LINK GO BACK UP RIGHT NOW

[Anonymous No.13835599]

GO BACK UP MY SAVINGS ARE GONE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.13835623]

>>13835599
LINK is a $1.13 stable coin. It says so in the whitepaper. You bought an anomalous spike.

[Anonymous No.13835744]

The oracles in chainlink have a kind of reputation that they cannot spend to each other. Like a record of the total number of assigned requests for their node.

Non-spendable reputation actually decreases the security of the oracle, because it increases the financial incentive to participate in retirement attacks, or the last thing you do before taking down your node.

If there is no way to sell the reputation, and a person wants to retire from being an oracle, then a retirement attack is the only way that they can transform their reputation-value into a spendable form.

[Anonymous No.13835860]

Real trusted hardware will have a private key embedded in it by the hardware manufacturer, and it is impossible to extract the private key without breaking the hardware. So you can contact the hardware manufacturer, and download a list of public keys for all the hardware that they have created. You can use these public keys to verify that a signature was indeed created inside of the trusted hardware.

The problem is that we are trusting the hardware manufacturer. They could have saved copies of the private keys in their hardware, allows them to sign any message so to us it will look like the trusted hardware produced that message. The hardware manufacturer could add more pubkeys to the list, even if those pubkeys do not correspond to any hardware that they have produced. This gives the hardware manufacturer the ability to run an oracle where they can make it lie.

If the hardware manufacturer can break the oracle system, then eventually governments will pass laws to force the hardware manufacturer to break the oracle. They will use excuses like "saving the children", and "preventing criminal terrorism".

[Anonymous No.13835911]

Afraid to respond, hm?

[Anonymous No.13835934]

>>13835860
We deal with this kind of thing all the time though. You trust manufacturers not to but spyware in your system. You trust AMD and Nvidia not to use 5% of every GPU to mine bitcoin for them. Even Apple told the Government to fuck off when they tried to force them to get into that Iphone for them.
The profits far outweigh the risks. Security and diligence is worth way, way too much for them to risk it.

[Anonymous No.13836045]

>>13835934
>You trust manufacturers not to put spyware in your system
And they break that trust.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-visa-undocumented-feature-chipsets-cpus,38954.html
Literally spying undocumented nodes made for the NSA to have access to the lowest levels of the CPU. This isn't an argument about whether we are supposed to trust hardware manufacturers, but how much we can design our software not to rely on hardware capabilities.

>Even Apple told the Government to fuck off when they tried to force them to get into that Iphone for them.
Only because it wasn't important enough to threaten an entire sector. Chainlink poses a much greater threat to law in that it removes the need to hire a lawyer every time you want to make a contract. I have no doubt the government would threaten far more if chainlink were to become more widely adopted and lawyers began lobbying the government to "take action to save our jobs" or who knows what. Then hardware manufacturers would definitely capitulate.

[Anonymous No.13836106]

>>13835623
kek stop the memes please also,
>buy the dump if green id

[Anonymous No.13836117]

>>13836106

[Anonymous No.13836143]

>>13836045
You make a good point but the government hate lawyers and would be extremely pleased to do away with them. Lawyers are pesky. They know the law, they give power to ordinary people, they hold far too much power. Capitulation in the number of lawyers graduating every year would be fantastic for the government. It would mean fewer people invested in upholding the rights of the average joe. It would mean the government would be able to get away with more with less risk of being caught out. Smartcontracts are the government's wet dream. It would give them an overwhelming amount of control. They could make smart contracts for everything: taxes, bonds, war, industry, transport etc, all without having to divest information to a single lawyer. They would only need a dedicated team of intelligent people who have been paid off and given extremely cushy lives to oversee the whole system. Why do you think the military-industrial sector have been looking into smart contracts? They understand the benefits.
If (when) Smartcontracts ever become a thing it will be because the governments of the world can no longer live without the benefits of an automated system of if-then statements governing everything for them without ever having to lift a finger.

[Anonymous No.13836170]

>>13836106
bullish

[Anonymous No.13836175]

If digits I buy 10k

[Anonymous No.13836189]

DUBS AND THIS SHIT GOES BACK TO 18K SATS TONIGHT

[Anonymous No.13836234]

>>13836189

[Anonymous No.13836235]

>>13836106
Lurk moar newfag

[Anonymous No.13836243]

>>13836143
>the government hate lawyers and would be extremely pleased to do away with them. Lawyers are pesky.
And wealthy. And the government will not want to do away with them when the lawyers have their hand in the politicians' pockets.

Remember though, the original argument was that a centralized factor of chainlink comes from trusting a few hardware manufacturers. Even if you're right and lawyers never lobby the government to mandate that hardware manufacturers sabotage the capability for oracles to freeload off of other oracles, it's bound to show up someplace else.

[Anonymous No.13836260]

>>13836243
>it's bound to show up someplace else.
in reference to the insecurity the centralization of "trusted hardware" poses to the freeloading solution.

[Anonymous No.13836412]

>>13835860
Have you even read the whitepaper? At current (relative) centralization of hardware won't be a problem because chainlink (smartcontracts in general) won't be mass adopted into a daily basis, they've only decreased the cost of trust so far (main initial use will be large deals in derivatives, finance, etc). Once smartcontracts do get to the point of mass adoption and are being used in things like insurance etc, we will probably have a solution to centralized hardware by then, which chainlink will be able to adopt to, but this is quite a few years down the road. It's still somewhat of an interesting point though, I give you that.

[Anonymous No.13836516]

>>13836412
>we will probably have a solution to centralized hardware by then
You know this isn't guaranteed, if anything the government will see the potential for decentralized hardware as a threat to its potential control over chainlink (through mandating hardware manufacturers) and prevent further development ("They're computers designed to circumvent the law, they are criminals and must be stopped").
If it isn't the government who sees it as a threat, then it will be node hosts who, wanting to exploit the existing trusted hardware, see open hardware as a threat to their potential future power, and so they might run to the government with the same "criminal" excuse along with lots of money to lobby politicians with. Granted, I doubt node hosts will become that powerful, as that particular aspect of chainlink probably won't be very centralized compared to, say, the aspect of hardware.

[Anonymous No.13836532]

>>13836412
>It's still somewhat of an interesting point though, I give you that.
I'll be honest, the first two posts aren't mine, they are attributable to "zack-bitcoin", creator of Amoveo, which is its own blockchain.
https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/chainlink.md
I knew the /biz/ hivemind would just sperg and shoot the creator rather than the argument so that's why I didn't originally say who made those posts.

[Anonymous No.13836745]

Anyway, I was hoping more that someone would tackle the first post >>13835744 as that's more of the issue than hardware, because the system is modular enough that the second post >>13835860 can be solved by, as someone previously said, open hardware.

[Anonymous No.13836835]

[Anonymous No.13836959]

[Anonymous No.13837008]

its not going back up because i have either sold or I am asleep