/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.12016352]

I’m sure that the permissioned chains FUD has got to many marines. Chainlink may be the oracle standard but the LINK token is not necessary for permissioned chains where all parties trust one another.

However, I would like to have a discussion dispelling this FUD based around the market for trustless agreements. The value of the LINK token will be derived from the collateral system which underpins the ability for totally trustless smart contracts. Where no one has to trust anyone.

So what exactly are these different use cases? Which ones are more suitable for persmissioned chains and which ones would be trustless or benefit from trustlessnesness?

For example, insurance such as flight or earthquake insurance....? Banks settling bonds? Financial markets? Since trustless transactions are not even a THING right now, as far as I know, is it simply unprecedented?

[Anonymous No.12016383]

>weak
>fud

[Anonymous No.12016385]

>Hosanagar expects the first wave of applications to be rolled out in “private” blockchains where a central authority such as a financial institution and its partners are the only ones with the permission to participate (as opposed to public, permissionless blockchains where participants are anonymous and there is no central authority). Applications in the private blockchains, he said, will be more secure and will offer some of the benefits of decentralized ledgers but will not be radically different from the way things work at present. However, over time, he expects smart contracts (self-executing contracts when requirements are met) to be offered on public blockchain networks like Ethereum. “When securities are traded, intermediaries provide trust, and they charge commissions. Blockchains can help provide such trust in a low-cost manner. But trade of securities is governed by securities laws. Smart contracts offer a way to ensure compliance with the laws. They have great potential because of their ability to reduce costs while being compliant,” says Hosanagar.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/blockchain-will-impact-financial-sector/

[Anonymous No.12016590]

all the advantages of blockchain lie in its ability to create decentralized, trustless systems. Using it in permissioned, centralized settings is pointless and honestly just feels like a dry run on the part of companies to see if it's worth transitioning to a public blockchain. And honestly, by not using LINK it's not like they aren't paying out the ass for reliable oracle input. They simply own or maintain expensive relationships with their trusted oracles. That means having employees, providing benefits, owning buildings, or in the case of trusted contractor being able to promise them regular business and meeting minimums. Is that really cheaper and more agile in the long run than paying into a public blockchain (which uses LINK) for oracle input, as needed? And that's really the point of blockchain--- it lowers the cost of trusted relationships and it's only a matter of time until companies realize that.

But should we really care if companies use blockchain or chainlink? Isn't the mission of blockchain greater in scope than that?

The whole point of trusted decentralized systems is that services and goods can be exchanged in a peer-to-peer, ad hoc manner. The authorities and organizing entities traditionally required for complex, trusted services/goods (government, businesses) aren't actually needed in the potentials of blockchain. With Chainlink, we're talking about a future (admittedly, a distant one) where individuals can produce and function with the efficiency and ease traditionally available only to large companies that aggregated resources and prospered by economies of scale. With blockchain, an individual can pay--- as needed--- for individual services and information, and be able to function like a big company used to. We should not be asking if big companies and banks will be using tokens for projects because we shouldn't focus on that sort of adoption.

[Anonymous No.12017215]

>>12016590
Good response.
So you think that “adoption” won’t be integration with or replacement of legacy systems - it will be these literal who crypto startups that, with blockchain and LINK, will be able to compete with huge entities?
I understand the advantages of smart contracts such as cost saving and time saving and I can easily see they will reach mass adoption at some point.
I also understand the importance of solving the oracle problem.
But can you give some real life examples of how the decentralised chainlink network would provide further benefits over using permissioned chains with centralised oracles?

From my research I also understand that fintech is an upcoming industry that might benefit from this. Could you elaborate on that?

[Anonymous No.12017603]

Just found this post by Vitalik from 2015 on private versus public blockchains.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/


I have to admit that this is the first FUD that has got to me.
Will public blockchains really see mass adoptoon? Chainlink’s success seems to hinge on that. Everything else is in place, but if it turns out that public chains are never widely used... it’s unironically ogre.
It’s hard to predict since it’s obviously many years away...
What do anons think? Tell me about your vision of the future.

[Anonymous No.12017651]

>>12017603

>normies were literally right

The private blockchain argument was true all along, the oldest fud in existence

[Anonymous No.12017655]

Because biz is going through another period of low activity, now is the time for dedicated autists and oldfags to actually discuss this shit without over the top memeing.

[Anonymous No.12017675]

I can't believe I fell for the chainlink is a meme meme meme