I have three questions for you related to Chainlink.
1) Will the average retail investor be able to run a node? Don't nodes need to be connected to API data that businesses will want? So it's not enough for me to just run a node, I also need high quality API data to offer.
2) What is the arbitration process if a node operator offers false data? Upon completion of the job the node operator will be paid by a smart contract. How can you reverse this in arbitration if a problem occurs, and who are we trusting to do this for us (a central authority?).
3) Big businesses will interact with nodes to retrieve their API data for use in their enterprise operations. They will also offer API data for sale to other businesses for profit. How will big businesses be expected to navigate the costly and time-consuming process of buying Bitcoin, sending to Binance, buying Link, using Link to buy API data, and vice-versa for selling API data? Is there a plan to purchase Link directly through the company?
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.
Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. Jow Forums hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.
'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have high reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.
The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Ethereum hit. Happy gambling though anons.
Adam Perez
Doesn't answer my questions.
Jayden Hall
(i) Anyone can run a node, you don't need to be connected to API data
(ii)You are fined in your staked link
(iii) This is why the devs hold most of the link for private sale
This is all outlined in the whitepaper
Hudson Brown
1) So node operators share the Link reward with API contributors?
2) Could you elaborate how this process works please?
3) Understood - could SWIFT also play a major role here?
Grayson Myers
because it is just a ridiculous copypasta posted for fun
Let's get back on track...still not sure about 1 & 2
Nolan Thompson
Your questions don't have real answers, because Link cannot work when you put things in the context of real world applications. Any answers to your questions are probably made up on the fly. Good day.
Joseph Howard
I have trouble believing this desu but this inspires doubt as well
Jose James
I dont post it but no one takes that post seriously right? the whole point of that copypasta and many others is that they are over the top and easy to spot as retarded gibberish
Ayden Allen
1. You can run a node with no link and no api data. But your node will be worthless, so you will earn nothing. Sourcing APIs and building adapters, or using one someone else has written will be necessary for your node to be useful.
2. Smart contracts. Trustless. When coded properly, won't be need for humans at all....end goal.
3. Be billed from smartcontract themselves - they will offer a portal to select the data sources you want when building your smart contract, how many nodes, required reputation etc.
Or....something like request would do this job perfectly. You think them and pwc dont know that jenny from accounts wont be on binance buying eth for their smart contracts to run? They will get an invoice and pay it in fiat
Noah Brooks
Thanks for the answers desu.
Lucas Ross
1. You will need API data that is wanted, otherwise your node will be worthless. However, access to API data will become more widespread and entities that control that data try and monetize it.
2. Aggregation is one way to eliminate false data. In a contract with multiple nodes offering the data, an outlying result will be discarded. If you enter a contract and only select 1 node to provide the data, and it comes back with false data, well then that's on you not spreading your risk across multiple nodes. You could still try and get legal compensation outside the smart contract I suppose.....
3. The process for businesses to obtain Link is not confirmed at this point. Obviously they have the method of buying it themselves off exchanges, but the more likely method in the future is that it is done in the background by the smart contract at the time of request. The contract participants will be charged in their local currency, which will be converted into Link and then sent to the node operator.
Josiah Jackson
Excellent #2 makes a lot of sense, #1 still seems like a problem to me.
#3 is interesting.
Landon Price
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.
Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. Jow Forums hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.
'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have high reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.
The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Ethereum hit. Happy gambling though anons.
Jaxson Bailey
#1 isn't really a problem, there's just no use for a node that provides no data. In regards to possibilities for API's opening up, think about the Forex market currently. Bloomberg provides aggregated FX rates based on data fed from multiple banks. Now imagine those banks opened up their FX API's to everyone. Now you could pay for a subscription to Bank of America for the FX API's and use them in your node.
#3 is going to be dependent on how the crypto landscape develops. My vision would be that exchanges become a lot more liquid, and will therefore allow more accessibility for spot purchases of Link tokens. For example, a smart contract receives data from a node and needs to pay the node operator. We know the Link amount at this point. The smart contract executes a spot trade to buy Link on an exchange for USD, and charges the USD amount to the contract participants accounts.
