LINK question for non brainlets

[Anonymous No.10581851]

I want to buy link but do not understand one question and everywhere I look they just say "it is because of the way decentralization is set up"...my question is why cant blockchains access data outside their network? Does anyone have a real technical answer for this?

In this video sergey himself states "you should look into it but for the sake of this talk we are going to assume that blockchains can not talk to external data feeds"...but why?

https://youtu.be/nMlpTgxKtAY [Embed]

It is always due to the nature of the blockchain is the only answer I can find.

[Anonymous No.10581870]

Most blockchains can use thei own oracles, its such a mundane low level thing that they dont do it till the actualy paltform is complete. its like buying bread before you have a toaster.

[Anonymous No.10581879]

>We differentiate between software oracles, hardware oracles, consensus oracles and inbound and outbound oracles.
what type of oracle is chainlink?

[Anonymous No.10581887]

>>10581879
The gay one

[Anonymous No.10581908]

look man just buy the coin it doesnt have to make sense

[Anonymous No.10581909]

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have high reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Ethereum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

[Anonymous No.10581965]

>>10581909
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a sanitation company in India, I do a lot of excrement removal type work. Open sewage, communal squatting bowls, public urine walls, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like the toilet, if the westernized bathroom space had more value over a traditional shitting street. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of the toilet than the very design itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Indians won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their bowel movements through a toilet.

[Anonymous No.10581966]

>>10581851
It's about trusting that the information fed to the chain is accurate. Link network acts as the middleware to ensure that smart contracts are securely and correctly executed. Reporting an incorrect json key-value pair is easy to do, but link makes it so that there is no financial incentive to do so. Reputation and trust are the features that prevent malicious manipulation of data from being accepted as truth on the holochain.

[Anonymous No.10582001]

is it because if a blockchain which is tamper proof connects to an oracle is creates a central point of failure and defeats the entire purpose of having a blockchain in the first place? is there a better way of wording that ?

[Anonymous No.10582040]

>>10581909
Because they aren't trusting one source for verification moron.

[Anonymous No.10582154]

>>10581851
I'm not an expert, but the crux of the matter is that blockchain are closed ecosystems, which are easily able to achieve consensus, because they're only dealing with one thing, that state of the blockchain. It's mathematically easy to do. But consensus is harder to achieve with data outside of the chain.

It's actually kind of difficult to implement oracles. Ethereum doesn't have them built in on principle (look up the fourth design principle of ethereum), so link or a similar project is necessary for ethereum. There's a lot of talk of other platforms making their own. Iota and aeternity have plans for built in oracles. There are others I don't remember, I think. But the problem is that essentially, you have to do something like links approach, using a consensus and reputation based system. Otherwise you're trusting a centralised source again, defeating the point of blockchain, security through decentralisation.

One point in links favour is that no one else is making a blockchain agnostic, generalised oracle. If it takes off, no project needs to make their own, just use link.

[Anonymous No.10582356]

>>10581851

windows 95 microsoft paint novice here. i took a look at the LINK code, confirm it is very poor. don't buy it

[Anonymous No.10582371]

>it is not hard to understand. If they can look outside, consensus (i.e. which blocks are deemed valid) is unobtainable because other nodes might access the same data/URL but receive different data. So the data source can split the chain at will if it gives out conflicting data to different nodes.
>Being able to split the chain makes it easily attackable with less hash/PoS power. (Just for it again, and again, and again)
is this correct ?

[Anonymous No.10582452]

>>10581965
fucking KEK

[Anonymous No.10582459]

>>10581909
You are a MANIAC

[Anonymous No.10583440]

>>10581851
>It is always due to the nature of the blockchain is the only answer I can find.

why are you not satisfied with this answer? That is the answer you seek.

Let me explain in brainlet neet terms: You are playing World of warcraft. You want to trade your world of Warcraft in game gold for real life chicken tenders you can eat. Oh look you cant trade your world of warcraft gold for chicken tenders because the game world of warcraft has no native function on trading in game gold for real life chicken tenders.

[Anonymous No.10583454]

>>10583440

Well WoW could just make this feature themselves brainlet why would they use Link

[Anonymous No.10583468]

>>10583454
because the value in this tech comes from the network behind it.

>why doesnt someone just copy paste Ethereum

[Anonymous No.10583488]

>>10583468

they are not making Ethereum brainlet I'm saying they are making Link it is different and they easily could OR they could just use Link differently and make the profits

[Anonymous No.10583491]

>>10583488
>I'm saying they are making Link it is different and they easily could

[Anonymous No.10583512]

>>10583491
You clearly don't understand.

[Anonymous No.10583544]

>>10583512
No, youre an idiot and its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you realize, even for a second, how stupid you sound? Even just the slightest of realization? No of course not.

I know exactly what you are saying. I understand perfectly, its not difficult to understand brainlets attempting his first FUD, but you seem to have a hard time writing simple English so I will re-write what you said in more easily understandable terms:

>Why would a company use a middle ware like LINK when they could easily recreate their own middle ware and us that?

[Anonymous No.10583577]

>>10583512
>>10583544
I accidently hit Enter so this is a cont from above:

Do you not realize how stupid you sound saying that? Its like me asking

>why don't airline companies buy oil fields instead of buying oil?
>why doesn't a restaurant grow its own food and domesticate its own animals instead of buying food?

These relationships are seen all throughout the financial world and if i have to spell it out for you I will:
IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT FOR A COMPANY TO SOURCE EVERYTHING AND THEY ARE MORE THEN HAPPY TO PAY FOR A SERVICE IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR PROFITS.

now Fuck off and consider yourself lucky I took the time and sat here and spoon fed you.

[Anonymous No.10583618]

>>10583577
checked

[Anonymous No.10583619]

Here ya go, fren

https://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/301/why-cant-contracts-make-api-calls

[Anonymous No.10583648]

>>10583454
wow could simply make an API for it and connect this API via LINK to bank accounts in all kinds of different banks and 3rd party banking apps.
it would be easier to do that than to program the whole thing from the ground up and beg SWIFT to make wow interoperable with wow ingame marketplaces.

[Anonymous No.10583661]

>>10583648
*and beg SWIFT to make ISO20022 interoperable with wow ingame marketplaces.

[Anonymous No.10583726]

>>10583544
>>10583577

Umm I bet there was some airlines that bought oil fields because PEOPLE own both and you don't know what an investor might own! Think of Trump and all the investments he has, it's not like the hotels are a person.

If it was easier for the company to just do it and make it like I said then that's what they would do, not sure how u dont understand that.

>>10583648

It would be easier to do maybe but you're forgetting about open source.
>>10583661
ISO20022 doesn't really matter

[Anonymous No.10583747]

>>10581908
Finally, someone here speaks English.

[Anonymous No.10583779]

>>10581851
In short because smart contracts execute in a deterministic manner. If its receives an input it *will* execute.

Therefore the security of the external data is of vital importance if smart contracts are to be adopted. This is Chainlink's focus: to decentralise the external data using the same logic as that of the blockchain.

[Anonymous No.10583791]

>>10583726
OK genius I have a great idea for you, Instead of a company advertising its product on Twitter, they can make their own Twitter and advertise it there. Social Media is worth billions of dollars so its a fail proof plan right? No of course not, because the value in twitter comes behind the amount of users the network has generated.

This is especially true when talking about DECENTRALIZED markets. Do you even have the basic understanding of decentralization? I dont think you do because you wouldnt be saying such stupid shit about it.

yea, a company could make its own version of LINK oh but the network they have made wouldn't be worth fuck all because they wouldn't have even the fraction of nodes that LINK would have. This is true across all markets, and ESPECIALLY true when talking about a decentralized service (one that needs a network of nodes to adequately function)

Now please stop replying and embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.10583800]

>>10583779

I agree bro couldn't have said it any better.

>>10583791

If they made the Link network then we would of course be talking about the same network! I'm not talking about them making a different network in any way, I'm saying they make it the exact same, so it would be decentralized!

Advertising is different man, no product.

[Anonymous No.10583821]

>>10583800
>I'm not talking about them making a different network in any way, I'm saying they make it the exact same, so it would be decentralized!

I literally cant be fucked to explain anything else to you. You have no idea what you are talking about and its glaringly obvious.

Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.10583842]

>>10583779
based

[Anonymous No.10583846]

>>10583619
>the actual answer, succinct as fuck
>no replies

[Anonymous No.10583857]

>>10583821

What if I told you u fell for me pretending to be a brainlet?

[Anonymous No.10583866]

>>10583857
>huuur I was only pretending to be retarded! XD

[Anonymous No.10583871]

>>10583857
>jokes on them i was only pretending

[Anonymous No.10583874]

>>10583866
>>10583871

This is what I was doing though.

[Anonymous No.10583884]

>>10583866
>>10583871

I am in grad school. I have the top marks in my class.

[Anonymous No.10583891]

did anyone answer my question ? 33 yr boomer trying to figure out if i should gamble my life savings of 103k USD on LINK

[Anonymous No.10583896]

>>10583891
See:
>>10583619

[Anonymous No.10583918]

>>10583891
What do you mean? It's been answer like 5 times all in different ways? What answer would you like to see? Is that what you want, for someone to answer it exactly how you like? You aren't satisfied with it despite it being answered throughout this thread.
A smart contract has no way of communicating with data outside of the blockchain. Why? Because currently smart contracts are a native function of its residing blockchain and has no current way of grabbing data outside of its blockchain. There's now way to do it, unless you use an oracle middleware like ChainLink.

[Anonymous No.10583975]

>>10583918
fetch thy royal crayons and doodle him a diorama of the network connections for paul walker and his assassination by eric holder interlinked within cells

[Anonymous No.10583995]

>>10583891
Spend like 10k on link dont be a retard and use all 100k of it

[Anonymous No.10584010]

[Anonymous No.10584033]

>>10583975
I don't get it. How does he not understand. It's like a retard walks up to some and ask why cars can't fly, you tell him cars can't fly because they have no way of doing so, and the retard still asks "yea ok but why can't cars fly?"

[Anonymous No.10584072]

>>10582040
Yeah dude totally, it's not like the APIs are completely centralized. I'm getting sick of the discord shills. Fuck outta my board and back to your shithole.

[Anonymous No.10584255]

>>10581851
>why cant blockchains access data outside their network

Because the data is not generated in the network.

Imagine you have a network of computers. These computers all talk to each other, but suppose none of the computers have a thermometer connected to them. Because none of the computers have a thermometer, the temperature (a kind of data) is not accessible. In order to bring the temperature data into the network, one of the computers needs to have a thermometer connected to it.

The way blockchain works is that all of the computers in the network read the same data. So in order to include temperature into the blockchain, every single computer would need to be independently connected to a thermometer. This wouldn't work of course because these computers are all over the world and couldn't possibly connect to the thermometer independently from each other. What you need is one computer which reads the temperature from the thermometer and then communicates that information to all of the other computers. This is called an oracle. It introduces new data into the blockchain which all of the other computers in the blockchain read.