Ok linkies you have my attention

ok linkies you have my attention

lets say I have a program in development that needs to call 135 different apis

what value does link provide? I don't know why I would pay periodically for something I can build once (and pay once)

Attached: ROtaJb0a_400x400.jpg (350x350, 13K)

>be developer
>use smart contracts
>smart contracts need to communicate with external data
>literally impossible to communicate with external data without oracles
That's literally all it takes. So you would either A) use LINK
B) use another oracle solution
C) use a smart contracts platform that has built-in oracles

>literally impossible to communicate with external data without oracles
ok any explanation to why this is? what is stopping me from calling external apis directly from the contract?

The current state of smart contract platforms like ethereum. Vitalik didn't see fit to include that functionality, for whatever reason.

Why do you need APIs in the first place? You could do even that part another way.

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.

that's because it destroys the goal of creating a decentralized environment.

Op here from different location

Since my data suppliers are centralized, isn't it already compromised? Do I have to wait for data providers to decentralize before I worry about this stuff?

You'd pay to ensure the data from those APIs is trusted (and it won't cost much).

You would take alot of time to build your own decentralized oracle network.

Hosting a centralised solution is generally insecure.

These criteria may not be essential to you, but it is to multimillion dollar contracts. Who btw are willing to pay for the security.

Data providers can provide for many oracle's and oracle's can use many data providers. So you can easily have 20 nodes pulling from 10 data sources. That ensures some reliability and it's completely up to the smart contract provider to include as much decentralization as possible.

how is a hacker going to know that you are only using one data source?

Anyone in my industry would have knowledge of this

You can just use a Intel SGX node then. Then even on the hardware level it cannot be tampered with.

So the hacker would target the data source because it would be easier than targeting your decentralized infrastructure. The data would be corrupted and you would get an insurance payout from the data provider for providing false data.

I'm in chainlink since ICO. I do alot of research myself and study a bachelor's in IT. I've tried to poke a hole in LINK and it's technology. Really the main concern for me is we may still need another 5-10 years for smart contract technology and blockchain to be adopted but I may be wrong as the landscape can change dramatically.

Our main threats are chainlink not delivering a useful Oracle solution.

Sergey taking a shit on the stage.

Smart contracts just use centralised oracle's.

All seem quite unlikely. But not impossible.

Can anyone explain this further?

Like why does ETH refuse to build oracles?

More complex a system is the more ineffective and insecure. Why do that when you can literally program specific use case tokens on the ethereum platform? That's kinda the point of ETH. They build a programmable platform for useful dApps to be developed off.

Sergey said "if you have a existing smart contract platform, you'll provide a tokenization solution, because that's what the platform provides"

That's the game, it's not free money and there's a risk. Everybody else says they understand that, but sometimes it feels that only Linkies really believe it.

There's way too many brainlets on biz. Decentralization is not just about increased security. That's just one of the reasons companies will not only use the chainlink network, but adamantly pushing for it lest they fall behind, as well as others.
>be me.
>have business that wants to use smartcontracts to reduce costs.
>create smartcontract that pulls data from an api and will execute based on the data provided at future time x.
>api data provided by centralized oracle Vitalik'sPoopMachine.
>Vitalik'sPoopMachine gets hacked
>Time x arrives.
>Million dollar smartcontract is now invalid or provided faulty data making it worthless or providing the wrong payout amount.
There are, however, two things at play here. That one relates to hacking. But there's another:
>be me.
>have business that wants to use smartcontracts to reduce costs.
>create smartcontract that pulls data from an api and will execute based on the data provided at future time x.
>api data provided by centralized oracle Vitalik'sPoopMachine.
>Vitalik'sPoopMachine has a fire breakout at the building where their nodes are located (or any other number of unforeseen situations). Centralized oracle goes down.
>Time x arrives.
>Million dollar smartcontract is now invalid and must be nullified.
So the ability to provide 24/7 data input uptime for million and billion dollar self executing contracts is PARAMOUNT. You can't expect to run a true smartcontract economy and rely on centralized points of failure, because the contract will self-execute automatically at a certain time or when certain conditions are meant. A decentralized oracle network like chainlink allows the data to keep flowing regardless of unforeseen circumstances involving data interruptions or other compromising events with regards to a centralized oracle system to put data on the blockchain.

Have you ever seen terminator? This could be the first step not just towards the chainlink singularity but also the one referenced by futurists.

Attached: JSON5.jpg (397x589, 130K)

okay so let me explain it to you guys. We need the network to exist in a way such that any new participant can get up to speed and have access to all past data that brought the network to it's current state. If that data depends on external sources, it isn't guaranteed to exist in... say 10 or 20 days. So you can't verify whether or not the blockchain is correct. Oracles circumvent this "mismatch" by reliably inserting the required data into the blockchain in a mannner that is efficient and trust worthy.

This isn't unique to Ethereum. It's a necessary function of any blockchain.

AMA

an oracle needs to be trustworthy so that it does not bloat the blockchain with usless data. this is why chainlink is needed - it incentives the proper insertion of clean data.

Is the "oracle problem" just one or practicalities, or is there a deeper theoretical basic?

The API economy is only ~$150,000,000 now a days, I'm sure it'll get smaller and smaller especially with PSD2 and 20022 around the corner. What's the DVD market look like now a days, very little competition, best to invest in that.

That's a very good question. Let me explain it this way:

Who runs Ethereum? Individuals who run nodes. Who are these individuals? They could be anyone. And they can join and leave the network at anytime.

Let's say you join the network for the first time. How do you get up to speed with what happened on the network in the past? You need to start from the beginning, and piece by piece, verify each subsequent "chapter in the book of Ethereum". Did this or that transaction truly happen? Why is it valid?

Now, if the smartcontracts that occured in the past were able to reach out to the internet and grab external data, who is to say that someone in the future will have access to the same data? What if the future individual gets a 404 error? We've all gotten 404's and dead URLs before.

This is why all the data neccessary needs to exist in the blockchain. How do we feed the data in to the blockchain in a way that a bad person can't attack the blockchain by "overfeeding" data into the blockchain?

Well we can pay them in LINK NOT to do that, and penalize them if they do.

I never thought about it from a synching angle. Thanks user.

my pleasure. I'm paying it forward.

Ditto. It's never quite clicked for me that Chainlink isn't just a way to enable something, it's way to prevent things also.

explain

you nailed it on the head mate. What differentiates chainlink from other leading oracle services is it's system of preventing bad behavior.

see