HEAR ME OUT

[Anonymous No.12976248]

how is the LINK penalty system going to make sense from an economic standpoint?

if a contract needs let's say $10K or (insert significant number) collateral to be staked in case of bad data, is it really worth it for a node operator to accept a job and earn the [fraction of a cent to 5 cents] for risking $10K? The opportunity cost doesn't make sense to me.

I mean in that scenario a node operator would have to complete 200,000 jobs at 5 cents each to break even from one penalty payment...and $10K collateral seems low depending on the type of job....

[Anonymous No.12976260]

The community will set the price. Node operators won't stake unless its worth their time

[Anonymous No.12976267]

C'mon

[Anonymous No.12976274]

>>12976248
Do you know that oracles pay big money to big accounts they screw over with bad data right? It's a part of the contract. If the data they provide deviates a x% from what it should be and I as a client lose money, the Oracle provides some coverage, but it's private, as it depends from one client to another.

This is the same, but public, which is nice

[Anonymous No.12976283]

>>12976248
penalty will be a fraction of the contract. if the collateral would be that big (and it won't), it just meant the contract would be huge.

[Anonymous No.12976321]

>>12976248
The penalty just needs to be big enough so that it will incentivize the operator too provide correct data. So probably a fraction of the contracts worth. Keep in mind one contract uses multiple operators. So lets say one contract of 10k uses 10 sources it probably will be sufficient to let every operator stake $200. I also think you don’t need to have stake for every contract seperately since you won’t provide data to 2000 contracts at the same time. So i think between 10k/20k should be suffiecient staking amount for a small/medium operator. Which is an acceptable investment

[Anonymous No.12976329]

>>12976248
R E T A R D
E
T
A
R
D

[Anonymous No.12976348]

>>12976260

This doesn't answer my question.

>>12976267
Not bait.

>>12976274
Wut.

>>12976283

I am using the penalty being a fraction of the contract as an example here. Obviously I expect the contract to be worth hundreds of thousands or more if penalty is only $10K.

>>12976321
See above.

>>12976329
Got an argument?

[Anonymous No.12976351]

>>12976248
Node is not responsible for bad data. It doesn't give a fuck what the data is, node's job is to transfer the data as it is, from source to destination. If source data is bad or hacked, all nodes will transfer it as it is and they have done their job as they should.

Node operator doesn't need to pay fines if data is bad, they will get punished only if their node is for example hacked and data from theirs is different than other nodes are transferring from the same source, or their node is not responding at all, is much slower etc.

[Anonymous No.12976367]

Oh you want to use smartcontracts do dramatically cut costs? Oh you need some of that sweet off chain data? Well either pay the fuck up or get the fuck out schlomo!

[Anonymous No.12976381]

>>12976348
>This doesn't answer my question.
What happens if people start demanding $1 big macs

[Anonymous No.12976888]

>>12976248
Those contracts are not manual where you have to do a lot of work, you offer an oracle api and someone consumes it. So, we are not looking at $10K collateral, but maybe $10 or $100 for a data feed.

Even if we say $10K, If your node gets 1000 requests/day, you made your money back in 9mo.

[Anonymous No.12976905]

the real question is who is going to trust a random node in the first place, regardless of how much is staked?

a contract operator only trusts the network they're running on, because that's the network that's validating their contract. they don't trust a random third party network like chainlink, full of untrusted third party nodes, to get centralized api data. they do trust that centralized api data, so all they need is to grab the data via a trusted node that is operated by the centralized api, or even better, skip the middleman and get the data directly from the website, with a signature that 100% verifies the data directly.

[Anonymous No.12976916]

>>12976351
>Node is not responsible for bad data
and this is why chainlink has zero value, and will never be used for high value contracts or high value data. it simply offers you no protection, and no recourse.

chainlink is only good for hobbiest purposes.

[Anonymous No.12976936]

>>12976905
What part of trustless do you not understand? It's like you haven't even heard of chainlink yet you somehow have an opinion on the subject.

[Anonymous No.12976937]

>>12976916
>an oracle has zero value if all it guarantees is the performance of the oracle

Listen to yourself you monkey.

[Anonymous No.12976945]

>>12976905
>the real question is who is going to trust a random node in the first place
That's why oracles mostly only make sense when DECENTRALIZED.

Thx for the shill, Chainlinkfren.

[Anonymous No.12977608]

>>12976248
percentage of total value staked. i think anyone would be pissed off to lose 10%+ of their stack in a very short period of time, especially if the penalty starts to multiply.

[Anonymous No.12977713]

More collateral equals higher cost of the job. There is some breakeven point, while some will want cheap jobs and others more secure higher collateral jobs. Also, if the token goes up alot in value, then less tokens go further since each one is worth more.

[Anonymous No.12977730]

>>12977713
Also you have to remember that collateral can be split amongst nodes so 1000000 dollars amongst 100 or 1000 nodes might not be as much for a high value contract.

[Anonymous No.12977770]

>>12976936
>>12976945
its not trustless because you now have to trust the centralized apis themselves, AND chainlink, a marginal network compared to the much more secure ones actually running your contract in the first place.

they've just build a weird layer of redirection when simple digital signatures form the apis would do. its like somebody trying to build bitcoin in the physical world by using hologram cards until somebody came up with the smart idea of using public key cryptohraphy instead.

[Anonymous No.12977798]

>>12977770
>its not trustless because you now have to trust the centralized apis themselves,
Chainlink is a decentralized ORACLE network, not a decentralized source network.

This fud would've been dumb as shit in late 2017.
Today it's just retarded.

[Anonymous No.12977811]

>>12977798
and an oracle is only as good as it's data. people are still talking about this because you guys really seem confused about chainlink's actual value proposition.

[Anonymous No.12977862]

>>12977811
>and an oracle is only as good as it's data
Banks today make BILLIONS of API calls every day.
These APIs are what you're fudding, not Chainlink.

You absolute trenchbrain.

[Anonymous No.12977882]

>>12977862
because you all seem to think that because some apis might be in high demand, that means that chainlink's funding token is somehow going to reach a high price, but those are two completely disparate scenarious.

we know chainlink can't provide any value on the security or validity of the data itself, so chainlink itself has no value, the value is entirely contained in the centralized apis it relies on, thats where the value is, and there's nothing that brings that value onto chainlink itself. the apis aren't being fudded, you guys are just confusing the value of the apis with the value of chainlink, when the two are completely disconnected.

its not like a real platform, or blockchain, where the validation is entirely self-contained in the network itself, the value in chainlink is completey outside of it's control, and by the nature of how chainlink validates aipis, that api data is available completely bypassing chainlink's middleman service.

[Anonymous No.12977886]

>how is the LINK penalty system going to make sense from an economic standpoint?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_(finance)

OP, its time to do a little bit of reading. this is part and parcel of large financial agreements.

[Anonymous No.12977901]

>>12977882
>we know chainlink can't provide any value on the security or validity of the data itself
Just like roads can't provide any value on the state or validity of the cars that drive on them.
Keep posting this dumb shit, it's entertaining.

[Anonymous No.12977927]

>>12977886
A pure Adelyn rush

[Anonymous No.12977941]

What happens if:
You are providing data from API A
Contract wants 10 different APIs
API B C D E F G H I J all have a value of 10
API B has a value of 9 because some cunt fat fingered the wrong number.
You get penalised for this?

Smart contracts are fucking stupid. The oracle problem can not be solved through decentralisation.

[Anonymous No.12977947]

>>12977927
cooking up a nice meme there, anon

[Anonymous No.12977958]

>>12977941
You don't get penalized for mistakes made by the source.

Lurk and learn more.

[Anonymous No.12977965]

>>12977958
How does the smart contract determine that the source is wrong and not a bad node?

[Anonymous No.12977985]

>>12977965
See >>12977958
>Lurk and learn more.

[Anonymous No.12977995]

>>12977882
Would love for you to explain how those api will get onto blockchain without an Oracle?

[Anonymous No.12978039]

>>12976937
>an oracle has zero value if all it guarantees is the performance of the oracle

Uh, but that's right. The big issue is trust, not performance. Nobody is going for decentralized oracles because it increases performances.

[Anonymous No.12978042]

>>12977770
>Fud from 2017
I
smell
SKYTARD

[Anonymous No.12978070]

>>12976248
Why do you say a fraction of a cent to 5 cents?

I could see it being a sliding scale. The higher the price the lower the % fee. Ranging from 3% to 15% depending on the job.

Keep in mind that smartcntracts have already cut the cost of regular financial infastructures and commissions in between. 10% of the collateral in LINK will be nothing to the smartcontract creators. But, once this network is fully mature I can see it being more in the range of 4% to 5% of your link holdings within the node per job.

[Anonymous No.12978076]

>>12977965
Another set of decentralized oracles. It's oracles all the way down, fren.

[Anonymous No.12978077]

>>12978039
>The big issue is trust, not performance.
Yes, trust in the performance.

This is getting more hilarious by the minute.

[Anonymous No.12978091]

>>12976905

Well, people currently trust Bitcoin, 60b market cap. I don’t think you understand how this works.

[Anonymous No.12978095]

>>12978070
up to 15% commision payed at first to 4% to 5% paid for every job once the network is mature

[Anonymous No.12978107]

>>12977985
So basically you dont know. Typical linkie

>>12978076
Thanks just sold

[Anonymous No.12978121]

>>12978107
>So basically you dont know.
https://link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper

[Anonymous No.12978132]

>>12978121
>https://link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper
>Ctrl + F "How does the smart contract determine that the source is wrong and not a bad node?"
= 0 results found

[Anonymous No.12978136]

>>12978132
Damn, didn't think you'd actually Ctrl + F it.
You got me anon.

[Anonymous No.12978150]

>>12978077
If what we're pointing out is all wrong and link is that very useful middleware to APIs for some unknown reason, then why is nobody using smart contracts or link yet? Or is it reality conspiring against you? I find that even more hilarious.

[Anonymous No.12978159]

>>12978150
>why is nobody using smart contracts or link yet?
Because Link isn't out yet.
And because of general latency when it comes to true innovation.

[Anonymous No.12978176]

[Anonymous No.12978187]

>>12978132
What are you going to cry? Piss your pants? Maybe cum?

[Anonymous No.12978229]

>>12977901
Roads do provide value, but does the road network have even a micro percent of the value of the goods traversing over it every day? Of course not, because if one road shuts down, an alternate path is easily found, even if it's not land based. The value is in the business providing the goods, and the customer paying for it.

>>12977995
Getting data onto the blockchain is as simple as sending a transaction on ethereum. The difficult part, the part chainlink hasn't even solved, is verifying that the data comes from the centralized source you trust, and that's a solved problem in the same way we solved public key cryptography.

If you think getting apis onto the blockchain is going to be a big deal, then those apis can simply sign their own data, proving it has come directly from them. Anything less is open to fraud/manipulation. If they can't or won't offer their data in a signed way, then we'll need more than a single middleman service to get that data into a blockchain. Using chainlink as the only middleman service is just irresponsible, and as we've seen today with services like Maker, for high value data they will be using their own bespoke service, not a generic middleman.

Chainlink might be a good fit for high volume low value data, but not much else, certianly not as the only oracle provider, by a long shot.

[Anonymous No.12978259]

>>12978229
>Roads do provide value, but does the road network have even a micro percent of the value of the goods traversing over it every day?
Well no because roads don't have collateral mechanisms, which oracles do.

>my car is slow like a snail
>ah but does it eat lettuce? Of course not, so it isn't a snail
This is you.

[Anonymous No.12978329]

>>12978259
No, you're (unsurprisingly) missing the point. Let's just assume that these middleman networks do become a thing, here's what's going to happen:

These oracle services are all 100% fungible, because they're all providing the exact same data over the exact same APIs, because the APIs are being chosen by the contract, not the network. Competition is going to necessarily drive these services down to earning basically nothing, which consequently drives the security of them way down.

The only way a middleman service like Chainlink can maintain it's security on a staking/collateralized model, is if what's being staked isn't the only source of income for the service itself. Given these contracts are all on Ethereum, staking ETH would give you real security, because you're leveraging the security of the same network the code is running on.

Remember, in your (poor) analogy, the roads are valuable because of what's travelling over them, but one company doesn't make every road, many are private, and if a road has maintenance, traffic can simply flow around it. A toll bridge doesn't get paid more based on the value of the goods flowing over it, it gets paid the bare minimum it's able to be to stay competitive with businesses relative to gas and time costs. If another bridge opens up and undercuts it, it has to lower its own toll. The race to the bottom is very real even in the physical world. In the digital world, it's trivial.

[Anonymous No.12978342]

>>12978329
Wow, you sure just typed a lot of shit.
Are you sure you want to be here, telling me all this shit?
You drew your conclusions, so move on with your life.

[Anonymous No.12978354]

>>12978187
The fuck is wrong with you? Get help cunt

[Anonymous No.12978364]

>>12978342
Sorry you're slowly starting you realize you've made a big mistake. Maybe listen to the early adopters once in a while for a little reality check. Not everybody here is an emotional investor.

[Anonymous No.12978374]

>>12978364
>you're slowly starting you realize you've made a big mistake
Lmao, no I'm not.
I'm just realizing I wouldn't spend a fucking second posting anything about a project I don't believe in.
You on the other hand seem desperate to convince people.

[Anonymous No.12978934]

>>12978329
Yikes. Your FUD is just so old but you're too new and think you're fucking Rainman. This is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.12979010]

>>12978364
>Maybe listen to the early adopters
You're not an early adopter

[Anonymous No.12979020]

>>12978934

based

[Anonymous No.12979277]

>>12978934
Not a rebuttal you're just coping because your biggest holding is a scam.

[Anonymous No.12979452]

>>12979277
>Not a rebuttal
Are you gonna call the police now?

[Anonymous No.12979557]

>>12979452
If you know he's wrong prove it instead of laughing at his face. You're not convincing.

[Anonymous No.12979561]

>>12979557
>If you know he's wrong prove it
Or what?

[Anonymous No.12979583]

>>12978374
Yeah, you wouldn't waste a second because you're happy to let late adopters on biz think for you. You guys are just interested in feeling like part of a group than anything else.

I don't need to convince anybody, I'd be happy with any kind of counter-argument, but there never is, just more spam, repeating digits, and constant complains about people "suppressing the price".

>>12978934
>FUD
Keep dreaming. If you think link is a good investment chances are I've "made it" in crypto longer than you've even heard about it.

>>12979010
If I'm not an early adopter then you guys are so late you might as well not even bother.

[Anonymous No.12979604]

>>12979583
You sure type a lot for someone who was fudding data sources in a retarded attempt to fud Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.12979615]

>>12979604
>lalalalala fud! it's all fud!

[Anonymous No.12979622]

>>12979615
>you can't trust Chainlink because you can't trust data sources!
t. you

I wouldn't call that fud, just embarrasing.

[Anonymous No.12979710]

>>12979622
it's a simple combination of chainlink having zero network effects and not being able to add trust to otherwise centralized apis that makes it highly questionable as something anybody would want to use for high value data when alternatives to it are already being used for smart contracts already. what about that don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.12979731]

>>12979710
You just typed a lot of words again, completely ignoring the fact that you claimed you can't trust Chainlink because you can't trust data sources.

Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and you just spent many hours yapping on about something you think is worthless.
What the fuck are you doing with your life?

[Anonymous No.12979798]

>>12978150
>if Internet is so cool and all, why won't I see anyone using it? regards a guy in the 90's
oof

[Anonymous No.12979828]

>>12979731
and what refutes that point? the data sources are the sources of trust, chainlink is incapable of adding trust, and can only remove it by adding a rube goldberg layer of indirection involving intel and other black boxes along the way. chainlink has nothing that makes it more trustworthy than any other middle man, and anything able to bridge that gap directly can reap the rewards without losing any decentralization. if you can't see why this spells disaster for their fee model i dont know what else to day.

>What the fuck are you doing with your life?
says the guy who keeps posting here and doesn't even get anything out of it other than hanging about in link support group threads? like i said, being an early adopter lets me spend as much time as i want on this shit, and throughout this latest shitcoin wave from 2015 on i've been proven wrong enough times with enough of an upside to make this worth it.

if there wern't so many npcs spamming link on biz it wouldn't be something to discuss at all.

[Anonymous No.12979837]

>>12976248
HEAR ME OUT
My name is OP and I like big fat dicks in my mouth and butt because I am a faggot

[Anonymous No.12979856]

>>12979828
>the data sources are the sources of trust, chainlink is incapable of adding trust
You just keep digging your grave deeper and deeper lmao.

>"you can't trust the sources, so you can't trust Chainlink"
Jesus Christ.

If we can't trust the sources, then how the fuck is the entire world of business and finance even working?

[Anonymous No.12979890]

>>12979856
by doing business directly with the sources they do trust, not involving random people (nodes) on third party public networks (chainlink). how do you think swift works, for example?

you can always get more trust by bypassing chainlink, and you can get equivalent trust using another middleman, and you can get slightly more trust using chainlink in combination with any number of other "oracle" networks.

effectively, chainlink by itself is not a very good sell to anybody that wants to get high value information onto a contract, and that means competition, which lower fees, which means lower security, are you getting it yet?

[Anonymous No.12979917]

>>12979890
>the sources they do trust
Wait, so you CAN trust sources?
Well I'll be damned!

Also, type more words and spend more time and effort yapping about something you think is worthless.
Your life must be miserable if you think this is a good way to spend your time.

[Anonymous No.12979930]

>>12979917
if you wern't so ESL you would understand by now that the sources than can be trusted aren't chainlink's problem. chainlink's problem is that it inherently reduces the trust of everything that goes through it.

>Your life must be miserable if you think this is a good way to spend your time.
yes im sure you're having a much better time than me, replying to everything with your hands over your ears still trying to get rich off of link.

[Anonymous No.12979943]

>>12979930
Why are so many companies using chainlink?

[Anonymous No.12979950]

>>12979930
>chainlink's problem is that it inherently reduces the trust of everything that goes through it.
So you pivoted from "you can't trust sources so you can't trust Chainlink" to "Chainlink reduces the source's trust".
Good on you, I guess.

To rebut however, look up saas. By your logic saas should never get off the ground because it's a third party processing source data and thus "inherently reducing the trust" of said data.

[Anonymous No.12979955]

>>12979943
they aren't. they don't even have a product to use yet, and from what i can see they don't have anything other than your average ico-level "partnerships".

[Anonymous No.12979987]

>>12979950
no, it's the same problem. you can't trust chainlink at all, you have to put your entire trust into the source, which means you already have to know what you trust in the first place. you're splitting hairs now. the problem has always been that chainlink demands you trust more people than without it, and their model means it's likely that chainlink will never be trustworthy above a very low level/value.

saas is irrelevant because it comes with SLAs, contracts, support, a legal entity to go after if they break terms. with chainlink you throw it all out and instead trust a little black box from intel. it's not comparable in any sense.

[Anonymous No.12979998]

>>12979955
>SWIFT, zeppelin, accord, docusign, brave new coin, etc
>ico level partnerships

[Anonymous No.12980001]

LMAO OP just btfo these stupid stinky linkies. Get dabbed on stinkers. Nice piece of shit middle-ware band aid solution

[Anonymous No.12980018]

>>12979987
>it's the same problem
No, it's not.

You've been in here for over 7 hours now, talking about something you think is worthless.
Why?

[Anonymous No.12980024]

>>12979998
you've just listed a bunch of memes on biz as if they were facts. there's no evidence to suggest that chainlink, and explicitly link, is going to be used in any of those places.

[Anonymous No.12980037]

>>12980024
Now I know you're fudding or just need to lurk more

[Anonymous No.12980039]

>>12976348
My company has a deal with oracle. If they fuck up with the data they send to my business intelligence tool, they provide me with insurance. The insurance is paid by a third party

[Anonymous No.12980065]

>>12980018
because nobody has been able to come up with a single refutation other than arguing the semantics of what i'm saying.

you wouldn't understand if you haven't been around for long, but biz used to be great for actual discussion, especially around the launch of ethereum. going much deeper on ethereum than i was comfortable with back when it wasn't looking good for ethereum at all (delayed launch, lots of high profile [legitimate] criticism against it) has made me significantly more money than i would have otherwise. until you've experienced that you're free to think of biz as an echo chamber for your comfort threads, but it's definitely worth my while to actually try and get some information, and surprise surprise, nobody ever actually discusses chainlink outside of biz.

[Anonymous No.12980078]

>>12980037
>lurk more
a bunch of meme comfort threads by bagholders is not evidence of actual usage or intent. again, most of these supposed partnerships would necessitate only providing the data, never trusting anything from it, they simply couldn't get insurance using something like chainlink.

[Anonymous No.12980089]

>>12980065
And another long-winded post about something you claim is worthess.
You must have the shittiest life imaginable.

[Anonymous No.12980103]

>>12980089
there's some serious projection going on here, must have been hit hard last year.

[Anonymous No.12980117]

>>12980078
Every company I listed has information related to chainlink outside biz.
Trustless smart contracts don't need insurance.

[Anonymous No.12980122]

>>12979828
The point of it is to automate the middleman and not improve the data itself, but to mitigate fraud. This is very valuable, first and foremost in regards to interest rate trading, which is what I think Sergey created it for.

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

In the scenario above, the nodes were the banksters manipulating the LIBOR rate in order to decrease interest rates to save money. In a chainlink like situation, the node would be a server that would fetch aggregate data from any bonds being sold in real time, getting a more honest LIBOR rate. The node would not relinquish collateral in the event of somebody overpaying or underpaying for a bond, but it would allow honest traders to understand what the going rate actually was, as opposed to overpaying for a bond because of fraudulently decreased interest rate data by London banksters. In the event somebody spoofed the rates (disclaimer: I don't know how one would accomplish that within chainlink), the collateral would be relinquished to well, I don't really know who, probably the government or whoever paid for the bad bond. It is not a system designed to mitigate natural chaos, but a system to prevent fraud, which is why they are targeting the legal, trading, and insurance sectors.

I don't know at all where the collateral goes to in the event of fraudulent or bad data. Probably something to look into.

[Anonymous No.12980126]

>>12980065
The companies I listed aren't memes. Again, why are they using chainlink?

[Anonymous No.12980142]

who hurt you OP? take this

[Anonymous No.12980149]

>>12980103
>projection
That would mean I also think Chainlink is worthless.
You need to learn what words mean.

[Anonymous No.12980175]

>>12980122
yes, the simple pull data and push to a blockchain is the only part of chainlink that has ever made any sense. the problem is that part doesn't necessitate a token given that high value data can simply be source-signed in the first place, then the pull-push middleman is just a dumb pipe. for low value data the chainlink model would work when combined with multiple oracle networks secured by their own collateral backed by different things, but for high value data companies want confirmation from the source itself.

if they're doing it right the collateral will be burnt, like most proof of stake systems, redistributing it doesn't help because in the event of a fraud you want the supply to decrease to compensate for the possible price decrease due to the failure, if it's high profile enough.

[Anonymous No.12980180]

>>12980149
don't embarrass yourself

[Anonymous No.12980182]

>>12980122
To extend on this point a bit, nodes will not be run by random bumfucks, but in the case of interest rate swaps, by the banks themselves, because a banker knows exactly how much he can trust another banker (not at all), and if it works for one bank, and they become more trusted, then they will all use the CL protocol. The banks will aggregate the buys and sells of all the interest rate swaps/bond sales they make to get a reasonable and accurate number of their current rate. God knows they are losing more money in lawsuits than they are making in interest rate swaps right now.

[Anonymous No.12980187]

>>12980065
>biz used to be great for actual discussion, especially around the launch of ethereum
If you were an actual oldfag you'd know that the fundamentals of Link haven't changed since the white paper, and every single fud has been absolutely done to death since then.
ESPECIALLY your little "Link doesn't decentralize the sources" talking point.

Newfag.

[Anonymous No.12980207]

>>12980187
>haven't changed
yeah, they've been questionable then and questionable now, and nobody has been able to actually refute any of the fundamental questions about it.

>Newfag.
we're getting to 4k levels of projection here

[Anonymous No.12980228]

>>12980207
>nobody has been able to actually refute any of the fundamental questions about it.
Including ZeppelinOS, Accord, OpenLaw, BNC, Web3, Town Crier, Kaleido, IC3, Factom, Oraclize, ...?

[Anonymous No.12980231]

>>12980182
yes, this is the exact point i was trying to make in my first post. at least somebody can follow along.

nobody is going to trust random nodes, the nodes will have to be on a whitelist-only scenario between institutional parties (again, assuming it ever gets this far), and that means the agreements between these banks and nodes don't necessarily and probably shouldn't involve any staking at all, no collateral required when you're dealing with trusted parties, you will have to have legal agreements instead.

[Anonymous No.12980245]

>>12980231
>nobody is going to trust random nodes
Is that why Bitcoin is a thing?

[Anonymous No.12980256]

>>12980245
do you even understand how bitcoin and proof of work works?

[Anonymous No.12980263]

>>12980256
Yes?
It works based on random nodes, right?

[Anonymous No.12980276]

>>12980263
if you think trusting nodes is part of bitcoin then you really aren't worth being part of this discussion.

[Anonymous No.12980280]

>>12979583
>I don't need to convince anybody
>24 posts by this ID

oof

[Anonymous No.12980287]

>>12980276
That's exactly how Bitcoin works, on random nodes.

[Anonymous No.12980294]

to bad I am to stupid to follow this conversation because I have peepee poopoo in my pants but I wonder why anyone would spent multiple hours fudding a russian scammer token they dont even care about

[Anonymous No.12980306]

>>12980280
you realize there's a difference between a discussion and me telling you to sell your link or to not buy it, right? you guys are so sensitive.

[Anonymous No.12980325]

>>12980294
because despite what some fudders do say, chainlink isn't a scam, its one of the few icos that actually has a legitimate idea, instead of just X but blockchain.

[Anonymous No.12980327]

>>12980276

[Anonymous No.12980329]

>>12980228
>>12980306

[Anonymous No.12980339]

>>12980231
Ill build against this point in saying that Sergey, and hopefully the team as well, own a lot of the supply of tokens, and are therefore invested in the project in the same way his venture investors are, and that it behooves him, his team, and any venture investors hawking over him that the token is actually used and will increase in value, so I can safely say that it is a priority of the team to shoehorn the token into the protocol. Often this is portrayed as a bad thing and that Sergey will dump on the market, but not before he actually has something to dump.

[Anonymous No.12980360]

>>12980294
The nicest part about LINK is that I can get comfy being a complete brainlet. Feels good.

[Anonymous No.12980380]

>>12980024
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12980382]

>>12980329
how have they refuted any fundamental questions over chainlinks and explicitly link's viability?

>>12980339
no, none of them are "invested", link was a funding token, they've been funded, their 65% can't be considered an investment, it's simply their "premine". whether they sell it or not has no real bearing on how much they consider the project to be going well or not. the cost bases for those 650,000,000 link was precisely 0.

obviously it behooves them to make link a part of the protocol, the question is can they in a way that doesn't undermine the entire security of it, and enable them to stay ahead of equally viable competitors given they're all on equal playing field due to the api-reliance they have.

[Anonymous No.12980388]

>>12980306
you're rehashing 2000 B.C fud thinking its anything new. lurk moar newfag

[Anonymous No.12980392]

>>12980382
cost basis*

[Anonymous No.12980394]

>VjzwOS+T
>27 posts by this ID
>I-I t-totally don't care guys!


mfw

[Anonymous No.12980399]

>>12980388
stop embarrassing yourself. nobody cares about the opinions of bagholders that can do nothing but scream fud in every thread that makes them increasingly nervous.

[Anonymous No.12980407]

>>12980394
30 posts already lmaooooo

[Anonymous No.12980414]

>>12980388
EY! dont call him newfag he is sensitive about that

[Anonymous No.12980418]

>>12980394
>>12980399
see, i dont even have to say "don't buy link" and you guys come out of nowhere trembling from a discussion about the consequences of their funding token.

[Anonymous No.12980425]

>>12980414
>sensitive
the irony is palpable

[Anonymous No.12980427]

>>12980418
Be honest. What coins are you holding?
Are they absolutely awful?

[Anonymous No.12980436]

>>12980425
I dont know what palpable means :( i am retarded as i said so dont booly

[Anonymous No.12980444]

Would it be possible to require a high penalty payment for simply low value contract and write and aggregation method that one node always is deviated from what is determined correct values and just steal people's link via the penalty deposit of the incorrect node. I'm thinking if the node operator doesn't review the contract they are agreeing to this could be a way to game the system

[Anonymous No.12980463]

>>12980231
As for the central point itself, I believe the team is aware of this problem and has rightly gone in the direction of integrating legal agreements into the system, a la Docusign and Openlaw, and I think you are overestimating the amount of trusted parties in the world. The only trusted parties are your roommates from boarding school. A banker at the Royal Bank of Scotland, during the 2008 financial crisis, avoided going underwater by loaning only to his Eton boys.
Almost every party, every agreement, needs collateral. I know a woman who was a banker, and the only loans where she did not go the actual source of the collateral and verify, with her own eyes, that not only it existed, but it was up to snuff, she got defaulted on. You underestimate the value of a system which is truly trustless, but you correctly do not trust the chainlink team to use the token, which is ironic, however I do not mean to berate you.

As for actually USING the link token as collateral? It doesnt matter. You could use a house, fiat currency, cattle, couches, whatever. The crux of the point is that if Chainlink becomes the standard, I am without a doubt that they will make sure the only means of collateral is to use the token. They could dump on the market and have the token used be a fiat pegged one, but then the entire team would be avoiding hitmen from wealthy insiders at Docusign, or the SEC, for the rest of their lives.

[Anonymous No.12980464]

>>12980427
still in crypto i have btc/eth at 30/70 split or there abouts. including untouched aidrops of all the different bcashes/classics, etc.

the remainder is a few ethereum tokens, mostly maker, although im not sure about how long that's going to be viable, mostly still in it for the gains against eth. some xmr but thats just for general expenses.

[Anonymous No.12980495]

>>12980464
Yawn

[Anonymous No.12980527]

>>12980382
I'd say they are very much invested. Mark zuckerberg's 70% of Facebook was not worth "nothing" after his venture round, despite the fact that all he paid for it was a server and time. Granted, he had users, but then again so does Sergey at this point (BNC).

>>12980463
to compound on this, the only place sergey has to run from US law enforcement is Russia.

[Anonymous No.12980567]

>>12980463
thats kind of the point though, there are so few trusted parties, everything has to go over a legal channel, and insurance requires airtight legal agreements for stuff like this. im not sure how you would even begin to set that up over something like chainlink without requiring yet another trusted party.

they can't make link the only means of collateral though, if you allow for whitelisting nodes, which has to be a base-level requirement, you can then sidestep the whole on-chain collateral model.

>but then the entire team would be avoiding hitmen from wealthy insiders at Docusign, or the SEC, for the rest of their lives.
they wouldn't need to dump on the market to simply use another piece of collateral, that doesn't make any sense. they could simply burn those 650,000,000 tokens because technically they never had ownership of them in the first place, they're only supposed to be used for "incentives" for external parties, not the team itself.

[Anonymous No.12980579]

>>12980495
what did you expect, some late adopter tokens?

[Anonymous No.12980600]

>>12980527
they're invested but for them to take ownership of the 650,000,000 tokens would send a huge red flag to any investor, they're not supposed to be sold for funding, chainlink already sold it's funding token. the 650,000,000 tokens is nothing more than a liability for the security of the network itself, regardless of the economic implications. but thats irrelevant anyway, them gifting themselves a majority of all tokens doesn't say anything about how much they're invested or care about the platform.

[Anonymous No.12980606]

>>12980464
Larp. That stack doesn't line up with all the dumb long-debunked fud you're spouting. I bet you're holding some -95% failed 2017 platform coin.

[Anonymous No.12980616]

>>12980427

He's obviously holding link, got a little worried, and is trying to pump us for info. I do it all the time. The best way to get info out of biz isn't to ask, it's to claim the opposite opinion and what people sperg out. I think AB even said this once?

[Anonymous No.12980634]

>>12980600
Are they not going to have another venture round?

[Anonymous No.12980635]

>>12980616
Naw, this is "I learned about link last week" posting.

[Anonymous No.12980657]

>>12980606
>bet
thats all you guys do anyway.

>>12980616
i have considered buying some, but every time i've looked closer none of the economics of their funding token make any sense long term to me, why else would i be "wasting time" asking about it? but believe what you want if that makes you feel better about your bags.

[Anonymous No.12980673]

>>12980600

The 650 mil tokens under the team's control is a massive, massive plus. It lets them bring partners on by offering them a huge piece of the network, instead of making them try to gather link on the open market.

There was a thread about it once and this scenario seemed pretty plausible: Imagine there's a data provider or a company that wants to offer derivatives using crypto. Sergey days 'ok, here's 10 million in link tokens as collateral, they're vested so you can't sell them for 10 years, and you agree to exclusively use chainlink for your data/derivatives in all blockchain-related applications".You bring on big players, then chainlink becomes the standard, and then you're good to go.

[Anonymous No.12980687]

>>12980634
did they say they were? there certianly isn't any liquidity in link, but like xrp, my understanding is the point of the tokens is "incentivizing adoption", i.e. loans or straight up gifts to get companies into the ecosystem. they really shouldn't need even more funding.

[Anonymous No.12980694]

>>12980567
>they're only supposed to be used for "incentives" for external parties, not the team itself
You haven't read the whitepaper, have you?

[Anonymous No.12980705]

>>12980673
yeah, this is my assumption of what they're trying to do, the xrp model >>12980687. the point is if they decide to take ownership of those tokens themselves, whether they sell or not, is a red flag, as ripple did when they announced they would start liquidating huge amounts of xrp per month.

[Anonymous No.12980706]

Op watch the video from ethcc 2019 theres this faggot from streamr i thnk its you
The guy brins up your fud and sergey responds like the fucking alpha human he is

[Anonymous No.12980719]

>>12980673
The crux of the argument still stands however. The system is viable, and possibly very successful, but as an investor one must ask: will the LINK token actually capture the value of the network, and how? The easy answer is of course "collateral" however I can put up anything as collateral. Why MUST the token be used ie what makes it better than any other system of collateral value.

[Anonymous No.12980732]

>>12980706
link to stream?

[Anonymous No.12980740]

>>12980705

Oh, yeah totally it would. Strongly doubt that will happen though, link weathered the bear pretty well so I doubt they need more runway.

One thing I've wondered is if/when the team sold the ICO eth. Does anyone know?

[Anonymous No.12980742]

>>12980694
Whitepaper does not mention the words "stake" or "collateral".
The ChainLink network utilizes the LINK token** to pay ChainLink Node operatorsfor the retrieval of data from off-chain data feeds, formatting of data into blockchainreadable formats, off-chain computation, and uptime guarantees they provide as op-erators. In order for a smart contract on networks like Ethereum to use a ChainLinknode, they will need to pay their chosen ChainLink Node Operator using LINK tokens,with prices being set by the node operator based on demand for the off-chain resourcetheir ChainLink provides, and the supply of other similar resources. The LINK to-ken is an ERC20 token, with the additional ERC223 “transfer and call” functionalityof transfer(address,uint256,bytes), allowing tokens to be received and processed bycontracts within a single transaction

Basically says that the only use for it is paying node operators.

[Anonymous No.12980744]

>>12980719
my fundamental concern isn't even that, that's valid, but the real concern for the validity of link as an investment to me is that link can't capture network effects at all, due to their wholesale reliance on external data, and the high likelihood of multiple oracle provides being necessary if each can only use their own token as collateral
>>12977882

[Anonymous No.12980752]

>>12976248
opinion on Nano OP?
t. Bagholder

[Anonymous No.12980769]

Wow chainlink pumped and now there's a FUD thread. What a coincidence

[Anonymous No.12980771]

>>12980719
It separates the security of the Chainlink network from market volatility of some other asset, unrelated to the network. If it were ETH, then the security of the network could be reduced if ETH's market volatility didn't work in our favor. That also wouldn't work out very well in multi-chain environments where the node operator would need different prices for the same amount of work on every supported chain. If it were some stable coin, then the security of the network would be based on the viability of that project. Further, we would lose the transferAndCall ability, which would add more complexity to our smart contracts, and more complexity usually means more expensive transactions.

[Anonymous No.12980772]

>>12980742
was there no section on punishing bad actors/false data or did i imagine that?

[Anonymous No.12980775]

>>12980719

I mean, isn't this just something that the link team can make a feature of their network? You have to use link as collateral? If you're a data provider, you can offer something else to stake, but you're not part of the link network, and therefore not decentralized. Also, people have to agree to let you use whatever it is as collateral, which would be super messy if they are trying to aggregate lots of sources for their smart contract.

[Anonymous No.12980776]

>>12980657
>bet
>thats all you guys do anyway.
"No position" is a position.

[Anonymous No.12980807]

Ok linklets tell me this. Where do the nodes get verification that their data is correct? Why do we need nodes for data that can only come from one source? For instance, a visa transaction is only going to have one source: Visa. How do you work around that? Trust that Visa won’t control manipulate a bunch of nodes? Then why are so many tokens locked up for “institutional investors”?

[Anonymous No.12980810]

>>12980719
>however I can put up anything as collateral
It's time to stop. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

[Anonymous No.12980825]

>>12980742
I can't be arsed to find it, but it says the team's tokens will fund ongoing development.
I never said anything about staking or collateral.

[Anonymous No.12980829]

>>12980810
No! You let him stake his goats and cheese, racist!

[Anonymous No.12980841]

>>12980771
This is from Thomas, btw. Can't dodge the Hodge.

[Anonymous No.12980846]

>>12980771
it's obvious to me that ethereum contracts would much rather have collateral in the form of eth than the form of a third party network. there's an argument that they've "chosen" to use chainlink therefore they've chosen to trust link as well, but i think its clear chainlink isn't going to be the only player in town trying to put data on ethereum, and they'll all be fungible, if they're all working as intended.

[Anonymous No.12980855]

>>12980807

Anything with a single source link isn't really necessary - people post idiotic examples of link use cases where this isn't. They still might use the link network if it becomes a standard way to have on/off chain stuff happen. The decentralized part of it is the triggers for contracts though, the payments stuff can already be trustlessly done on-chain.

[Anonymous No.12980878]

>>12980744
Its not selling the data though, its selling the trust.
If somebody pisses on an IOT rainwater measurement device connected to a node, other nodes will hopefully be able to prove that that data is false. The point of link, is that your insurance provider will have NO IDEA which rainwater collector he has to piss in to make sure he doesnt have to payout insurance to the farm experiencing a drought.
>>12980771
That in itself is a argument against link. For such a statement to be true it would necessitate LINK to be connected to some other, stable asset, seeing as crypto is highly volatile. Someone would have to set up a clearinghouse for a stable asset like an industrial metal 1:1 pegged to link, able to trade at any time. Lets say you are a node operator, and you see your data might go bad and you would have to forfeit your link, why would you not just dump all of your link right there so you lose less money? What makes LINK resistant to market manipulation and volatility? Wouldn't it be better to peg LINK to the US dollar?

[Anonymous No.12980884]

Nasdaq and Capital One are poor companies that can't hire a 2 man team and too dumb to convince a goat breeding forum that their idea is the bestest evers.

[Anonymous No.12980886]

>>12980776
worked out very well for me considering the 2000+ alts out there.

>>12980807
thats why high-value sources like visa won't need to go over chainlink at all, you just need a signed-source from visa you can dump right into a smart contract at regular intervals or during call time, which is how most of these private network-type oracle sources work.

[Anonymous No.12980887]

>>12976916
>>12978039
>>12978150
the absolute state of noLINKers in 2019. they don't even know what an oracle is anymore.

[Anonymous No.12980900]

>>12980878
>Lets say you are a node operator, and you see your data might go bad and you would have to forfeit your link, why would you not just dump all of your link right there so you lose less money?
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.12980912]

>>12980887
explain to me what an oracle is without going on wikipedia and without referencing greek mythology

[Anonymous No.12980931]

>>12980912
9 out of 11 discord trannies would agree.

[Anonymous No.12980933]

>>12980878
yeah, the crux of that argument is that more datapoints = more security/trust, which collapses into you need more than just chainlink as your single network for oracles. it's not like ethereum or some other network where one thing is the source of truth, and if one thing is, you don't need a decentralized network to start, i.e. the visa situation.

[Anonymous No.12980968]

>>12980878
Do you even know why staking is? You don’t have the link yourself to dump you fucking mong.

[Anonymous No.12980995]

>>12980900
Im talking about people manipulating the price of Link while it is in a contract. You have 1m Link in collateral escrow and you know it is going to be burned or given away. Why not dump your other 1m link becuase you dont give a fuck about the price anymore and you want to cut your losses? LINK is separated from the volatility of external markets, but what of the volatility of its own market? And it would be sensible to have the price of LINK pegged to the very unit it is destined to pay out or recieve: USD.

To counter my own point, however, oracles staking LINK (and owning lots of LINK) incentivizes them to upkeep the value of the network, if LINK truly represents such a value. Essentially, their own performance as "employees" of the LINK network is tied directly to their payment, and the value of that with which they are being paid. They are complicit in their own worth.

[Anonymous No.12981009]

>>12980732
Check the latest chainlinkntweets

[Anonymous No.12981043]

>>12981009
>ethcc

[Anonymous No.12981054]

>>12980995
>it would be sensible to have the price of LINK pegged to the very unit it is destined to pay out or recieve: USD.
Ironically, you'd need oracles to accomplish that, creating a clear conflict of interests.

[Anonymous No.12981063]

anybody know how much funds LINK has left and if they could survive this bear market?

[Anonymous No.12981076]

>>12980968
You can have 2 million LINK, stake half, and dump the other half, when you realize one half is fucked.
You stake your 1million dollars worth of link, and then, fuck the data is bad! Im going to lose a million fucking dollars and my node is never going to be trusted again!! Fuck me! Im ruined! Any link owned by ME will be WORTHLESS without the trust of the network, therefore my best course of action is to recuperate my losses and sell the rest of the LINK I have. As a bonus, my large market sell may reduce to price of link to 75cents, thereby ameliorating the emotional toll taken by losing a million dollars (Becuase, hey, its like i only lost 750k anyway).
And then, other node operators see this decrease in link and think "What the fuck? my 100k payment for securing this data just went to 75k... and half of my net worth dropped by 25%!"
My point is, there is volatility and market manipulation within the system that is trying to stop manipulation and needs to not be volatile to work. I don't view it as a be all end all of Chainlink, but its certainly something to think about.

[Anonymous No.12981079]

>>12980886
You are the greatest retard this board has seen, youve been spouting nonsense for hours while you forget the whole point of chainlink: automate shit and get a guaranteed outcome using a smartcontract. Of cours you can turn off a data source that has nothing to do with chainlink - it doesnt aim to get your datasource magically available 24/7, link’s power is the ability to provide guaranteed outcome in situations where there are trust issues today.
I don’t understand why retards would spend hours fudding a shitcoin when you can just not buy it and go on with your life. I have a lot of empathy in daily life i get very emotional. Thinking abiut OP makes me cringe in manners i can’t handle. Literally just wanna hide myself under my bed for the rest of my life. Op please stop eating so much dicks

[Anonymous No.12981102]

>>12981054
No you would not need an oracle to accomplish that. You set up a clearinghouse that sells 1 oz of copper or other metal for one LINK, and vice versa, just like banks used to do with gold.

[Anonymous No.12981109]

>>12981076
Dumps happen. Everywhere.
Your scenario is really far-fetched though.

[Anonymous No.12981129]

>>12981102
>You set up a clearinghouse that sells 1 oz of copper or other metal for one LINK
Yeah, ok bro.

[Anonymous No.12981144]

>>12980995
What have you gained? Dropping the price for a few minutes to spite the contract creator? You've still lost a million link. What's the point? You're not going to have such large amounts for any given contract anyway.

>>12980995
>Peg a $175m decentralised oracle network, despite not knowing its future volume or value, to the dollar.
Good one you thick cunt.

[Anonymous No.12981168]

>>12981079
You are such a retarded faggot. There is a difference between investing your pocketmoney into an unproven cryptocurrency and investing hundreds of thousands or millions into a project. You need to make sure the shit is as airtight as humanely possible, or else you will be soon parted from your money. Making money is not as easy as looking what coin is pumping, buying, then selling, or investing in a coin that has a lot of jokes about it. Making money is about making sure it doesnt go fucking poof.
>>12981109
Far fetched? Not if this achieves what it sets out to. But honestly I dont think it would be much of a problem if crypto as a whole gets more liquidity, which is happening. The same kind of shit happens in the oil business, and most businesses. Your rig blows up, and oil is 50$ a barrel. QQ

[Anonymous No.12981189]

Wow. I'm blown away that the vast majority of anons have no idea how the network can play out.

Sergey himself has stated on record that they have no idea how tokenomics will work. If anyone feels that they have THE answer, then they're full of shit and need to take a poo.

One one side of the coin, is that the value of trustless answers raises the price of Link>>12978070

The other possibility is the
>>12978329 Where node operators, over a long time, will drive each other's price down by saturating the market. This argument although taken as fud, as a surface level is credible. However it doesn't take into consideration that the data economy is the new oil and therefore we will unlikely saturate the market.

>>12980122
this is the most based comment here. chiming in and pointing out: data on the other can can be corrupted by various points. say for example, a SC is written to get sources from seven APIs that the SC dev knows and has colluded that they are representing false data. The SC executes a false SC, the link network believes it executed correctly. All while a fake million dollar worth of contract was fucked over. If these false contracts happen consistently and quickly enough, mainstream FUD will catch and burn CL for a while as a service that does not provide trust.

The only answer sergey has proposed is an API rating system of AAA, AA, A.

There's still a long arduous road to 1k. I love link, and I'm sure Sergey has not revealed his hand.

[Anonymous No.12981212]

>>12980673
this.

[Anonymous No.12981213]

Not selling. Sorry fudders.

[Anonymous No.12981225]

>>12981144
>Good one you thick cunt
They wouldnt just peg LINK to a dollar. They would migrate the code to another token pegged to the dollar, which they could print more of at any time as more people used the service (provided they had proof of funds). Which is honestly what they should have done from the start, and just issued stock to get venture funding, but i guess Sergey is scared of regulators.
>What's the point?
Exactly what someone who just lost a million dollars will be thinking. But the main thing is that if your reputation is ruined, you can no longer provide for the network, and neither can it you, so the best course of action is just to take the money you have.

[Anonymous No.12981247]

>>12981225
Again, you need oracles to halfway decently create stablecoins.

[Anonymous No.12981265]

>>12981247
Why?

[Anonymous No.12981308]

>>12981225
We don't yet know how reputation will work, but you will certainly still be able to provide data to contracts with that fat stack.

Token volatility really isn't such a huge deal. As long as contract creators are happy node operators have enough skin in the game.

[Anonymous No.12981310]

>>12981265
Ask DAI.

[Anonymous No.12981411]

>>12981308
I dont know, I cant just look at something that might compromise the system as not such a huge deal. Volatility could be one of the main problems they have with securing the network; ie if the price of LINK drops a certain percentage during a contract it may become more profitable to fraud the network. The biggest question is where the tokens actually go if they are forfeited

[Anonymous No.12981606]

>>12981265
because the oracle problem

[Anonymous No.12981670]

>>12980579
So for late adopters. What coins do you recommend? Still BTC/ETH?

[Anonymous No.12981759]

>>12976260
>Demand will set the price.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.12982064]

>>12981247

No you fucking don't. You just need a company to back them 1:1 with the underlying asset. No oracles needed for that.