Does Chainlink have a patent?

[Anonymous No.24490167]

If not, what prevents a powerful corporation form creating their own decentralized oracle network backed by their own digital asset token? Once they realize this is an immensely profitable endeavor, won't they use their substantial resource advantage and name-recognition to outcompete Chainlink and negate their first-mover advantage? Couldn't they retain a substantial portion of the tokens, and thus score massive riches should their network take off, just as Chainlink hopes to do? My thinking is that they would be able to accomplish everything Chainlink has set out to do, but better and faster. Not trying to fud, I'm genuinely interested in the project and open to any helpful answers.

[Anonymous No.24490185]

It's called network effects and first mover advantage

[Anonymous No.24490237]

>>24490167
>wut are trb band dia...

[Anonymous No.24490253]

>>24490167
People are lazy sacks of shit, it's easier to use the product of another company than to develop your own version.

[Anonymous No.24490287]

Network effects and first mover advantage is what made Yahoo so powerful

[Anonymous No.24490304]

>>24490167
i wonder what their financial statements look like.

[Anonymous No.24490657]

>>24490185
>>24490287

Sure, but as I stated previously, couldn't a massive advantage in resources and reputation enable to them negate a first-mover advantage?

[Anonymous No.24490714]

>>24490253

Not if creating your own version might yield you tremendous profits? Surely the Chainlink team, as large holders of LINK, will become tremendously wealthy should their network gain widespread adoption.

[Anonymous No.24491362]

>>24490167
>Does BTC have a patent?

If not, what prevents a powerful corporation form creating their own decentralized peer to peer network backed by their own digital asset? Once they realize this is an immensely profitable endeavor, won't they use their substantial resource advantage and name-recognition to outcompete Bitcoin and negate their first-mover advantage? Couldn't they retain a substantial portion of the coins, and thus score massive riches should their network take off, just as Bitcoin hopes to do? My thinking is that they would be able to accomplish everything Bitcoin has set out to do, but better and faster. Not trying to fud, I'm genuinely interested in the project and open to any helpful answers.

[Anonymous No.24491389]

>>24490167

[Anonymous No.24491458]

>>24491362
I reject this comparison. BTC is further on the path to adoption as a SOV than LINK is on the path to adoption as an decentralized oracle network. Even then, why couldn't some corporate entity create a technologically superior SOV coin and supplant bitcoin?

[Anonymous No.24491614]

>>24491458
https://interwork.org/membership/members/
https://widgets.weforum.org/techpioneers-2020/chainlink/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bsn-integrates-chainlink-oracles-bringing-real-world-data-into-its-irita-powered-network-301081572.html
Adoption seems fine.
https://www.cryptomiso.com/
Development seems solid.
>Even then, why couldn't some corporate entity create a technologically superior SOV coin and supplant bitcoin?
Well, what are they waiting for?

[Anonymous No.24491783]

>>24490287
>>24490657
>Sure, but as I stated previously, couldn't a massive advantage in resources and reputation enable to them negate a first-mover advantage?
I think that was his point. Do you not recall what happened to yahoo? Yahoo was the Google of the 90's

[Anonymous No.24491799]

>>24491614
I ultimately agree that the future looks promising for both BTC and LINK, and that both have tremendous potential to grow in value. My primary concern with crypto in general is that a powerful corporate entity with basically infinite resources could recognize this potential and rapidly develop superior alternatives. As far as I'm aware, a similar process took place in the early days of the internet. While the internet itself has always been a sound concept destined for adoption, most of the early internet browsers were destroyed by bigger fish that simply appropriated the concept and outcompeted them.

[Anonymous No.24491811]

>>24490657
At what cost? Big Companies see the bottom line. If in-house development is most costly and riskt, they'll be working towards something that isn't worth it. Reality is LINK is just a JSON Parser, and all the code is on Github. But they're already established and have been taking the risk for their project to run way before anyone even knew what an oracle is.

[Anonymous No.24492227]

>>24490167

I've been asking this question every since I started lurking and have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

All you're gonna get is "you had 5 years"

Surely if LINK is even a fraction as profitable and revolutionary as the stinkies say it is a tech giant will just literally copy/paste their code and slap their logo on it.

[Anonymous No.24492247]

>>24490167
how many times is this exact same question going to be answered?

[Anonymous No.24492387]

>>24492227
did you ever stop to think for yourself for a microsecond? when you go to the grocery store why do you go to a large chain rather than a smaller store even though the smaller store will not only have everything you need but might even be cheaper? There are many factors ranging from it being a well established business everyone already knows what to expect, or they have superior technology running their operation ensuring a more comfortable experience for customers, you know what to expect and everyone else does to creating a well oiled chain of consumerism. There is no individuality in a walmart or a mcdonalds, they all adhere to the same uniform. It's the same for technology and LINK has been in development for over 3 years now.

Even if google themselves descend from the heavens, diversity hires and all with a complete 1:1 copy of the chainlink code and every member of the LINK team including sir gay himself betrayed us all if the network has been in use for half a decade which company is going to take the time to switch over to a different network? They won't, just like how people still use javascript and they still go to mcdonalds. If anything this is one of the most simple concepts behind what will make chainlink successful, and all the people telling you you had X years are doing so because (like me) they're sick of explaining the same fucking thing for what is probably literally the 200th time

[Anonymous No.24492422]

>patents
>what is open source
this thread is so fucking Jewish

[Anonymous No.24492439]

>>24490167
No, but Ripple has.

[Anonymous No.24492645]

>>24491799
Developing software is expensive and difficult. Chainlink has some of the smartest academics in the space contributing to their development. If Google developed an oracle network and ran all the nodes on their own, it would no longer be decentralized: it would be run by one corporation which defeats the purpose of what Chainlink is doing. I would rather trust my private data to a decentralized god protocol than to Google.

[Anonymous No.24492790]

>>24492227
>why the fuck would huge corporations use fucking windows? they will just build their own kek
thanks for failing the IQ check, glad you're poor.

[Anonymous No.24492835]

>>24492645
Why couldn't Google develop a decentralized network and have the exact same relationship with it that the Chainlink team has with their network? How would that be less decentralized? They would still profit massively as major holders of the token, just as the Chainlink team will profit should their network succeed.

[Anonymous No.24492870]

>>24492790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#First_Browser_War_(1995%E2%80%932001)

[Anonymous No.24492977]

sirs, get some API3 while it is not too late

[Anonymous No.24492986]

>>24492835
Chainlink ultimately won’t have a “relationship” with the network. It’s very tiring explaining this shit to people like you honestly. Chainlink is the fucking network.

[Anonymous No.24493016]

>>24490657
Why do you need to be spoon fed? Go back.

[Anonymous No.24493054]

>>24492986
>>>24492835 (You)
>Chainlink ultimately won’t have a “relationship” with the network. It’s very tiring explaining this shit to people like you honestly. Chainlink is the fucking network.
Yes, and yet it is still decentralized. Just as a network theoretically could be if it was implemented by a tech giant.

[Anonymous No.24493112]

>>24493016
You're welcome to refrain from posting in this thread if you find it distressing or burdensome.

[Anonymous No.24493414]

>>24492387
This assumes a tech giant competitor couldn't get a decentralized oracle network up and running before Chainlink experiences widespread adoption. Their advantage in resources and brand name recognition (ironically the concept your trying to invoke here) could theoretically enable them to quickly supersede LINK

[Anonymous No.24493628]

>>24493414
this makes no sense and is redundant. a big corporation wouldn't profit from creating an open source decentralized network. it would be counterproductive to their business model.

[Anonymous No.24493690]

>>24492790
Umm they are called patents

The very thing LNK lacks

You, mensa scholar, you

[Anonymous No.24493802]

>>24493628
Presumably the same way the Chainlink team plans to profit: by holding a substantial portion of the token needed to use the network.