I want to buy link but do not understand one question and everywhere I look they just say "it is because of the way decentralization is set up"...my question is why cant blockchains access data outside their network? Does anyone have a real technical answer for this?
In this video sergey himself states "you should look into it but for the sake of this talk we are going to assume that blockchains can not talk to external data feeds"...but why?
Most blockchains can use thei own oracles, its such a mundane low level thing that they dont do it till the actualy paltform is complete. its like buying bread before you have a toaster.
Liam Clark
>We differentiate between software oracles, hardware oracles, consensus oracles and inbound and outbound oracles. what type of oracle is chainlink?
David Phillips
The gay one
Blake Morgan
look man just buy the coin it doesnt have to make sense
Christian Hughes
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.
Colton Scott
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a sanitation company in India, I do a lot of excrement removal type work. Open sewage, communal squatting bowls, public urine walls, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like the toilet, if the westernized bathroom space had more value over a traditional shitting street. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of the toilet than the very design itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Indians won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their bowel movements through a toilet.
Lincoln Russell
It's about trusting that the information fed to the chain is accurate. Link network acts as the middleware to ensure that smart contracts are securely and correctly executed. Reporting an incorrect json key-value pair is easy to do, but link makes it so that there is no financial incentive to do so. Reputation and trust are the features that prevent malicious manipulation of data from being accepted as truth on the holochain.
Lincoln Cooper
is it because if a blockchain which is tamper proof connects to an oracle is creates a central point of failure and defeats the entire purpose of having a blockchain in the first place? is there a better way of wording that ?
Anthony Watson
Because they aren't trusting one source for verification moron.
Xavier Phillips
I'm not an expert, but the crux of the matter is that blockchain are closed ecosystems, which are easily able to achieve consensus, because they're only dealing with one thing, that state of the blockchain. It's mathematically easy to do. But consensus is harder to achieve with data outside of the chain.
It's actually kind of difficult to implement oracles. Ethereum doesn't have them built in on principle (look up the fourth design principle of ethereum), so link or a similar project is necessary for ethereum. There's a lot of talk of other platforms making their own. Iota and aeternity have plans for built in oracles. There are others I don't remember, I think. But the problem is that essentially, you have to do something like links approach, using a consensus and reputation based system. Otherwise you're trusting a centralised source again, defeating the point of blockchain, security through decentralisation.
One point in links favour is that no one else is making a blockchain agnostic, generalised oracle. If it takes off, no project needs to make their own, just use link.
Chase Clark
windows 95 microsoft paint novice here. i took a look at the LINK code, confirm it is very poor. don't buy it
Asher Turner
>it is not hard to understand. If they can look outside, consensus (i.e. which blocks are deemed valid) is unobtainable because other nodes might access the same data/URL but receive different data. So the data source can split the chain at will if it gives out conflicting data to different nodes. >Being able to split the chain makes it easily attackable with less hash/PoS power. (Just for it again, and again, and again) is this correct ?
Austin Reyes
fucking KEK
Daniel Perry
You are a MANIAC
Chase Scott
>It is always due to the nature of the blockchain is the only answer I can find.
why are you not satisfied with this answer? That is the answer you seek.
Let me explain in brainlet neet terms: You are playing World of warcraft. You want to trade your world of Warcraft in game gold for real life chicken tenders you can eat. Oh look you cant trade your world of warcraft gold for chicken tenders because the game world of warcraft has no native function on trading in game gold for real life chicken tenders.
Aiden Miller
Well WoW could just make this feature themselves brainlet why would they use Link
Kevin Morales
because the value in this tech comes from the network behind it.
>why doesnt someone just copy paste Ethereum
Jose Garcia
they are not making Ethereum brainlet I'm saying they are making Link it is different and they easily could OR they could just use Link differently and make the profits
Michael Fisher
>I'm saying they are making Link it is different and they easily could
No, youre an idiot and its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you realize, even for a second, how stupid you sound? Even just the slightest of realization? No of course not.
I know exactly what you are saying. I understand perfectly, its not difficult to understand brainlets attempting his first FUD, but you seem to have a hard time writing simple English so I will re-write what you said in more easily understandable terms:
>Why would a company use a middle ware like LINK when they could easily recreate their own middle ware and us that?
Lincoln Davis
I accidently hit Enter so this is a cont from above:
Do you not realize how stupid you sound saying that? Its like me asking
>why don't airline companies buy oil fields instead of buying oil? >why doesn't a restaurant grow its own food and domesticate its own animals instead of buying food?
These relationships are seen all throughout the financial world and if i have to spell it out for you I will: IT TAKES TOO MUCH TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT FOR A COMPANY TO SOURCE EVERYTHING AND THEY ARE MORE THEN HAPPY TO PAY FOR A SERVICE IN ORDER TO KEEP THEIR PROFITS.
now Fuck off and consider yourself lucky I took the time and sat here and spoon fed you.
wow could simply make an API for it and connect this API via LINK to bank accounts in all kinds of different banks and 3rd party banking apps. it would be easier to do that than to program the whole thing from the ground up and beg SWIFT to make wow interoperable with wow ingame marketplaces.
*and beg SWIFT to make ISO20022 interoperable with wow ingame marketplaces.
Jonathan Jenkins
Umm I bet there was some airlines that bought oil fields because PEOPLE own both and you don't know what an investor might own! Think of Trump and all the investments he has, it's not like the hotels are a person.
If it was easier for the company to just do it and make it like I said then that's what they would do, not sure how u dont understand that.
It would be easier to do maybe but you're forgetting about open source. ISO20022 doesn't really matter
Tyler Moore
Finally, someone here speaks English.
Owen Ortiz
In short because smart contracts execute in a deterministic manner. If its receives an input it *will* execute.
Therefore the security of the external data is of vital importance if smart contracts are to be adopted. This is Chainlink's focus: to decentralise the external data using the same logic as that of the blockchain.
Owen Gray
OK genius I have a great idea for you, Instead of a company advertising its product on Twitter, they can make their own Twitter and advertise it there. Social Media is worth billions of dollars so its a fail proof plan right? No of course not, because the value in twitter comes behind the amount of users the network has generated.
This is especially true when talking about DECENTRALIZED markets. Do you even have the basic understanding of decentralization? I dont think you do because you wouldnt be saying such stupid shit about it.
yea, a company could make its own version of LINK oh but the network they have made wouldn't be worth fuck all because they wouldn't have even the fraction of nodes that LINK would have. This is true across all markets, and ESPECIALLY true when talking about a decentralized service (one that needs a network of nodes to adequately function)
Now please stop replying and embarrassing yourself.
Liam Rivera
I agree bro couldn't have said it any better.
If they made the Link network then we would of course be talking about the same network! I'm not talking about them making a different network in any way, I'm saying they make it the exact same, so it would be decentralized!
Advertising is different man, no product.
Ayden Butler
>I'm not talking about them making a different network in any way, I'm saying they make it the exact same, so it would be decentralized!
I literally cant be fucked to explain anything else to you. You have no idea what you are talking about and its glaringly obvious.
What if I told you u fell for me pretending to be a brainlet?
Michael Morgan
>huuur I was only pretending to be retarded! XD
William Stewart
>jokes on them i was only pretending
Joseph Wright
This is what I was doing though.
Dylan Gutierrez
I am in grad school. I have the top marks in my class.
Ryder Jenkins
did anyone answer my question ? 33 yr boomer trying to figure out if i should gamble my life savings of 103k USD on LINK
Brayden Jenkins
See:
Aaron Walker
What do you mean? It's been answer like 5 times all in different ways? What answer would you like to see? Is that what you want, for someone to answer it exactly how you like? You aren't satisfied with it despite it being answered throughout this thread. A smart contract has no way of communicating with data outside of the blockchain. Why? Because currently smart contracts are a native function of its residing blockchain and has no current way of grabbing data outside of its blockchain. There's now way to do it, unless you use an oracle middleware like ChainLink.
Landon Cox
fetch thy royal crayons and doodle him a diorama of the network connections for paul walker and his assassination by eric holder interlinked within cells
Ryan Torres
Spend like 10k on link dont be a retard and use all 100k of it
I don't get it. How does he not understand. It's like a retard walks up to some and ask why cars can't fly, you tell him cars can't fly because they have no way of doing so, and the retard still asks "yea ok but why can't cars fly?"
Joseph Diaz
Yeah dude totally, it's not like the APIs are completely centralized. I'm getting sick of the discord shills. Fuck outta my board and back to your shithole.
Eli Watson
>why cant blockchains access data outside their network
Because the data is not generated in the network.
Imagine you have a network of computers. These computers all talk to each other, but suppose none of the computers have a thermometer connected to them. Because none of the computers have a thermometer, the temperature (a kind of data) is not accessible. In order to bring the temperature data into the network, one of the computers needs to have a thermometer connected to it.
The way blockchain works is that all of the computers in the network read the same data. So in order to include temperature into the blockchain, every single computer would need to be independently connected to a thermometer. This wouldn't work of course because these computers are all over the world and couldn't possibly connect to the thermometer independently from each other. What you need is one computer which reads the temperature from the thermometer and then communicates that information to all of the other computers. This is called an oracle. It introduces new data into the blockchain which all of the other computers in the blockchain read.
