.

the best part? linkpool keeps succeeding and will launch new services, is hiring etc will keep taking off
meanwhile these retards, despite being early biztards, are launching their token sale right at the time when the defi hype died down and the oracle hype cycle for new competitors has already stalled with all the obvious scams like tellor and band plummeting, even a veteran like witnet just launched and failed, dozens of failure competitors launching at the same time like tron JUST(fuck my shit up)LINK, zoracles and other bullshit no one cares about
they couldn't even backstab sirgay when it made sense to do so
they could have just remained patient, run a node and collect the money but no they HAD to have the hubris to think themselves better than sirgay and ari
you're completely burned on this board, you have a terrible reputation for being unprofessional and incompetent and everyone hates you

>>23587801
>3 months to sell

>>23587705
oh whats that you need data thats outside of the your private blockchain? OOOPS! youre gunna have to pay up some link to get that data! lol good luck with the 2017 tier fud try harder faggot

>>23590847
> read kleros
nah I'm good thanks.
> slashing unique responses
> no incentive
Give me a link for this.
> schelling point
this might surprise you but I am not technical at all so you'll have to explain that for me.
> we are creating our own Turkish pyramid scam with Timo so that freeloader don't get link
wow wouldn't want freeloading trannies getting a cut of muh linkies

>>23590910
that timo... pathetic

>>23590749
>Watch as he recoils

>>23590981
well frens I'm comfy af thanks for taking the time to write this anon. I'll just link this thread and your posts next time trannies and cockroaches come crawling. Newfags deserve to be spoon fed this knowledge
>>23590749
kek

>>23590144
>There are some exceptions - BTC/USD is pretty good, because there are lots of
Don't you kind of refute your argument here for most of Chainlink's usecase? Honest question, I.e. multiple oracles reporting on ONLY data from: Minnesota weather, WeatherChannel.com, Weathercoin, RadarOne being what a contract owner uses as the smart contract's execution.

Chainlink will be needed regardless if there's a single data source with blind outputs when you're talking miliseconds. You want only S&P stock data with x rating from three rating agencies. It's a big ass contract worth a lot of money, so you statistics it to decide on 40 nodes. Obviously you know those nodes are using the same data source (just public stocks rather than nonpublic), but you want to make sure that every milisecond counts in your contract's terms.

>>23590995
>schelling points
the point of convergence. It's like aggregation, but it's the answer everyone will eventually get to because it makes the most economic sense to the individual. With LINK, the schelling point is to provide the same data as everyone else is, because you earn fees regardless, but you don't get slashed. If you provide different data, say from your own marketplace, you will earn fees, but get slashed more often than if you just provided the same data as everyone else. The schelling point becomes the most widely used api, and it centralises around that.

>nah I'm good thanks.
suit yourself friendo. I'm not trying to shill them but I am saying that if you only eliminate nodes based on price variation, rather than dishonesty, you will have two things happen. 1 is that all nodes will eventually centralise around a single source of data so that they don't get slashed and they make the most money. 2 is that anybody providing their own original information will be forced out of the market, either by length of time, or by other nodes dishonestly pumping/dumping the price on x marketplace to fuck with that second nodes aggregation algo, creating a price disparity for that honest node, who then gets his link and reputation slashed. The dishonest nodes now have that nodes' linkies, and will have a better reputation and be called on more often in the future. Currently the latter is uneconomical, but the first has already happened - you have 20 nodes all reporting the same 3 sources and collecting fees for doing nothing.

>>23589552
>The only way I see this can be done in a decentralised manner is a token curated whitelist, like in kleros' curate system, where dishonest or lazy nodes can be voted out. The problem with that is, suddenly collateral isn't necessary. Reputation becomes collateral itself, because being kicked out of the oracle network for having a shit reputation means you no longer collect call fees. And then the reason for LINK itself falls apart.
youre just now finding this out?
YES link is a shit token. dont get me wrong. im a 2017 fag that got out in July. But ever since 2017, every oldfag here knew link was a useless JSON parser. The only drive that kept us holding was literally SWIFT and meme magik.
But the actual technicals, we all knew it was a shit. Everyone knew.

You play the hype game, thats what its all about. People who are actually in it for the tech are newfags that fell for 2017 fags memes

>>23591047
But you're paying all those nodes equally, even though they're reporting the same source. This simply floods the oracle with dozens of nodes, all who take a cut, a pushes out any new information from potentially new and equally accurate sources, because in the event of a disparity, the flood of nodes will always trump the outliers, even if you have 30 nodes reporting source A and 1 node reporting source B, 1 node source C, and 1 D. The latter three nodes get slashed over and over and over even though they're providing accurate data.

>industry standard

>>23591054
> drawing from same source bad
No it isn't especially when there are limited sources of data available.
> I'm not shilling kleros
> read kleros
I was going to buy but now I will not. Enjoy posting Indians singing Timo.
> providing different data is bad
if this were true all nodes would provide the same exact data but they don't. Even in your cherry picked fud examples you identified multiple sources.
> schelling points centralize
> aggregation is like a point of convergence
wtf am I reading. show me the code for this slashing mechanism.
>>23590982
>>23591065
He alerted his discord buddies kek. Being an oldfag is now Haram thanks trannies. I'm really a nufag 100 link private.
>>23591082
There're limits on the amount of oracle being used so I'm not sure how this floods anything.
I'll need to see the code for the slashing thanks Timo

>>23591118
every oldfag on /biz/ knows link will forever be a JSON parser. it was decided upon in November 2017. The consensus was basically
>yeah, link is useless, but it has SWIFT
its always been the hype train. Theres a reason why Chainlink discussion gets laughed out immediately on /g/. The 2018 tourists are now a newfag cult at this point. Most oldfags have sold off, now youre just running rogue

>>23591054
dont bother reasoning with them. Youve said all the same shit we were saying in 2017. Its just a lost cause. They are going to keep holding until they have $0 or make it.

>>23591156
oh no you're the go make a thread on /g/ dude
> oldfags sold
nah I didn't and wallet addresses have increased.
>>23591174
> 2017 shit
his major point is that new problems have risen up and link need governance token abilities to deal with them kek.

>>23591156
Bro, JP fuckin' Morgan is using LINK, which has Town Crier and DECO, shit is about to get real, buy now or be poor forever.

>>23591201
>oh no you're the go make a thread on /g/ dude
no idea who he is. i just see chainlink threads on /g/
>nah I didn't and wallet addresses have increased.
then you are one of the major retards who never got the tech. congrats.

>his major point is that new problems have risen up
only the toppings of his words are modern problems. The young one had discovered the main fundamental problem with chainlink. All the things he said, were just everything that was already said about LINK 2017.
Its a JSON parser. it will always be one.

I made all the money i wanted in july~
>>23591219
>Bro, JP fuckin' Morgan is using LINK,
yeah, sure. Just like Oracle and google are to.


anyway. you are now spamming nigger memes. the newfag actually gave me a refresher on the technicals. im just gonna proceed to lurk.

Sorry if stupid question, but is it likely/expected that there will be another dip on Link?

t. noob crypto buyer, thinking about investing... Basically, is it worth waiting for a dip or just get in now while I still can??

>>23591082
>But you're paying all those nodes equally, even though they're reporting the same source
And? So what.

If you want data from x at 1:56:34:23 AM CST, are you going to want to rely on KlerosProven[tm] TrueNode for $450, or twenty other guys with backing and successful jobs pulling the same shit for $550?

I like Alice, but I think Bob is a dick. They both agree on the same thing independently blind from each other because of the Pos and P1s and P2s. I can pay them for their services, or I can pay more people that tell me the same thing and get more comfy with their telephone game.

Activate Kleros court smartcontract for /r/KarmaCourt upvotes anytime the green frog's posted. Am I going to want to pay an approved jannie to tell me what was posted on that site last week, or a bunch of cool indeoendent memers reporting on all those dank poats within that time frame. GUESS WHAT. It is MY decusion to make as a based smart contracter. With Chainlink, you can have it your way.

>>23591245
Gentlemen it appears we've come full circle

>>23591118
>I was going to buy but now I will not.
I'm not trying o convince you to buy. Vitalik said he is considering onboarding kleros directly into the main eth chain, which would make this board a field of pnk wojaks. The point isn't whether the token goes up - I'm trying to make the point that the underlying technology might be able to solve the problem of lazy nodes.

>No it isn't especially when there are limited sources of data available.
Over 100 marketplaces list LINK. That's 100 different sources. However, of the 20-odd nodes which list LINK, 10 consistently come to the same number. They're just providing the same etherscan aggregate that the rest of them are to ensure they don't get slashed. This isn't "definitive truth", it's just pushing the aggregate towards the most easily accessible answer, which begs the question - why not just have a smart contract which uses that api directly, rather than paying $450 for LINK to give it to you? Or just go divide pools like uniswap and get the number on-chain?
The answer is: nobody gets link to do it for them. We are back to the "0 paying customers" problem.

>>23591174
i mean, they did do a 100x+, but it's still just a shitcoin. just a shitcoin that got big. none of the use-cases for chainlink require the token, and none of the use cases are profitable.

>>23591263
buy every week, and when the market takes a noticeable dip buy even more

>>23591263
Nobody knows or they'd be a billionaire. Stock market is looking shaky though which might drag down crypto if it tanks.

>>23591264
Is that you, 42? This is some quality schizo rambling. The problem is "those 20 guys in the back room" have all agreed upon a price together. They might as well be the same guy, but you're still paying 20 guys. Those 20 guys just go online, look at coinbase, and ask for their 20 cheques. You could just go to coinbase yourself and save all that money, which surprise surprise, is what the industry actually does.

>>23591277
> vitalik
bearish to even mention money skelly
> here4tech beyond speculation
hard no. Zoom zoom only care make number go up
> why not just directly connect apis
I don't know dude why didn't they do that back in 2017? Maybe because you need adapters built and using modular software is the most efficacious way of doing it?
> data comes from etherscan
Where does etherscan get it from?
> no one pay for link!!!
good thing you got out for API3 right?

>>23588167
This is not exactly what is occurring. Read your pic related. They talk of oracle z copying answer a from oracle i. You’re talking about oracles z and i both getting their data from data source x, which is a (solved) problem for market forces to sort.

>>23591313
>are you 42
No. I am thereal42.

You can also google crap, but good luck getting it to communicate with your legacy systems automatically. I'm sure it's just a week long project a dev could do right <:^)

DIDNT READ. NOT SELLING.

https://blockchain.com/btc/payment_request?address=1JFsfCoD7txegNpUTgwPoT9ttUrnCL1JdM&amount=15.07781661&message=help

>>23586953
isn't this chainlinkgod's article reposted under smartcontentpublication

>>23591327
Money skelly said he is considering dropping PNKs value to 0. Of course that isn't bullish.

>Where does etherscan get it from?
Exchanges. Like LINK could, but doesn't. Instead it pays middlemen (nodes) to get the data from the exchanges, and on-sell it to link. So you have 10 nodes all getting data from 1 exchange, but each is still collecting their 1 LINK.

>>23591344
a) the problem isn't solved. There are nodes which intentionally lag and then collate the other responses. DexTrac is the most egregious example.
b) Apples and oranges. Even if they don't copy each other's data directly, they do copy their source. It becomes a race to the bottom. 40 nodes relying on a single source is not secure or decentralised, and defeats the whole purpose of the network. You can just go directly to that source. Which, again, is exactly what is currently occurring.

>>23591389
finally, some good FUD

>>23591389
again that proves honesty and it's the issue. Limited data sources is not a problem Chainlink is designed to fix.
Take the AP everpedia example: all nodes point to AP for election data. This will be the first time in history non price data has been pushed on chain verifiable and tamper proof and you're worried that because there's only one AP data point that's a problem? It's literally just about incentivizing exchanges to engage with node operators which would be exciting.
Imagine if data providers started marketing their services to node operators so they could profit from the smart contract revolution instead of being inaccessible. I think the everpedia example is going to be epic.

> media claims Russian oracle collusion with AP
> Sergey of Nazareth is called to take the stand:
> "Thank you for having me here today, Chainlink is tamper proof and our results are published on chain for everyone to see"
> mic drop
> then API3 Indians come out of the woodwork to cry and moan but that's just a single source of data! REEEEE IT'S NOT DECENTRALIZED ENOUGH FOR MEEEEEEEE REEEEE
and many keks were had on biz

>>23591476
This

Of course if there is only one point of info it's going to centralized, but the real world isn't going to be like that in most cases, and the process of getting the data is still decentralized. On top of that, sure you can just look at Etherscan or whatever, but we don't give a shit about simply looking at the data, we want it to be blockchain accessible, and that's what Chainlink does, it finds answers and then makes that info usable for smart contracts on a blockchain.

>>23591443
I can't believe I'm still shilling kleros here but nonprice data has been published on-chain by kleros and realitio for a while now.
Everipedia is garbage. If you want a betting market which takes multiple outcomes into account, you have to rely on an oracle like kleros, which is why it's the standard betting arbitrator now. If the election outcome is contested, for example, you're going to have a problem with the binary yes/no outcome everipedia is using.

Again, you don't want to read the kleros whitepaper but at least take a look at how the court works.

>>23589322
The whole marketplace of oracles will be more precise when matured. By this I mean an oracle will tell you what truth it portends to serve. If ian oracle states it gives you the price of eth from a certain source, but two other oracles state that source gives a different answer, then the outlier should be punished. If an oracle claims to give the average price reported from a certain set of other sources (presumably obtained via their oracles) then it can be compared (and punished if deviating from) other oracles with the same claim. The problem you describe of the “honest, hardworking” oracle being punished is simply one of clumsy categorization, where a truthful oracle seems to be an outlier because it is compared against the wrong group.

>>23591557
Poor Timo you've fallen so far. Shilling Kleros of all things using some Indian singer.
The electoral college deal with contested outcomes using Jewish magic. I'm interested in them looking at a blockchain on CNN or asking people to recount for themselves using data that was pushed with chainlink oracles if they dont believe the outcome.

>>23591557
Also why the fuck would you push contested data on chain anyway and how does that occur? The parameters of the smart contract are dictated right from the start. Only Indian givers welch out on agreements. you've spent too much time with Indians Timo tranny

> sirss please I didn't make that bet
> yes you did we have it here on chain
> oh
kleros court over.

>>23586639
Nice try anon, LINK just redirects public API's. BAND is built from the ground up

>>23591563
>where a truthful oracle seems to be an outlier because it is compared against the wrong group.
If what you say is true, and people will only choose nodes which come from x api, then the whole purpose of the aggregate oracle network dies. I can understand selecting maybe 4-5 sources, and collating the data from nodes which serve those sources alone, but then you're back at the "why pay link to tell you this when you can just scrape it from those apis yourself"

>>23591521
>we don't give a shit about simply looking at the data, we want it to be blockchain accessible, and that's what Chainlink does, it finds answers and then makes that info usable for smart contracts on a blockchain
If you don't give a shit about data and just want it blockchain accessible why bother with verifiable information at all? Just generate random numbers and throw them on-chain. I'm sure your commerce bank customers operating on leverage won't mind.
The *only* thing that matters is decentralised, verifiable truth.

>>23591614
>Also why the fuck would you push contested data on chain anyway and how does that occur?
Prediction markets, smartcontract outcomes, insurance, whatever. Seriously, just go read the whitepaper and the integrations and learn about humans-as-oracles is the proper way to get non-numeric data onchain.

>>23591626
I'm not going to mention kleros any more because we're supposed to be discussing link, but this is just silly, anon.

>>23589199
um. checked, I guess

>>23591633

>If you don't give a shit about data and just want it blockchain accessible why bother with verifiable information at all? Just generate random numbers and throw them on-chain. I'm sure your commerce bank customers operating on leverage won't mind.
The *only* thing that matters is decentralised, verifiable truth.

read my entire post, nigger, that's exactly what I said, stop arguing in bad faith. I said the process was decentralized, that's the whole point.

imagine being Timo and API3 and shorting the fourth industrial revolution unironically like oldfags who were here during the great bear crumb hunt thought they could just backstab Sergey and swing linkies.

>>23591691
>the 7 stages of grief from sub $20 LINK

>>23591633

>If what you say is true, and people will only choose nodes which come from x api, then the whole purpose of the aggregate oracle network dies. I can understand selecting maybe 4-5 sources, and collating the data from nodes which serve those sources alone, but then you're back at the "why pay link to tell you this when you can just scrape it from those apis yourself"

bro, what is this autistic obsession. Yes, if there's one source of info, that's not ideal, although you would still want to use Chainlink to put that info on the blockchain, so it is still more useful than simply doing a Google search.

>>23591633
checked
> read kleros shitpaper
imagine the smell
> human as oracle
imagine thinking subjectivity will be a factor with these systems that are by design built to execute automatically to make people accept living with "less friction" regardless of outcome. That's part of the great reset you know? A radical green agenda organized under an existential threat for the purposes of removing existing freedoms like personnel transport away from people.
Also
> trusting chinks and jeets and other assorted subhumans as oracles
yeah I'll take determinism any day

>>23591739
>>the 7 stages of grief from sub $20 LINK
Timo shorted before we even mooned to five dollars faggot

>>23591745
> Timo and the other API3 jeets are planning to take the Associated Press to Kleros court Mumbai for being a single source of truth when there should be multiple vote counting centers

>>23591763
i dont even know who Timo is you schizo

i dont know a single thing about oracles.
never selling.

>>23589552
>reputation becomes collateral itself

You’re so right. As soon as Uber implemented ratings in their app, I no longer had to pay any of my Uber drivers. Since their reputation paid them

U a special kind of stupid

>>23590852
Aaaaaahhhhh, so THAT’S why this/these idiots won’t give up! Thanks, then I know not to waste my breath on them.
Heh, so we basically have our own BSV crazies now. Do they have someone claiming to be Sergey?

>>23587947
stay in character when fudding you baka newfag

>>23591877
You're strawmanning but Uber is a great example, as there is "uber on the blockchain" already (and yes, it is backed by kleros).
The driver's reputation is sufficient. The driver can earn $300 a night if it's a good night. He doesn't give Uber a $5000 deposit. If he fucks up and his rating drops, he simply no longer has access to that regular income stream. If every driver was required to give Uber a $5000 deposit, there would be less drivers, and thus rides would be more expensive.

>>23591745
>Yes, if there's one source of info, that's not ideal, although you would still want to use Chainlink to put that info on the blockchain
Not necessarily true. Often that information is already on the blockchain as-is and doesn't need packaging through nodes. Look at uniswap as an example. You can divide the number of LINK by the number of ETH in the LINK/ETH pool and get the price. That information is on-chain and you have paid nobody for it. When more assets gets put on chain, this information will be increasingly available and no price oracle is necessary - you have the entire market there on-chain.

>>23591633
>"why pay link to tell you this when you can just scrape it from those apis yourself"
Because it’s a convenient framework for providing collateral based SLAs for data sources. And it should be LINK and not some other token as collateral since then it doesn’t fluctuate and crash due to factors outside the quality of the chainlink network.
And as to your lazy piggyback oracles: if they get their data from another oracle X, the piggyback has to pay the “pig” oracle X and can thus not provide the data more cheaply, and obviously not faster, so how could they survive competing with the pig when they are necessary slower and more expensive unless clearly marked as a simple confirmation oracle (“yup I’ll vouch for the fact that oracle X says price of eth is $400 today”)?

>>23591993
>Because it’s a convenient framework for providing collateral based SLAs for data sources
By convenient you mean slow and expensive, right? Do you really think there are customers paying $450 per hour to find out the price of x?

>the piggyback has to pay the “pig” oracle X and can thus not provide the data more cheaply
Oracle X just gets the same data from the same public api that oracle Y is using. You're paying two people for free information and getting the same result. This is what happens when the node is separated from the api. It doesn't encourage decentralisation, simply more middlemen.

>>23588167
I thought tsigs stopped the freeloading problem

>>23591989
Yeah except Uber is not responsible for handling multi milllion dollar transactions that are susceptible to hack. You clearly don’t get the whole purpose of chainlink.

If a node had a financial incentive to “exit scam” and ruin their “whitelist reputation”, some would do it. They need to have $ at steak so they don’t have that financial incentive. Not rocket science

This also helps solve for lazy nodes too (but not fully) so it’s ironic you bring this up. If a node is just depending on one data source and the same as another node, they are putting themselves at 3rd party risk of that data source being hacked or going offline.

You’re honestly retarded though. Like I’m 100% sure you’re an absolute fucking retard with a hard r

>>23591989
> comparing a $20 ride with contracts that could be worth millions
kek amazing Timo, seriously
> this is just as good but free!
you sound like a dumpster diver
> you'll have the entire market onchain soon!
eth can't even handle crypto kitties and things are going off chain
>>23591993
the referent value of link can fluctuate but the unit of account remains the same
1 link = 1 link especially if link is your bread and butter. Forex traders face similar exposure.
>>23592021
> $450
where did you get this figure from? and where is the code for the slashing mechanism?

>>23589322
>serious glaring issues that no one seems to address
multiple people have addressed your bullshit and you just move on to your next point and pretend it never happened
>just hype funding a network with no users
you can literally look up the nodes on your own, it's all public
>industry avoids using like like the plague unless sergey pays them to use it
except everyone involved in smartcontracts or defi seems to be trying to hook into it
go look at the microsoft reactors github as well, for one of dozens of examples of established companies using it
>the majority of nodes do not provide original data
its almost like its a decentralized oracle protocol for providing data that providers have gathered to feed into smartcontracts in a tamper-proof way, putting the security in the hands of the data provider who can realize the benefits of tight security by not having to worry about their data being intercepted and fucked with outside of protecting the api sources themselves, which is always the responsibility of the data provider anyway - and if this fails all parties can see that due dilligence was not done and there is no confusion as to who is at fault so that an easy settlement and compensation can be distributed
> i can't find any examples of customers who actually pay to use it
again, you can look at the publicly listed nodes and understand that they're receiving benefit from these inputs even before staking and arbitrum is in effect

so in summary - you're a snivelling, mouthbreathing retard who needs to fuck off back to wherever they came from before they "found" link at $3, completely misunderstood it, and tried to bark at his betters after selling at $14

>>23592021
>By convenient you mean slow and expensive, right
It’s just like with BSV bagholders who can’t figure out that cheap electronic transactions to pay for coffee was solved a very long time ago by both visa and paypal, and that the reason BTC is “slow and expensive” compared to someone’s “coin” that’s a SQL database or has gigantic blocks is that doing it right is relatively slow and expensive, and when it comes to big money you want to do it right.
Same with Chainlink. It’s very easy for a smart contract to just scrape the data itself, but if big money is on the line they want a counterpart responsible for providing the data that has to pay out money if they fail to live up to their side of the agreement by means of a trustless system. Only chainlink has attacked this market with an understanding of both the relevant tech and the relevant game theory.
> oracles x, y, & z all just get their data from source q
This is not a problem - it’s the whole point of redundancy being the answer to distributed security and is the very basis for chainlink’s game theory: when you have three or more oracles reporting on the same source it becomes hard for one of them to lie about that source, meaning you can trust the source really says that.
You say you can check q yourself, but again you don’t want that you want to rely on an oracle with collateral, but to do that you need three such oracles so the middleman doesn’t start lying to you.

this thread is great. Any time Trannies try and fud link we can just post this. Thanks frens feeling comfy

>>23592175
>denial

>>23592175

You realise these "fudders" are basically just crowdsourcing answers to questions so they can appear knowledgeable when they talk about Chainlink in the boardroom, don't you anons?
This is how fake experts get their expertise, by pretending to be fudding retards and then letting /biz/ crowdsource all the answers.

>>23592185
cope
>>23592186
kys
Hilarious you illiterate clowns can't even form coherent sentences.

>>23592198
you had 3 months to sell. Lmao

>>23592194
I’m guilty of this for other coins desu

Ain’t nobody got time to research everything on their own, crowdsource the highlights and research to confirm

>>23592210
thanks just sold 100k

>>23592109
Well said my sir

>>23591989
The uber driver has insurance such that if he fucks up and I end up in the hospital his insurance will have to pay, which is the corresponding collateral.
Other oracle solutions correspond to riding with an illegal alien in some unlicensed operation who will just disappear if anything happens.

>>23591872
based

>>23592109
>oracles x, y, & z all just get their data from source q
>This is not a problem
It is when you end up having to pay 3 nodes for 1 source. It makes no economic sense. It's far better for multiple sources (read: different dexs) to provide that information than for middlemen.
An oracle network made up of multiple source apis will be cheaper and more accurate every time than 6 nodes with source q and 1 node with source z. Every time source z is different, that 1 node gets fucked, even if it's reported price is more accurate. That is what is currently occurring.

>>23592103
>you can look at the publicly listed nodes and understand that they're receiving benefit from these inputs
I never said nodes aren't making money. They're making huge amounts of money. But nobody is paying for the information they provide except people buying the token to speculate on it. There is no transaction taking place.

>except everyone involved in smartcontracts or defi seems to be trying to hook into it
2 users, SNZ and AAVE, and both of them are 100% subsidised. They do not pay real money. Every other partner "sponsors" a price feed like DMM. They don't provide input. Big names like T Systems just run a dud node and collect fees. The fact T Systems even is a node, but doesn't want to be a customer, should tell you how the hype cycle works. They are the definition of a lazy node.

>you're a snivelling, mouthbreathing retard who needs to fuck off back to wherever they came from before they "found" link at $3, completely misunderstood it, and tried to bark at his betters after selling at $14
You are married to your investment, might have some personality disorder if you're getting aggressive at strangers on the internet, and don't actually care about whether chainlink works or not so long as nobody says anything bad about it and people keep buying.

>>23590297
we really struck gold didnt we? the fact chainlink is completely block chain agnostic is a game changer

>>23590297
>literally called JUST
you cant make this shit up. kek

>>23592273
>It is when you end up having to pay 3 nodes for 1 source. It makes no economic sense
This is the cost of doing business in a distributed, trustless fashion, and like with BTC, it can’t be done cheaper.
I have explained it, if you are not only pretending to not understand show me a good faith effort to formulate the benefit of the 3 oracles-1 source setup in your own words.

>>23592278
>TRON isnt a complete scam only when they jave nice things to say about chainlink

>>23592243
Yes but the definition of "fuck up" creates malincentives. Fucking up in Chainlink means providing a different price than the aggregate beyond an acceptable boundary. Then you get slashed and lose your link.
The incentive to not get slashed means you should always be trying to provide the exact same number as the majority, every time, even if they're wrong. So what happens is you have 10 nodes all reporting the same price source, because if they report any other source and there's a disparity, they're going to get slashed. If everyone is reporting binance and cz's dodgy numbers, nobody wants to report honest numbers if it means they're going to lose money.

>>23592315
>You say you can check q yourself, but again you don’t want that you want to rely on an oracle with collateral, but to do that you need three such oracles so the middleman doesn’t start lying to you.
Continued. This is outright absurd. The collateral doesn't go to the end user if their contract fucks up. It's not like collateral insures the contracts. It simply means the node loses money if their price is different. If the only number you want is the number behind the nodes, why even pay the nodes in the first place? Just use https://uniswap.vision/?ticker=UniswapV2:LINKETH&interval=240, and you have the price of LINK on-chain already.
There is no need to pay 3 oracles to tell me what the uniswap number is, if all the collateral backs up is the accuracy of that number. Uniswap tells me what it is, on chain, for free. That is cheaper, and more accurate, because even if the uniswap price is flat out wrong, the 3 oracles would, in your argument, also give me the wrong answer.

>>23592336
based spoonfeeder

>>23592273
post etherscan of nodes getting fucked or is this on pornhub?

>>23592336
tell me more about slashing too thanks

>>23592336
>The collateral doesn't go to the end user if their contract fucks up
Who do you think it goes to?

>>23592336
BECAUSE
ITS
NOT
DECENTRALIZED

>>23592450
how tho?

>>23592336
>Yes but the definition of "fuck up" creates malincentives.
It does not.
>Fucking up in Chainlink means providing a different price than the aggregate beyond an acceptable boundary. Then you get slashed and lose your link.
This is exactly correct, you arevobviously intelligent so you are either a shill or intelligent but wrong, which is possible and even happened to a loose acquaintance of mine once. In this case, please try to read the thread again because I have answered this.

>The incentive to not get slashed means you should always be trying to provide the exact same number as the majority, every time, even if they're wrong.
As long as they are honest about their source, and that source’s data is what they report, they are not wrong.

> So what happens is you have 10 nodes all reporting the same price source, because if they report any other source and there's a disparity, they're going to get slashed.
Perfect. All the nodes are reliable and suitable for smart contract consumption, exactly what the game theory of the system is meant to ensure.

> If everyone is reporting binance and cz's dodgy numbers, nobody wants to report honest numbers if it means they're going to lose money.
Oracles tell you what they report. You will not be punished if you label yourself clearly, because you will not be compared to the wrong group. We have been over this.

>>23592336
>>You say you can check q yourself, but again you don’t want that you want to rely on an oracle with collateral, but to do that you need three such oracles so the middleman doesn’t start lying to you.
>This is outright absurd
It is to the best of my understanding a succinct and correct elevator pitch of what chainlink is and does. You call it absurd. Maybe it still hasn’t clicked for you that this is what chainlink is, and why that’s desirable, and this is the source of your confusion?

>>23592521
>As long as they are honest about their source, and that source’s data is what they report, they are not wrong.
But they themselves are aggregators. Their job is to do this, as outlined in the link whitepaper. In this example (from the whitepaper), source 3 is clearly superior as it is used by the most nodes. any source which does not include this gets ruined. In this case, node 1. So node 1 gets slashed and is, eventually, out of LINK.
Lets say node 1 comes back and just chooses to use data source 3 and no others. Data source 3 is the most used, and the node closest to it gets slashed the least.
Suddenly, nodes 2 and 3 start getting slashed, because disparate prices from source 2 and 4 are different. They start losing LINK, see that trusting source 2 and 4 is losing them money, and ALSO switch to be 100% node 3.
Now you have 3 nodes and only a single source. This is exactly what has happened with LINK and while lazy oracles 'piggybacking' was mentioned as a huge problem in the whitepaper, they have found no solution to address this.

>Perfect. All the nodes are reliable and suitable for smart contract consumption, exactly what the game theory of the system is meant to ensure.
The game theory means they all drift towards a single source over time. Eventually, anyone not reporting this source and this source alone loses LINK. See above.

>Oracles tell you what they report. You will not be punished if you label yourself clearly, because you will not be compared to the wrong group. We have been over this.
Then these oracles are nothing more than middlemen, and nodes which themselves are the source will win out. We're back to the "uniswap provides these prices in a decentralised, on-chain manner for free" problem. Why would I pay a node in link when they're just repacking an on-chain price feed that I can access for free?

>>23592576
Read >>23592583

Why would I pay 3 nodes to tell me the price feed of source x when source x provides it on-chain, for free? Either the nodes are aggregators in themselves, in which case they all drift towards a single source, or they report a single source and repackage it on-chain, in which case the chainlink network is already outdated because we have on-chain price feeds now via pools.

>>23592583
>But they themselves are aggregators
They can be. If nothing else it would make sense to have list of fallback sources when primary ones are unavailable. But the point is to provide a marketplace where you decide the level of security you are happy with for your smart contract, which is presumably proportional to the scope of the contract in money over its lifetime. For some cheap contract, putting in your own calls to some free webservice is perhaps enough. For a more significant contract, you might want to rely on the oracle of a primary data source, so you get an automated SLA framework to manage compensation for service failure. For an even more expensive contract you might prefer to rely on a set of aggregating oracles where deviators are punished.
In some cases, you might want to go for the primary source but they don’t provide an oracle (yet!) just some rinky-dink rest service. You still want an oracle with an SLA (if nothing else because it will repond to your ping or pay penalty, if the rest service goes down, or changes url, it doesn’t owe you jack, the oracle could at least promise to keep the latest seen price cashed if the rest service is shaky) and, again you decide to use three of them to prevent one from lying. Seems good, no?

>>23592806
cached*

>>23592806
I understand a lot of what you're saying and thank you for having a real discussion. Again, I think collateralised data is a great idea, I'm just not seeing LINK's approach to it functioning.

>so you get an automated SLA framework to manage compensation for service failure.
You're describing that API3 shitcoin mentioned above though, where there's insurance. That doesn't solve the oracle problem though. The end user in LINK does not get any benefit if a node is malicious. The slashing hurts the node, but the aggregator contract isn't going to pay out anyone relying on the price it provides.

>you might want to go for the primary source but they don’t provide an oracle (yet!) just some rinky-dink rest service.
This implies chainlink is a middleman waiting to become outdated. There are already on-chain price feeds in the form of pools. These pools are generally quite accurate, if you have enough volume, as the arbitrage opportunities are enormous. The uniswap price is rarely much different from the CB or binance price.

>you decide to use three of them to prevent one from lying. Seems good, no?
Well, the problem is if you're JP Morgan or something and you want minute by minute pings for your derivatives, it's incredibly expensive to pay 20 middlemen 1 LINK (or whatever price) each time, when they're just making an on-chain version of information which is already on-chain. It's not like those nodes getting slashed benefits JP Morgan. Is it more reliable than any other node resorting source y? Undoubtably. Is it more accurate than source y itself? Impossible.

It sounds like what you're saying is LINK is great for hooking up to legacy networks which don't want to bother with creating on-chain APIs. This I can see. But to me it seems the better solution is simply tokenise the underlying assets and you have everything good to go and free to access without paying the middle man.

>>23592583
it's time to stop posting sasa

>>23592889
>legacy networks which don't want to bother with creating on-chain APIs

yes, that's the entire value proposition of link, from sergey in the last link con. his entire point is to make the quadrillions sitting on the fences have an easy way into the space without comprimising their own systems nor data

>>23592914
>yes, that's the entire value proposition of link, from sergey in the last link con. his entire point is to make the quadrillions sitting on the fences have an easy way into the space without comprimising their own systems nor data
Okay. So LINK is a good hold for a few years, but definitely not something long-term like bitcoin, because when we have central bank digital currencies and tokenised securities, the price will be on-chain anyway in the form of supply/demand pools, and link will be cut out. I still don't think I'll buy back in, but thanks for helping me get to the bottom of it.

>>23592889
LINK is great for hooking up to legacy networks which don't want to bother with creating on-chain APIs.
yes anon this is the point of being middlewear until everything is tokenized in twenty years then link will be replaced by something else that is more direct and cost effective but since established infrastructure isn't tokenized we have link.
Right now we only have a few companies crossing the chasm that Sergey talks about and they're wary of crypto because it is so scammy with daily rug pulls.
> JP Morgan paying link equals expensive
no matter how expensive link is it is a cost reduction of 90% from the way they do business currently with paper based contracts. Even if link charges 10% less than the way they do business JPMorgan will still view it as saving 10%

>>23592583
>The game theory means they all drift towards a single source over time.
do you not understand that contract owners are party to the creation of service terms?

>>23592942
> a few years
No one has even heard of Chainlink we're in the first btc ~5 usd pump era
>>23592971
they hate the power of choice that contract creators have because they want node operators to be teamsters and ignore all arguments they can't fud.

>>23592971
>do you not understand that contract owners are party to the creation of service terms?
This is a circular argument. If they are only reporting the data of the contract-stipulated source, it is better to simply report the data directly from the api, *especially* if the data is already on-chain like uniswap.
If instead they report from multiple sources and aggregate (most do), then they will all drift towards the same source, or even worse, actively sabotage other nodes by fucking with their sources right before the heartbeats by buying/dumping large amounts of LINK.

>>23592967
>no matter how expensive link is it is a cost reduction of 90% from the way they do business currently with paper based contracts. Even if link charges 10% less than the way they do business JPMorgan will still view it as saving 10%
If they can cut out LINK with tokenised assets and save a further 10%, they'll do it. I believe this is what LIINK is all about - JPMcoin and tokenised shares.

>>23592967
>but since established infrastructure isn't tokenized we have link.
So the idea is to use tokens to provide collateral for legacy data until legacy data is already onboarded. The problem is tokenised assets and NFTs are already here, as well as CBDCs. It's only a few years until pools cover the gap. I don't trust my luck to not become a bagholder on the day that insiders dump their LINK because the car has overtaken the faster horse.

good thread
thanks all for posting

>>23593147
> report data directly
at the moment they cannot without an oracle so they use Chainlink. That's literally the oracle problem for data silos.
you spent the entire thread bitching about nodes and now seem to be like "ummm yeah I'm new to chainlink this and that shouldn't be a very long term solution" lmao
> drift towards same source and slashing
post evidence of this happening on chain like I've asked multiple times. Post the code for slashing too.
> LIINK
Is LINK + IIN as a white label product.
> cut tokens out
before you were so sure that everything will be tokenized but not link the token which has a usecase. You can't even keep your arguments straight.
> NFTs
lmao no one cares about crypto collectables you can inspect element and save. Fix the front end and maybe I'll be interested.
> pools, merkle trees and everything else will solve the oracle problem
nah I disagree.
I'm surprised you even hold link considering you spent all day fudding it and ignoring anything positive.

Yeah as a link og I like to see genuine anti link arguments.
So much of this board is link shills vs baseless link fud.
After reading this thread I am still long on link but thanks for an intelligent counter argument.
I haven't seen much on the power of arbitrum mentioned though.
What do you all think about arbitrum and ots ability to solve the gas crisis whilst channeling most of the mining fees towards link nodes?

>>23593316
yeah it's been a fun few hours but by creating Chainlink labs Sergey has closed the gap between academic research in the space and Chainlink. Anything that comes up on the radar that might be a threat will be purchased. The purpose of the lab is to research and surveill the space desu.
I remember some larper saying they spoke to the team at an event and they had someone employed just thinking a few years ahead and dealing with strategic planning.

real talk- since this is a smart thread i have to ask here
is holding 10k link for the next 2 years enough to make it (retire early)?
i hope we all make it

>>23593379
That's it. I just can't see how chainlinkncan fail now. They have done such a great job of covering all bases.
I also think biz needs reminding that they aren't capable of making a 4billion dollar project amd that infact the vast majority of chainlinks value is derived from the backing of huge business and wealthy individuals who also believe that link is the future.

>>23593316
there's the Sergey is a ruthless capitalist argument which is he's holding out so that only link supporting projects benefit from arbitrum and t sigs. Beyond that I'm thinking thorough put increases plus cost reduction allows another mini bubble.
Chainlink still hasn't broken the line drawn after the Trump euro ban crash but I'm sure anons know this looking at the yearly chart.

>>23586884
>https://smartcontentpublication.medium.com/a-comparative-analysis-of-band-protocol-and-chainlink-54b7d14823b5

holy shit, I never knew he was already into this shit pre 2000

Why should I care about some random medium article?

>>23586884
>>23593514
POW was invented by Cynthia Dwork and Moni Naor, in 1993.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_work

>>23593557
who are you replying to?

>>23592596
Bro who is putting the 6month spot price of gold, or LIBOR, or SPY, on chain for free

Also from earlier
>doing it this way is slower and more expensive
Yes

>>23590144
the game theoretical aspect seems so difficult to solve properly. I really hope this can even be done at all

>>23593295
>you spent the entire thread bitching about nodes
I said nodes were inefficient and I don't know why people would use them when cheaper decentralised, more reliable alternatives are available. The answer we eventually came to was "you wouldn't, link is just a short term bandaid". This is what I wanted to know.

>>23593600
>doing it this way is slower and more expensive
>Yes
This is the answer I received and I really appreciate you guys walking me through this. This is where I was having trouble. There are really people thinking that LINK will get to $1k or that they'll pass their LINK down to their grandkids, and I conflated them with you guys. I feel pretty stupid but that's where I went wrong.

>>23593685
>the game theoretical aspect seems so difficult to solve properly. I really hope this can even be done at all
I hate to keep shilling them but kleros is unironically really, really good at this.

>>23593746
I would never buy kleros just because of all the shilling pajeets

>>23593746
Don't play coy with us for the lurkers Timo everything is a band-aid solutions over a long enough timeline.

So here's a summary I've taken away from this thread.
>nodes are only required to provide the price on the source they represent
>they are designed to be easy to put up on the oracle network
>they are very inefficient, particularly compared to pools, but as mass tokenisation hasn't occurred, they are the best solution for now
>on-chain feeds like uniswap will make LINK redundant, but until houses and securities are on-chain (and pooled), link has a place
>'lazy' nodes are a problem and cut in on the profits of other nodes, but the end user can elect not to use these nodes so who cares, if they pay those nodes then it's only their loss, buyer beware
>it's good middleware and eventually will be replaced, but for now it's the best option available for legacy

And then what I think but people disagree with
>reputation can (and one day will) act as collateral
>'lazy'/dishonest nodes will one day be removed via voting

>>23593791
That's what I thought too. But after getting frustrated at them shitting up the catalog, I looked into it and it's actually a really clever idea hidden under piles of shit and indian memes.

>>23593809
But we already agree uniswap/dexs with pools are better for token prices because they're already onchain and as trustworthy as nodes can possibly be. Until tokenised assets come, you have LINK. This is fine. The reason to hold LINK is because you think tokenised assets are far away. The reason to sell LINK is because you think they're close.

>>23593566
The "concept" was allegedly invented by them.
In other words: they didn't invent shit. Hence the lack of citations.

This part does have citations:
>The term "proof of work" was first coined and formalized in a 1999 paper by Markus Jakobsson and Ari Juels.[1][2]

>>23586639
Posting in the single most autistic /biz/ thread of the year

>>23593888
It’s not a bad summary. But let me add to your “band aid” thinking. When it comes to onchain transactions of virtual tokens, we have absolute, verifiable truth. I can see why you think oracles seem redundant there. And I can see why, when envisioning a future where everything is onchain, it would seem oracles would become useless.
But my SLA argument aside (which still stands), consider the good old chestnut, weather data. Say that a reputable weather service starts putting weather data onto a block chain. It’s not data about token transactions, so it’s not absolute truth in the same way, it’s just service X’s opionion about the weather, and it’s not more true because it’s stored on a block chain. In fact, service X could also make their data available via a chainlink oracle, and that might be a better method since you could then easily hook up SLAs, punish them if they lie according to other weather services etc. so oracles is better for getting all data that isn’t pure token transactions, not just temporarily but forever.

>>23593888
Checked. You're focusing on one use case of link only here.
By the time link isn't of much use to dexs it will have been adopted by the derivatives market to facilitate escrow and aggregate off chain data.
Link has many more use cases than a price feed and a lot of the more lucrative data feeds could never be tokenized.

>>23588117
>It costs $450 to ping the LINK network
lmao, where in the world of fuck did you get this from?
Depending on the feed, each individual oracle gets paid about $1 in Link per response.

>you get the same answers you get off etherscan or binance
Great.
So you set up a price feed with a variety of different oracles running full-time and you won't need Chainlink.

>>23594083
This is a reason for why collateralised apis are good, aka combining the node with the source. This is a legitimately good idea and as above, I think it'll be the future. It's the "middleware" aspect of Chainlink that I think is the problem. LINK (the token) only works if nodes are paid in LINK. But if the nodes and the source are the same, that use falls away. Suddenly it's a collateralised api, which you could 'slash' via a kleros-style case, if they provide inaccurate data. This is a really good use case but it means nodes are pretty much useless, and if nodes are useless, what use is LINK?

>>23594124
>by the time it isn't much use to dexs
It's useless to dexs already. Again, uniswap is just one example, but token pools provide the price right there with no middlemen. People buy x in the x/y pool? y goes down and x goes up. People sell x for y in the same pool? y goes kup, x goes down. No LINK necessary.
The usecase of LINK requires somebody needing on-chain data for non-tokenised assets. Stocks, bonds, etc. It only works so long as someone needs those prices in a smart contract, and those assets *aren't tokenized*

>>23594151
>So you set up a price feed with a variety of different oracles running full-time and you won't need Chainlink
Most people do. Look at Maker, uniswap, whatever. In-house sourcing of oracles are real and they are here. So LINK is forced into being collateral for non-token assets, but none of those are needed on-chain yet.

>>23593888
>they are very inefficient, particularly compared to pools
This is nonsensical gibberish.

>on-chain feeds like uniswap will make LINK redundant
uniswap is an ETH-only feed you moron.

>'lazy' nodes are a problem
There are no lazy nodes.
Every response every node gives, comes from their source.

>but for now it's the best option available for legacy
Because DeFi is "legacy", amirite?

Also,
>36 posts by this id over the course of 9 hours
I sure hope you're getting paid for this nonsense.

johnny has a research group

pays them to find info he needs

they provide info, yet double check each other so that they don't mess up and get less money

johnny is happy to see people find info themselves, yet sees a few lazy kids copying

now these kids copy the smart kids because even at the very beginning, they are so many children that copying randomly would only hurt them in the long run

even the lazy kids know that long term, if everyone copies, usually there would be more kids copying smart kids than random kids.

johnny doesn't mind some copying because he knows who copies, where they copy from, and the underlying principle stated beforehand

this is great for johnny, because even at the off chance they gave him wrong info, he can check and see why he was given wrong info.

usually though, he's getting a group of kids who all have skin in the game to give him data

instead of looking for the data himself, just copying one smart kid or another.

am i getting it?

>>23594177
>Most people do.
"Most people" are using Chainlink. It's by far the most popular price feed system.

>Look at Maker
They're running a proprietary "secret oracle" system where the oracles are known only to like 2 top people at Maker.
And it has a provably worse track record compared to Chainlink.

>uniswap
ETH only, like any ETH-based Dex that came before it.

>>23594179
>This is nonsensical gibberish.
Thanks for your opinion.

>uniswap is an ETH-only feed you moron.
True. But what other chain do you propose to collateralise non-eth assets on? Do you really think it stops at wBTC? You could just as easily have wTSLA or wHOUSE or something, provided the third party which wraps the assets is honest.

>Every response every node gives, comes from their source.
By lazy nodes I mean nodes which don't create their own datasets from their own marketplace. Middlemen who collect a fee and push out providers who would otherwise provide their own data. See >>23592583

>Because DeFi is "legacy", amirite?
But it isn't needed for defi, or used by defi, with the exceptions of SNX and AAVE, who again, do not pay to use it. Any defi usecase gets shot to hell once you have token pools, and people can just access the price from the pool without it ever leaving the main chain. It involves much less gas too.

>36 posts by this id over the course of 9 hours
kek. I've been posting intermittently between studying.

>>23594207
>"Most people" are using Chainlink
again, two (2) customers, and neither of them are spending money to buy LINK tokens, they were given them for free by the incentive node. Please read the thread, or the past 9 hours of posting, as you pointed out so succinctly.

>uniswap
>ETH only, like any ETH-based Dex that came before it.
Sure, but it's what uniswap represents. Real dexs, which don't require an oracle at all, because the market buy/sell orders set the price. There are no middlemen. And you can wrap any non-eth asset and sell it on uniswap. wBTC is only the first of many wrapped assets to come.

This thread

>>23594217
>Thanks for your opinion.
It's not opinion. "Pools" are in no way a replacement for oracles.

>But what other chain do you propose to collateralise non-eth assets on? Do you really think it stops at wBTC?
Fun fact about wBTC (and wrapped assets in general): https://blog.bitgo.com/chainlink-brings-onchain-proof-of-reserve-to-wbtc-fcda00f2815c?gi=94422acdc663

>By lazy nodes I mean nodes which don't create their own datasets from their own marketplace.
What?
The nodes' only job is to relay the data from their source on-chain.

>But it isn't needed for defi
Except Chainlink is by far the most popular backbone for Defi.

>with the exceptions of SNX and AAVE, who again, do not pay to use it
They do pay to use it though.

>>23594191
this just leads me right back to what chainlink is

a network for johnny to double check his info grabbing is accurate by having 100 kids find infoX.

It's good for people to have the same info found, and okay for some kids to copy (mostly the right info found because there will be more kids principally finding that info first)

because it's safer for 100 kids searching with some copying to give him info than 1 kid searching and giving him info, he pays some money

>>23594177
This system opens the door for arbitrage traders to rape proffits off liquidity providers though and creates impermanent loss.
The idea of an external price feed is to stop a liquidity pool from being a closed auto balancing platform.
With upto date prices being fed into a pool then you dont rely on arbitrage traders to re ballance the weight of a certain pool.

>>23594235
>again, two (2) customers
You're joking, right?
Pic is from months ago; many more projects are using Chainlink by now as well.

>Real dexs, which don't require an oracle at all
But Uniswap does use an oracle.

>wBTC
Powered by Chainlink.

>>23594270
>"Pools" are in no way a replacement for oracles.
Even with cz washtrading, the fact that uniswap is consistently accurate in terms of price would make me disagree with you. If you want to seriously mess with the LINK price in uniswap you'll need at least 11000 ETH, and if you had that you could mess with most exchanges anyway by market buying/dumping.
https://uniswap.vision/?ticker=UniswapV2:LINKETH&interval=240

>proof of reserve
Not a price feed. It checks wallet balances and checks if a rugpull has occurred in the past 5 minutes.

>The nodes' only job is to relay the data from their source on-chain
But price feeds can exist on-chain now, via pools. the market sets the price.

>>23594291
>With upto date prices being fed into a pool then you dont rely on arbitrage traders to re ballance the weight of a certain pool.
The free market and arbitragers do balance the pool though, and they are much better than any other mechanism. The real world markets work this way, remember. Giving people an incentive to make the prices accurate is the best way to ensure those prices are indeed accurate.

>>23594295
>But Uniswap does use an oracle.
It uses the number of ETH divided by the number of [token] in the pool, and gets the price from that. It's incredibly simple, efficient, and most importantly, on-chain. There is no need to pay an aggregator contract to put it on-chain anymore when pools do it for you.

Cope linkfags, you are waiting 3 years for nothing! In the meantime i became rich with keep3r

>>23594383
But when the price inside closed a pool deviates, as it does, from the global price then you open the door to serious impermanent loss.
Sure you can rely on arbitrage traders to ballance the weights again but why would you when you can use a price feed to essentially make your closed pool responsive to global price averages rather than letting arbitrage traders steal your proffits?

>>23594383
>the fact that uniswap is consistently accurate in terms of price would make me disagree with you
Uniswap uses oracles as on-chain price feeds.

>>proof of reserve
>Not a price feed
Chainlink was never supposed to be exclusively about price feeds, you dip.

>But price feeds can exist on-chain now, via pools.
You need oracles to get them on chain. Like how Uniswap works.

>It uses the number of ETH divided by the number of [token] in the pool, and gets the price from that.
And then uses oracles to place the price feed on-chain.

>>23594437
Welcome to the club, us linkies are rich too but we are willing to wait another 2 or 3 years to become the next elite.
You chose a risky path and It paid off, congrats. We are on a much lower risk path which also has paid off... why all the animosity?

Here is the wBTC - ETH pair on uniswap.
https://info.uniswap.org/pair/0xbb2b8038a1640196fbe3e38816f3e67cba72d940
>no oracles
>supported entirely by arbitrage
>accurate price

If you don't think this is the future of tokenised assets, then I don't know what to tell you. The guys above have it right. for tokenised assets, on-chain pools provide the price for free without paying middlemen. For non-tokenised assets, you need something like LINK. There's nothing wrong with either of those statements.

>>23594440
>why would you when you can use a price feed to essentially make your closed pool responsive to global price averages
Don't have the pool closed. That's the genius of it. Market makers make money in the long run, arbitrators make money in the long run, buyers get an accurate price, as nobody needs to pay a middleman to tell them the price. This is how the markets work in the real world.

>>23594483
>>no oracles
https://blog.bitgo.com/chainlink-brings-onchain-proof-of-reserve-to-wbtc-fcda00f2815c

whoops

>>23594483
But it is not how any liquidity pool works now. Including uniswap

>>23594492
Again, that's not a price feed. "Proof of reserve". That's a rugpull feed. The price feed comes from the liquidity pools in uniswap (or whatever other exchange you're talking about).

>>23594531
Yes. It is. Uniswap is seriously bearish for chainlink (if you think chainlink has value as a price feed) because the price can be calculated right there on-chain with no middlemen.
https://www.publish0x.com/dalz-blog/an-example-how-uniswap-calculate-the-price-of-the-tokens-and-xvrnxjd

>>23594556
>Again, that's not a price feed.
Chainlink was never about "price feeds".
Defi is the kiddie pool for Chainlink.

If you want wrapped assets, you need reserves of said asset or you're selling air.

>>23594571
>Chainlink was never about "price feeds".
Thank you for catching up to the rest of the thread.

Chainlink is about collateralising apis for non-tokenised assets. It's a race to see whether money can be made on non-tokenised assets on-chain, or whether those assets can first be tokenised (and therefore added to pools so oracles are unnecessary). The winner will make a lot of money.

>>23592071
it does. OP doesn't know (or is pretending not to know) what threshold signatures are.
Try harder OP

>>23594594
>Thank you for catching up to the rest of the thread.
lmao
You're the one who said on-chain feeds (with wrapped assets for external assets) make Chainlink redundant.
They obviously and provably do not.

>Chainlink is about collateralising apis for non-tokenised assets.
Chainlink is also for underpinning tokenized assets.

>>23594594
I genuinely get the impression that you are open minded and not just some brainless fudd machine but I think you misunderstand liquidity pools and also the real use cases of chainlink.
I agree with you that the end game is to make money off un tokenised assets though and this is where the derivatives market comes in.
Chainlink as a price feed is merely a proof of concept but it is a useful one for now all the same.
As a side note, have you researched arbitrum? It is hugely under rated tech and is definitely not priced in yet.

If band is superior to link why are the band developers spending so much money on criticising link ?
It’s pathetic and unprofessional

>>23594700
He's extremely ignorant on the subject.
He legit thought Synthetix and Aave were the only Defi projects using Chainlink.

>>23594624
tsigs remove the need for nodes if the data can come directly from the source. The whole point of the LINK token is to pay nodes. If you could just collateralise your api you wouldn't need nodes, or even better, as discussed, just scrape the data directly from the decentralised pool which is already on-chain (like uniswap or whatever replaces it)

>>23594700
I'm not trying to fud. I don't want you to sell so I can buy in lower. I want to understand the value behind the link network, and it appears like you say, the price feed is interesting but doesn't seem to be necessary.
>arbitrum
I honestly haven't. I'll look into it as a few anons have mentioned it.

>>23594638
>You're the one who said on-chain feeds (with wrapped assets for external assets) make Chainlink redundant.
I didn't say this. The anon above said uniswap needs oracles and there's no way markets can set prices just from buy/sell orders. LINK can have value, but it can't be from price feeds when liquidity pools can provide that information more accurately, on-chain, for free. I was explaining that to the other anon.

>>23594719
BAND is a shitcoin made by rugpull scammers.

>>23594769
>I didn't say this.

You literally did:

See: >>23593888
>on-chain feeds like uniswap will make LINK redundant

And: >>23594235
>you can wrap any non-eth asset and sell it on uniswap

>>23594788
Liquidity pools make price oracles for ON-CHAIN assets redundant. wBTC is one such ON-CHAIN asset. There is a key word here.
LINK has a place for being an oracle for OFF-CHAIN assets, like shares, bonds, gold or derivatives. Until these assets are tokenised and added to a pool, they will need an oracle if you want to buy/sell/gamble on them on-chain.

>>23594769
>tsigs remove the need for nodes if the data can come directly from the source
Jeeeeeesus fucking christ, you're too far gone to be real lmao

All this fud and the price is still above 5 dollars

Fuck me I'm gonna buy some more.

>>23594818
>Liquidity pools make price oracles for ON-CHAIN assets redundant
lmao but you said they make "Link" redundant, not "price oracles".

>>23590981
based oldfag and I can back up what he says

>>23594833
Here are my exact words
>on-chain feeds like uniswap will make LINK redundant, but until houses and securities are on-chain (and pooled), link has a place
This is true. When you have pools of tokenised shares, and tokenised gold, and tokenised whatever you want, these pools will provide their own price feeds in the same manner that uniswap does now. But it only works for tokenised assets. If the asset isn't tokenised, you need an oracle 'connected' to the real world. Eventually, when everything is tokenised, you won't need oracles. The information will be there, on-chain.

>>23594914
>This is true.
No it's not.
Even if all assets ever (including gold, stonks, bonds, ...) are tokenized, you still need a robust "proof-of-reserve" backbone.

>>23594914
46 posts, smells of api3 roachcurry tryhards

>>23594932
The idea that everything will be tokenized is hilarious unless you're talking like 10-20 years into the future. You'll still need proof of reserve but could you imagine Central Banks putting whatever they hold in gold or whatever on chain? they'd lose the ability to debase and bullshit kek

>>23595094
>The idea that everything will be tokenized is hilarious
Yeah, I'm just humoring him.

>>23595094
>>23595107
>CBDCs are a real thing and exist right now
>every major central bank is either using them or has a dedicated research team to create them
>the idea of the entire stock market being tokenised and put on-chain is not only floated but seriously being looked into by JPM
>britain had consensys do a trial run of tokenising the real estate of the entire british isles
>"hahaha it'll never happen bro"
I don't know why I even come to this board anymore. It's just kids hoping to get rich quick.

>>23595151
Neither of us said "it'll never happen".

The point is it does not render Link redundant in the slightest.

>>23595107
no doubt I'm not complaining because /biz/ has been dead as of late but the gaps in arguments are just annoying because nothing is constructed that doesn't support uniswap pools and kleros subjectivity.
Interesting questions regarding node incentives though which we know are being considered by chainlinklabs.
>>23595151
you're a student complaining now about kids getting rich lmao. Even if gold was mined then instantly tokenized you'll have to still use Chainlink oracles to protect against central bank sheeny curse kek

>>23595164
>>23595200
>The point is it does not render Link redundant in the slightest.
it does. Why do you need an oracle when everything is on-chain? An oracle isn't going to verify whether x bank has your gold in the bank. That bank will tell you, or it won't, and having a middleman pass along the message doesn't make the gold there or not. Paying an oracle to pass along the information is not going to happen.

In the real world, like with land registries, the government *guarantees* the register. If you hold the title representing your mom's basement, the government guarantees that you own that basement. Anybody else claiming to own it can get fucked.

In the tokenised future, it will be the exact same system. But instead of the title, you'll hold a token to your moms basement. And again, the end result if the government's guarantee, and the token is ON-CHAIN. There is absolutely 0 need for an oracle.

>>23595221
>it does. Why do you need an oracle when everything is on-chain?

Because this: https://blog.bitgo.com/chainlink-brings-onchain-proof-of-reserve-to-wbtc-fcda00f2815c
This has been pointed out to you many times already.

smells like pajeet in here

>>23595221
> in the future things will be different
> Chainlink badwrong
you trust your government? hilarious dude really. You dont really own anything that cannot be taken away no matter the format of the title whether or not its tolenized. This is why you don't
store pms with a bank.
Chainlink is good protection against fractional reserve lending though and that will not change no matter how much is tokenized.

>>23595221
if they want DECO they need link oracles

>>23595233
It verifies that no rugpull has occurred yet. Anybody can do this. It saves audit time, sure, but if you are buying LINK because *that* is the value proposition then you are in serious trouble.
Central banks, like china, guarantee their digital currency. There is no need for an oracle. If you own 1 yuan token, the government of china will enforce it's acceptance, or redeem it for fiat.
Governments likewise will maintain and guarantee land registries as they have done for hundreds of years. There is nothing new here.

So we can agree that LINK is inefficient for ascertaining the prices of on-chain assets.
It is also bad for guarantees against rugpulls. It does not stop rugpulls. It just prevents further transacts if the accounts don't match up.
This just leaves a price oracle, for off-chain assets, which again, will only work for so long until those assets are tokenised.

>>23595292
>Chainlink is good protection against fractional reserve lending though and that will not change no matter how much is tokenized.
I can see I am talking with an idiot and can now stop replying. If you're seriously comparing LINK to BTC, then I don't know what to tell you. BTC is that asset. There is no other. Not every token is created equal, simply because it can somewhat protect against fractional reserve baking, otherwise you might as well go buy up all the bitconnect and waltonchain that you can.

>>23595326
>if they want DECO for tokenised land registries
They have already created test tokenised land registries and it did not involve pumping Sergey's bags, if that's what you're implying. It just replaces the paper system with an electronic, on-chain one.

>>23594769
>tsigs remove the need for nodes if the data can come directly from the source.
Come on now, it's a bit too obvious at this point that you're fudding.
What a nigger lol.

>>23595352
youre talking about a simple ledger, not interactive, dynamic, event driven contracts
if you think excel on the blockchain is the future you might wanna read a little more

>>23595330
> trusting chinks
> believing trust won't change
> doesn't know about the great reset
> thinks all yuan was created equal
> thinks proof of reserve wont trigger scs automatically if reserve fluctuates
> keeps ignoring other data like election results and weather
> still thinks Chainlink is just prices
> conflates btc with fiat fractional reserve central banking
kek

>>23595221
>Why do you need an oracle when everything is on-chain?

How does it get on-chain?

>>23595510
Tokenisation in the same manner that wBTC does. You can tokenise whatever you want as long as the guarantor is trustworthy. Somehow people seem to accept Tether as a guarantor even though nobody believes they have $18,000,000,000 sitting in their bank account.
Government guarantors (chyna) are here, and the future. You can't beat that kind of guarantee. Governments guarantee many, many assets, the most common being the gold they have in their vaults (Perth mint etc.) and the land registries. Once you can trade those on-chain (the same way people trade paper gold and silver) you don't need oracles.

>>23586639
Literally 2 months ago is the hopium getting that low for you linktards

>>23595580
If governments are bringing these things on-chain we lose the game and might as well not use blockchain at all

>>23595686
Major corporations and legacy institutions bringing the derivatives for things on-chain is the entire value premise behind chainlink. Governments are simply beating them to it.

>>23590313
Okay now THATS a good meme

>>23595729
yes, we are following a huge spectacle

the reason why I like chainlink is that its the best option in this game for everyone, but will be interesting to see what happens

>>23595729
3 years

>>23592583
>The game theory means they all drift towards a single source over time
S-singularity?

>>23595330
>It verifies that no rugpull has occurred yet. Anybody can do this.
It's proof of reserve.
The key backbone to tokenized assets.

Without any kind of proof of reserve, you might as well be selling air.

>>23592913
Not me kek. Good thread tho