"unified golden record"

[Anonymous No.58412168]

Is he talking about that BBCA chain thing?

[Anonymous No.58412175]

fat

[Anonymous No.58412178]

>>58412168
>BBCA chain

https://blog.chain.link/bbca-chain-single-broadcast-consensus-on-a-dag/

[Anonymous No.58412283]

Can we moon now?

[Anonymous No.58412453]

>>58412168
?

[Anonymous No.58412462]

>>58412283
no, I haven't sold yet

[Anonymous No.58412466]

>>58412462
then sell

they expect one of us in the wreckage

[Anonymous No.58412583]

>>58412462
I will invite you to the yacht party as my +1 if you sell. I'm so tired. I've been holding since 2018.

[Anonymous No.58412844]

redpill me on the golden record
explain how it works with realistic examples

[Anonymous No.58412849]

>>58412466
Have we started the fire?

[Anonymous No.58412858]

>>58412844
when 1 bridged defi token gets staked on another token's staking platform, the transaction will be on a ledger that's immutable unless one of the validators decides to lie. this is where superlinear staking comes in - the validator will lose a square root of a link token if they lie
tl;dr microsoft supraoracles fixes this

[Anonymous No.58412876]

>>58412283
Yes, financial companies love fat Russians telling them to "level up". Absolutely love it.

[Anonymous No.58413442]

>>58412844
In this short video, he's simply talking about how banks etc. can check on any on-chain asset and see all the relevant information at any time.
But that's not REALLY related to the concept of a "unified" record. That's just a whole bunch of different records (chains, contracts, etc.).

A unified record implies that there's a single place where everything comes together, even if only a directory that links you through to the specific chain, contract, ...
The only thing Chainlink does that's even remotely related to this, is that BBCA consensus chain that they've been working on.
Nobody ever had any clue what the fuck it was for, this might be it.

[Anonymous No.58413512]

>>58413442
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pBhpruZt2g&t=3s

[Anonymous No.58413554]

>>58413512
Right.
Why would they be working on an L1 consensus mechanism, if not to actually apply it?
So far, this "unified golden record" thing is the only application Chainlink has ever mentioned for it.

[Anonymous No.58413576]

>>58413554
CLL is expanding in a lot of different directions, their research capacity is extremely impressive and they're directly associated with many advances in cryptography in the last few years. Even schnorr integration is something that was in the v1 whitepaper and ICP just incorporated it and I'm not even an ICP fudder

I think the unified golden record will basically look like a global blockchain state ledger, the parallel block observation leader mechanic feels like it's meant to be for interchain consensus. Since they're building ccip, and we assume it's gonna be between a lot of interaction points, it's kind of poised to be exploited for inter and intrachain data movement

I'm way more excited for DECO though, and I hope it's gonna come out in the near future since a lot of actual useful real world smart contract applications kind of hinge on it for compliancy

[Anonymous No.58413592]

>>58413576
That's exactly it, with CCIP it's no longer about oracles (or CLL) serving users on this chain or that chain, it's serving users of blockchain in general.
I makes a lot of sense for there to be a comprehensive reference point for whatever contract or transaction users are implementing through CCIP.

[Anonymous No.58413604]

>>58413592
In a way, it kind of circles back to what he said. They recently released their Defi Yield index (not public yet i think) and I can see them serving all kinds of information that is simply not that available right now, like global fiat outflow and inflow, average risk per network, flow velocity etc etc

All of that might be very valuable information for finance, especially as tradfi and defi get more and more intertwined

[Anonymous No.58413614]

>>58413604
It's also about users like banks, brokers, etc. simply wanting to buy various tokenized assets (which are all on different chains) without having to use different systems for every platform.
With something like CCIP, there's a single front end for all backends.

But then after the transaction/contract was made/completed, you don't have to remember what platform(s) they happened on in order to keep track of them or reference back to them, you can simply consult the "unified golden record" where all CCIP transactions are listed.

[Anonymous No.58414441]

>>58413554
I wonder if their partners in the banking industry have hired them to research L1 which they can then use to deploy themselves.

[Anonymous No.58414460]

https://twitter.com/0xpablockchain/status/1780936815592997152

When was this talk?

[Anonymous No.58414495]

What is a unified golden record?

[Anonymous No.58414500]

>>58413576
>I think the unified golden record will basically look like a global blockchain state ledger,
How is this different than wat BIS is doing with the unified ledger or UK and RLN

[Anonymous No.58414504]

>>58414500
BIS won't be able to facilitate managing data on NFTs.

[Anonymous No.58414515]

>>58414504
and by NFTs you mean digital assets on chain?

[Anonymous No.58414534]

>>58414515
yes, RWAs are NFTs.

[Anonymous No.58414564]

>>58414534
https://www.swift.com/news-events/news/need-rich-data-shared-ledger-paradigm

So if swift is aware of the issues with a unified ledger, are they in a sense, letting BIS waste their time researching something that has a major flaw?

[Anonymous No.58414772]

>>58414564
See the link you posted, section "Defining the future of tokenisation".
Excerpts:
"One way that the future of tokenisation could be realised is with a ‘big-bang’ transition towards a shared ledger paradigm. Alternatively, it could take the form of a more gradual path with multiple shared ledgers coexisting with traditional systems.

Or the future may lie somewhere in between.
...
Attempting to recreate every part of the financial stack is unlikely to be a viable approach. By leveraging existing components of the financial system that already work well together – including secure financial messaging such as that provided by Swift – the industry can avoid undue levels of market concentration risk, and draw upon tried-and-tested practices to deliver the rich, structured data that it has been working towards for decades.
...
Rather than having each institution record its own individual ‘state’, that function could be abstracted and performed at an industry level, similar to how messaging evolved. Such a state machine could be built on more decentralised blockchain technology, or equally a more centralised platform like Swift’s Transaction Manager could be enhanced for this use.
"

[Anonymous No.58414777]

>>58412168
they expect you to feel the FOMO, and buy more op, dont fall into the trap, save your shit on stable coins or BRC20 tokens

[Anonymous No.58415048]

>>58414772

So its unlikely a shared ledger will become the standard since theres too many parties to be integrated? But the idea is great?

So, leveraging existing components of the financial system that already work well together is the path that Swift will take?

[Anonymous No.58415493]

>>58415048
Reading through your link, I see no conflicts with Chainlink and SWIFT.

>>58414772
>Rather than having each institution record its own individual ‘state’, that function could be abstracted and performed at an industry level, similar to how messaging evolved. Such a state machine could be built on more decentralised blockchain technology, or equally a more centralised platform like Swift’s Transaction Manager could be enhanced for this use.

The State machine == Unified Golden Record AKA Chainlink's BBCA blockchain

Messaging Layer == CCIP

[Anonymous No.58416691]

>>58415048
>So its unlikely a shared ledger will become the standard
A shared ledger on which all transactions actually take place: yes.

But I think what Chainlink is doing is simply making a unified REFERENCE chain. Like a single directory that contains the most basic info and links you to the actual transaction/contract/message/... on the actual chain where it happened.

Because when you're doing a lot of things across a lot of chains, it will get confusing and difficult to keep track of where things actually happened.

[Anonymous No.58416734]

Hey anons, I'm sorry but I think you're on the wrong track with this line of thinking.
Dahlia opens her 2024 SmartCon talk about BBCA by pointing out that reaching consensus between oracle nodes raises many of the same issues as reaching consensus between blockchain validators. BBCA is a fast consensus mechanism for DONs, it doesn't point in any way towards Chainlink releasing their own chain.
And the "unified golden record", by my reading, is just referring to the internet of contracts powered by Chainlink where assets will have data welded to them (allowing transfer rules, ownership rules etc) and they'll all be effectively in one place (because they will all have Chainlink interconnectivity) rather than all being on one chain or anything.
Also just wanted to say how fucking awesome it is to see a thread this size without the derailer retards ruining it. Maybe email gating was based after all.

[Anonymous No.58416788]

>>58416734
>BBCA is a fast consensus mechanism for DONs
Nevertheless, a DAG (which is what BBCA is) is still a "distributed digital ledger".

So it boils down the same thing: all consensus reached on/with this DAG will form a single ledger of transactions happening on other chains.
Not just CCIP, literally everything Chainlink does.
And this single ledger can then be used as a single point of reference for everything happening on all chains.

>And the "unified golden record", by my reading, is just referring to the internet of contracts
It's definitely true that Sergey isn't quite describing what I'm envisioning, but ultimately I believe it all does point to what I'm envisioning.

>Also just wanted to say how fucking awesome it is to see a thread this size without the derailer retards ruining it. Maybe email gating was based after all.
I'm 99% sure this would not have been possible at all pre-email verification.

[Anonymous No.58416794]

>>58416734
I don't care, didn't read. How will it pump the token price? I'm tired

[Anonymous No.58416897]

>>58416734
>And the "unified golden record", by my reading, is just referring to the internet of contracts powered by Chainlink where assets will have data welded to them (allowing transfer rules, ownership rules etc) and they'll all be effectively in one place (because they will all have Chainlink interconnectivity) rather than all being on one chain or anything.

The internet of contracts is already in existence and that is CCIP. The BBCA chain is like what >>58416691 said here, A one stop shop for all the CCIP messages, the RWA information (or NFT if you will), the index yield information and other bells and whistles. Remember, NFTs backed by real assets CANNOT survive outside of the chainlink ecosystem. You don't just mint an NFT, you want it to be able to be transferred between blockchains to trade with relevant parties. And more importantly, you have to have it routinely connected to a proof of reserves to update it the moment anything happens to it in the real world. Having a blockchain for this, a shared and transparent ledger to facilitate logging transactions is the perfect use case and Chainlink is in the perfect position to launch and manage a chain like this.