If link ever forks, it destorys the system. Warning.

[Anonymous No.11851061]

So one big thing ignored about Link is how it will handle forks.
Link is unique in that it cannot fork in a conventional way like other blockchains due to the delicate system of its token economics and the node network reputation system syncing with Intel SGX. These various layers which make link the 1000$ meme cannot be forked when live, or the entire system is compromised. Bad operators can take advantage of this leading up the the fork and make the new forked version unstable.
A normal fork simply requires a snapshot of the ledger and then miners or node operators(bear in mind no staking blockchain has managed to solve forks yet) simply start with the new software or algo.

Link however has intel shx and the reputation system which cant be forked and snapshotted. It will be extremely vulnerable to sybil attacks immediately after the fork. Getting the network running again after any significant up time will be almost impossible due to this exploitable event. The only solution is to shutdown the network for the duration which is not decentralized at all.
Forks are a reality. Bugs are found. Link needs to solve this otherwise it will never be more than an idea. No archaic company will use link if it is not 100% reliable.
The reputation system cannot be forked either. Bad operators can fuck up everything immediately before a fork and have no punishment on the new chain. This is extremely worring and I hope that sergey can clarify his view on solving this more than “we are researching” as he breifly told me at Devcon.

[Anonymous No.11851073]

>>11851061
Thanks for the tedx talk nigga

[Anonymous No.11851082]

People are starting to give ridiculous exceptations and some kind of rules for Chainlink

Why the fuck it has to perfect, chiseled product with no vulnerabilities whatsoever? Some kind of fucking alien-tech?

There are no fucking systems like that: they simply do not exist.

If Chainlink even solves the "oracle problem" even to some sort of satisfactory degree it is already a huge success in itself

[Anonymous No.11851096]

>>11851082

Its not solving anything if it cannot handle a fork. Like i said. I agree with you. Bugs are a reality as i put it. So forks need to be possible to avoid the damage they cause. No system will ever be perfect to the point that it can go live and never have to worry about forking.


Link NEEDS to be able to fork. Right now it cannot.

[Anonymous No.11851141]

>>11851096
Still hoping for them sweet 5k sats Links? No chance buddy

[Anonymous No.11851148]

>>11851141

>Huurr any technical discussion is an attempt to lower price

Grow up faggot. Biz is too poor to effect links price

[Anonymous No.11851173]

>>11851148
Yeah Yeah, go back to the Discord and brew some new fud

[Anonymous No.11851181]

>>11851061
Op is Augur a worthy contender to solve the oracle problem?

[Anonymous No.11851189]

kek people actually believe some neckbeard faggot has the power to do anything to the price.
What theyre actually doing is denying the fact theyre a retard who pissed their money away on bullshit dreams
>duurrrrrr my lambo

[Anonymous No.11851190]

>>11851181

Angur is a complete mess

[Anonymous No.11851197]

This is much worse than the “violates the Nash theorem” FUD on ETH before that came out and worked fine.

[Anonymous No.11851205]

>like any other blockchain
show me links blockchain please. Dumb linktards

[Anonymous No.11851255]

itt: newfag bagholders get baited

[Anonymous No.11851265]

>>11851061
Hahahahahaha, a token that gets forked. I Hope this is bait anon, otherwise your the biggest brainlet on this board

[Anonymous No.11851283]

>>11851265

Talking about post mainnet you retard. What kinda reading comprehension do you have?

[Anonymous No.11851290]

>>11851148
Link is probably the only coin biz could have a effect on, we only own most of the current circulating supply

[Anonymous No.11851296]

>>11851290

A few hundred neets with 10k stacks on average? Lmao

[Anonymous No.11851306]

>>11851290
Delusional. 75% of all of the current supply is owned by less than 10 wallets at the moment (8 wallets to be exact)

[Anonymous No.11851314]

>forks cannot be functional because basically turns into wild west
>???
Why are you bringing this even up? This is bullish and gives a stable future because why would anyone use a fork when the issues arise you pointed out? How is this even FUD? What's the point of this thread?

[Anonymous No.11851326]

>>11851306
why didn’t you just write 8 wallets instead of that autiatic shit

[Anonymous No.11851328]

>>11851314

>huge bug found.
>no worries we just continue with this huge bug.

Wtf. Do you even know why forks happen? Not just because some rich mainiact wants to prove his vision fucking retard. Dont you remember the DAO hack on ethereum?

[Anonymous No.11851331]

>>11851061
>muhhh sybil attack...

all this is already thout out

The certification service is used to prevent nodes from cheating with their answers. One form of attack, freeloading, is discussed in other sections of the white paper, but the certification service is focused on different types of attacks, sybil and mirroring. A sybil attack is where an attacker would control multiple nodes in the ChainLink network, attempting to control enough so that their falsified answer would be accepted as the correct answer given to a smart contract. Mirroring could also be used by compromised nodes to obtain their data from one another, instead of querying a data source individually. The long-term plan against both attacks is to utilize trusted hardware (Intel SGX), but until then, the certification service will detect and help prevent these attacks by issuing endorsements of high-quality oracle providers. These endorsements would be based on the node’s rating within the validation system and would perform spot-checking of answers compared to other trusted nodes. The certification service also introduces the need for off-chain audits of nodes to ensure that they comply with security standards. Finally, the security service will perform reviews of answers after they have been given to the smart contract to ensure that the data has not been falsified.

[Anonymous No.11851340]

>>11851061
Stop bullshitting br1inlets srsly...certification and reputation services can be migrated

[Anonymous No.11851351]

>>11851328
Yo retard, LINK is not a fucking blockchain, it's a platform for nodes to sell data and get penalized/rewarded in the processed. You just adapt on the go, there's no fucking fork needed. It's like changing the script of a website, you don't have to create a new one.

[Anonymous No.11851356]

>>11851331

Yes, sybil attacks are not a worry if chain is running. Way to ignore the entire point anon.

If a FORK is in the proccess then it changes everything as the reputation system cannot be forked like the ledger can. This allows bad actors to for a short time between fork anouncement and snapshot, completely fuck up everything and let it spiral out of control. Then on new chain, they get all the rewards for bad acting without damage to reputation.

[Anonymous No.11851376]

>>11851326
Because 6-7 wallets is closer to truth considering those 65% are owned by Sergey and SmartContract team.

[Anonymous No.11851484]

>>11851061
In what scenario do you need a fork for this token, cause I can't see any other than maybe the initial token contract, which if a need hasn't been identified by now, I don't see one occuring

[Anonymous No.11851499]

>>11851356
The reputation data providers could just enable a data transfer from one chain to the new one, no problem. Just get 2 identical signatures from both chains for your node and boom you transfer all the reputation you gained to the new chain.

[Anonymous No.11851639]

>>11851061
Thx bought 100k

[Anonymous No.11852709]

>wearing pants

[Anonymous No.11852719]

>>11851296
It's fair to say that we have in biz at least 200 anons with 50k links on average 20 million links is more or less 5 percent of the total circulating supply. Thats a pretty big deal