How does Chainlink prevent sybil attacks?

DELET

seriously

Attached: Untitled.png (625x939, 236K)

link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper
and here you can see how they planned to solve it with SGX or other trusted hardware (which currently don't exist)

it's section 6 of the WP, use ctrl+f Sybil to find where they address this problem and how they plan to solve it with enclaves

Fuck. I just sold

Linkies btfo

It can't. Anyone who is invested in Link has been hoodwinking newbs into buying so they can cash it. It's an immoral scam. Shame on you Linktards.

Multiple data sources , SGX, Town Crier, Oasis, Private paid APIs. multiple oracles pulling requests, as long as its decentralized enough it won't be possible to sybil attack. I'll be running several nodes myself.

Attached: 1518209605213.jpg (600x600, 499K)

This is a major problem for chainlink, and it's why I haven't gone all in. I think a small stack is justified, but anything over a few thousand link right now is asking to get JUST'd.

Attached: froggie7.jpg (575x432, 25K)

>Multiple data sources
data sources for financial agreements are centralized
SGX is compromised
>town crier
it leverages SGX which is fucked
>multiple oracles pulling requests
same problem, data cources are centralized

>as long as its decentralized enough it won't be possible to sybil attack. I'll be running several nodes myself.

maybe in 2030
also the dev team has said multiple times that the point is to have one node per oracle
so you can get plenty of APIs to connect but still would be done through one node per person

if not i could "mirror" my own answers and people looking to have 50 oracles to have one data will get 25 oracles form the same person and 25 oracles form a diffeent perosn, that might be getting the data form the same source...
finding this shit out was pretty sad to me, had to sell a shitload of LINK which took me a really long time, but now I only swing trade with bitcoin and ethereuma nd make gains everyday instead of waiting to become a rich neet off of 1 investment...

gl though

You forgot to fud oasis

What does SGX have to do with:

“A reputation system's vulnerability to a Sybil attack depends on how cheaply identities can be generated.”

Kek. If you believe you’ll get a greater payout by building up reputation and then destroying it, you’re a fucking moron.

One way is by contracts requiring nodes to stake link. Pulling off a successful attack would require having enough nodes with which you've generated enough reputation to be selected to have 50% randomly selected. Then you'd have to forfeit all of the link you staked, which depending on how much the contract required could be very substantial, which is why i think each job will require a lot of link to be staked, and take a lot of link off the market for the length of the contract. Remember too, each job will require its own pool of staked tokens, meaning there will be a ton not being actively traded.

There are other methods, but losing a ton of money is a huge disincentive to be dishonest.

>he didn't read the whitepaper

Attached: Untitled.png (1512x924, 232K)

>it intends to use SGX but as we all know SGX is vulnerable to attacks
So is literally everything that ever existed.

You idiots know spectre was patched like a day after this was discovered, right?
And that was in march..

the real problem with relying on sgx is that it makes multiple node redundant.
I guess that's why >also the dev team has said multiple times that the point is to have one node per oracle
which unfortunately absolutely destroys the value of link tokens

That's the beautiful part. Chainlink is useful even in it's shittiest most limited incarnation.
Reputation contracts are created by independent 3rd party vendors, so you could have a reputation contract that certifies a particular oracle has "microsoft approval" or some shit and only use those ones if you want. Sybil can go fuck herself.
It's literally failure proof.

First of all you’d need to wait for the network to be useful and build reputation from the start. If LINK gets to multiple of billions (which it will), you’d basically have built up a reputation which is more profitable than trying to take control of the network. You just can’t win. Also you’d need to have a reputation comparable to a publicly known enterprise, which won’t happen. You’d need to be an enterprise level actor to do anything to the network. But as an enterprise level actor you’d profit more by using smartcontracts.

Wwwhattt is ennn ...cccc..lavess

>Person who wants to sybil attack: "I am going to sybil attack"

>Chainlink: "no"

Get it?

Attached: sergey bubble bass.png (599x596, 248K)

>A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit

why the fuck can't you use a dictionary, and then figure out context

>Sybil can go fuck herself
this made me laugh harder than it should

Et tu, Sergey?

Good question

Weveyone telling you to read the White paper is sort of making the point: right now for the foreseeable future link will be working directly with companies and so will not be really decentealized enough to suffer a sybil attack

Long term they'll think of something

This. Ethereum needs to fail for the token itself to fail

How does pajeet prevent toilet attacks?

Attached: notpajeet.jpg (580x434, 25K)

>Ethereum needs to fail for the token itself to fail
What do you mean/