I signed up at kaleido.io

LINK token is 100% necessary for the oracles to work, even private blockchains, because of the TransferAndCall function the token has.

>but I have the intuition that you won't need too many more nodes than that to provide adequate security for a particular contract. What do you anons think?

Obviously it will vary from user to user. The higher value the smart contract is dealing with, the more nodes you will want to use. That is all we can say. You might want hundreds of nodes if the risk is that high.

What makes you think a company is going to demand a higher degree of decentralization and tamper-resistance in their input/output systems than in their infrastructure that executes their smart contracts?

If a company is willing to use a consortium chain, they're probably willing to use a consortium oracle.

If you have ten companies contributing their own nodes to a private ethereum chain, what makes you think they won't also contribute their own chainlink nodes to that chain?

They trust a majority of the other members to execute contracts correctly but not to fetch data correctly?

>If you have ten companies contributing their own nodes to a private ethereum chain, what makes you think they won't also contribute their own chainlink nodes to that chain?
Dude it doesn't matter. They have to use the LINK token. See: Some will want private, some will want public. Some will want less decentralization and some will want fully decentralized oracles to protect from all the risks of centralized oracles. Chainlink offers it all and all of it requires the LINK token.

no they wont
try it out and you see that you get your own eth chain that is nothing to do with mainnet

Chainlink isn't on mainnet you retard. See: You can't use the network without the LINK token - it won't work without the token's functionality.

Look at the work that is being done on legality of smart contracts and the standards around them. It is looking like decentralization end to end is going to be a requirement, or at least part of the agreed upon standard for digital agreements, including oracles.

This.

Collateral has to have monetary value to encourage honest behaviour. Collateral must be represented in the form of link tokens in the Chainlink network. That's all there is to it.

TRANSFER AND CALL
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

yup, the whole point is it being temper proof and trustless-_- ffs, if you make your own fucking oracle whats the point of decentralization? OP is so fkin retarded srly

>Remember: Never fund addresses that you are using in your private chain with public main-net ETH or LINK tokens.

the token will just be deployed on whatever chain

This
Look at the recent documents that came out of the US commodity futures trading commission.

cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7847-18

They highlight all the problems with oracles - all of them are solved through decentralization.

If centralized oracles were sufficient, smart contracts would already be widely adopted. They aren't. Literally hundreds of teams are waiting for LINK mainnet.

kek this has been known for months.

> I am getting worried, though

wake up. enterprises are not going to use some basement dev's mainnet, that's not how the think. they use their own controlled solutions, like managed private eth.

do you bizlets REALLY keep imagining this?

> enterprise IT guy to enterprise middle mananger: "we need to migrate to blockchain. I enable oracle data feeds".
> manager: "ok, lemme look at your plan for the project and budget assessment ... okay, it says here that to complete this project you need to buy something off neets on a chink exchange. is this correct?"
> IT guy: "y-yes"

Because it's still on testnet you idiot.

Do you not understand TransferAndCall?

Reminder.

How Chainlink solves the Oracle risks that are presented in LabCFTC primer on Smart Contracts.

cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718.pdf

Let's think about this step by step.

>Oracle failure, disruption, or other issues with the external sources
Use multiple nodes with multiple data source

>An attacker may compromise the oracle
Again, decentralization solves this

>Oracles may accept or distribute unexpected information
Again decentralized oracles solve this

>Oracles may be subject to manipulation or themselves fraudulent, resulting in unexpected, fraudulent outcomes
This is where the penalty/reward system comes in

Yeah, Link is standart. CFTC is clearly been in touch with Sergey.

Attached: IMG_20181128_111721.png (1080x1791, 621K)

they will have to get trustless data to their private chains, from there they will have to see if the security of private chains is gud enuf. so link be link

they dont need alot of nodes, until lack of decentralisation fucks shit up big time for somebody. it will always be about perception

I wrote the "fud" being copied and pasted in this thread.

It's not intentional fud.

I'm not a blockchain dev but I am a software engineer and I write shitty boring internal business tools at a FANG company, so I'm a little bit tech savvy. got over 250k link but it seems reasonable to me that if you're willing to accept insecure faux-decentralized consortium chains, you probably don't understand the need for a decentralized oracle network either

People posting this again as "fud" might be surprised if I end up being right and the biggest companies end up being clueless for the next few years

>250k link
fuck you, you don't have that much

>forcing the shadowfork meme again

They're talking about the testnet tokens you absolute moron.

Kaleido connects to the public ETH blockchain, using anything but actual ETH wouldn't work.
Same with the eventual Chainlink mainnet.

>if you're willing to accept insecure faux-decentralized consortium chains, you probably don't understand the need for a decentralized oracle network either
Actual decentralization allows for all kinds of usage forms.
From permissioned to permissionless, from decentralized to centralized, from ready-made to customized, ...

If you think Kaleido isn't good news for Chainlink because of "muh private blockchains", then where have you been all last year when Swift (which uses Hyperledger Fabric) was universally considered good news for Chainlink?

You're a brainlet.

you're absolutely right user, but the average level of understanding on Jow Forums is too low to accept that.

you can, and I do, simultaneously acknowledge there is enough interest in using public chains for chainlink to be huge, but the fact is kaleido is for deploying permissioned chains that will not use our tokens, and the reality is at the moment most actual businesses are interested in private chains, that may use chainlink, but not with nodes you or I can run. I definitely see that changing, and it will be good for link in the same way Ripple's non XRP products pump ripple's price, but there's a lot of misunderstanding relating to private chains and chainlink on this board.

exactly right, this user get's it.

private chains using chainlink in the short term are not fud at all. they were never going to use a public chain so it's not like they're taking business away, and chainlink will benefit from the exposure and their contributions to the code.

there's enough crypto projects and companies using the public chain to still be really bullish, but there's no reason to lie to delude yourself about kaleido and even swift and hyperledger.

>hey look I never heard about kaleido but since they talk about my meme coin I will sign up and act like I know my shit XD

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN
OP YOU ARE A FUCKING FOO FAGGOT

>but there's a lot of misunderstanding relating to private chains and chainlink on this board.
Yeah, with you being a prime example.

Not to mention the fact that peer-to-peer smart contracts may very well supplant the very institutions (banks, insurance companies, ...) that use these private chains.

look up dunning kruger

exactly.

honestly I think not understanding that this is the long hard slog that's going to make ether and chainlink incredibly valuable is the problem on this board. I think assblaster made people think all these companies you know and love are going to start using the public ethereum chain as soon as chainlink launches, but there's literally no evidence for this. I wish it were wrong, but the number of existing financial and insurance corporations who've expressed interest in public chains over private one's is minuscule, AXA Fizzy being the main example.

THEY CAN JUST CREATE THE SAME TOKEN ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE CHAIN
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

>shadowfork
Fucking nonsense

CHAINLINK BTFO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

based.

it's pointless user. the level of understanding on this board is on average too low and there's just too much deluded hope in metaphorically winning the lottery, to even understand that it's not fud.

if anyone really wants to see the light, go ask thomas if your node could accept jobs and receive payment in link tokens from jobs on Hyperledger or private Ethereum chains. We can clear this up real quickly.

Of course it could if the permissioned network node wants it.

Yes. My friends bought btc under 10usd and I told them I'm not giving 10 dollars for that shit I just forked it. Im still sitting on my 3M bitcoins to this day. Just wait until binance bank adds fork support (this is confirmed by America)

Did you save this from the “concerned” user yesterday or has this copypasta been around for a long time?

sure, if you're able to run a full node on their network, which is not the case for the general public for most permissioned chains. I'm sure there might be some cases where you could be allowed to, but I doubt that will be very common.

No, the permissioned network node simply has to sign the oracle computations.

You wouldn't even be allowed on these chains. Think about it.

okay but do you really think companies or a consortium of companies that have agreed to use a private chain would then want to turn around and use public chainlink nodes?

> hurrr hurrr let's completely fuck up our network's collateral system for contracts and reputation by allowing private forks of chainlink
Fudders think this is the kind of thing which is worth posting. So well-thought out and intelligent - I'm glad we have these intellectual titans to really raise the bar on this board.

that's the point

at best he'd give an answer like this which is possible but not plausible, given the business choice of using a permissioned chain in the first place.

Probably not. They're trying to force the private blockchain meme for a reason.

Internal financial institution data is already becoming more and more publicly available though. Laws like the EU's PSD2 are making that happen.

It doesn’t matter if they want to use their own nodes... They still have to use the LINK token because of the TransferAndCall function it has.

>Internal financial institution data is already becoming more and more publicly available though. Laws like the EU's PSD2 are making that happen.

go ask thomas then

right, and that goes back to your point of the real promise of chainlink and ethereum being supplanting what exists now, or perhaps on the longer term making the companies that have expressed interest in quorum or hyperledger switch to the public ethereum chain.

right, but not the tokens you and I have. i guess you bring up a good point. hyperledger has no native cryptocurrency, but if a hyperledger chain used chainlink, they would need to use their own versions of the chainlink token to use the network on their chain; however those are emphatically NOT the tokens you and I hold.

>right, and that goes back to your point of the real promise of chainlink and ethereum being supplanting what exists now, or perhaps on the longer term making the companies that have expressed interest in quorum or hyperledger switch to the public ethereum chain.
Yup.

Private blockchains are stupid btw for a variety of reasons.
Starting with coindesk.com/ibm-blockchain-maersk-shipping-struggling/

One day they'll learn why "trustless" is a key word in the whole decentralization thing.

They don't need to fork the token. They have their own chain, they can use their own contacts. Gas saving isn't even important since it's not a public chain.

> go ask thomas
Isn't an argument
He has never claimed anything like this - go get some screens of him saying that they had essentially invalidated reputation / collateral by allowing private forks. But you won't - because you're just invoking his name as part of yet another shitty attempt at fudding and have nothing to actually back up what you're saying. You fucked up your trades and thought link would go lower - we get it. Making profit with that kind of thing isn't for retards like you so you had better just hodl desu.

Private blockchains have their place, immutable ledgers with event driven self executing logic, once you have more than 1 party involved, you should be looking for trustless and therefore public

Hyperledger is a protocol, the permissioned chains themselves are the implementation. You'd have the same problem with any permissioned chain regardless of its protocol. None of them need tokens to operate.

>hyperledger has no native cryptocurrency, but if a hyperledger chain used chainlink, they would need to use their own versions of the chainlink token to use the network on their chain; however those are emphatically NOT the tokens you and I hold.

This is just nonsense. Chainlink is blockchain agnostic and works with all blockchains via external adapters.

Attached: Screenshot_20181130-000034_Telegram.jpg (809x1765, 459K)

>will not use the current Link token since it's a permissioned chain and not main-net
That doesn't make any sense.
The underlying blockchain has nothing to do with how the Chainlink node works.

okay I think I understand. so your saying since transferandcall is mostly a gas saving measure, and the chainlink protocol would work fine without making the one transaction tranferandcall allows allows (and rather just make two transactions), on a private chain they wouldn't have to be bothered with that and thus wouldn't use their own version of the tokens and just use the chainlink protocol without them?

Go tell jonny he is wrong

like ships sailing in the night user, reread the thread and try again.

Explain dis?
I think he means Rinkby testnet tokens.

kek

Just the "it's a permissioned chain and not main-net" part makes no sense.

"Permissioned chain" implies the private blockchain that requires oracle data, and "main-net" implies the completed Chainlink node network.

To say the former is not the latter is so obvious that it makes no sense at all.

he's not. I'm glad at least Jonny might get through to some of you.

Maybe go read it again

>Just the "it's a permissioned chain and not main-net" part makes no sense.
I mean it makes the least sense.

Well that would explain the apparent lack of sense of that post.

no by main-net there he means the ethereum main net, where the LINK token contract is that is all of the tokens we not.

Im agreeing with you. Kaleido is for building private chains, ie not eth mainnet, so not chainlink mainnet

*all of the tokens we have

Well that changes things lol.

Still, Chainlink nodes work on all kinds of blockchains and DLTs with the erc token all the same.

Still waiting for proof of Jonny actually saying anything like this. Go on faggot - go get some proof to back up your retarded claims.

That’s not helpful user.
Wtf is going on here.
I thought chainlink nodes used the link token on all blockchains including private and permissionless because it is blockchain agnostic. If they want a centralised oracle for their private chain, why is this a problem? How can the oracle provide data for the smart contract without the token? I thought the token was fundamental.

could all the private chains use public chain to communicate and settle things? so that eth becomes the interoperability chain

Are you kidding? you may not like it, but that's literally exactly what jonny is saying here please go ask him or thomas for more info, and not just people circle jerking in your discord who also don't know what they're talking about.

Literally a screenshot from Linkpool telegram above

>I thought chainlink nodes used the link token on all blockchains including private and permissionless because it is blockchain agnostic.
This is all true, but you can still change things any way you want.
Same way you can fork Bitcoin yourself and use that any way you want.

This does reduce or even kill the decentralization, but that's part of decentralization: the option to not be decentralized.

The token is fundamental for the network, not for a single oracle node.

In this case it is essentially like running a single node chainlink. Which for a permissioned chain, is probably acceptable as their is already inherent trust

And again absolutely no actual proof. Are you going to keep btfoing yourselves? Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed?

Why would they fork it when they can just use the LINK tokens that already exist?

You're only fooling people who cbf scrolling up, why bother

>I can only use rinkeby testnet on my test blockchain
>I'm running a ChainLink node on rinkeby testnet
>I use rinkeby eth for gas on rinkeby testnet
>>Why can't I put real LINK on my Chainlink node that is running on rinkeby testnet?

You're a fucking retard.
KYS.

Attached: 1542741230477.jpg (776x635, 36K)

I don't know, and I don't know that this is what they're actually doing.
Contrary to what that Jonny post implies, being on a private blockchain does not automatically mean they aren't using the legit Chainlink network.

> j-just scroll up
To nothing. The fact that you refuse to post proof really does say a lot about your "message."
Lol, pathetic.

...

>Private blockchains have their place
>immutable ledgers with event driven self executing logic, once you have more than 1 party involved, you should be looking for trustless and therefore public

This is contradictory.
The definition of a blockchain pretty much is "an immutable ledger with event-driven, self-executing logic with more than 1 party involved".

A deleted post? Wew ya sure showed me lad

Top kek.
That guys fucking dumb.
So much stupidity in this particular thread.

>Lemme break it down for the dumm dumms.
You have a software solution that would benefit from blockchain.
(Most solutions don't fit blockchain, but do it cause it's 'neat')
Let's pretend that you have a piece of shitware that allows people to buy fresh organic maymay screen printed t-shirts.

>Yo, I want a t-shirt. Print this maymay on a blue, medium, shirt. You submit the order of $25 for the fresh maymay shirt.
××
Company receives the order on their website and sends order request to t-shirt making slope shop
÷÷
>Slope shop receives order and makes a blue medium shirt then ships it to silk screen machine running gooks
××÷÷
Gooks and you can see the correct color shirt is shipped and follow it in transit until it is delivered. Upon delivery the chinks get paid for building a t-shirt.
××÷÷
>Gooks spend 3 minutes silk screening a clothed frog shitting and pissing himself with the words 'pee pee poo poo' under him. They box up your shit and ship it to you.
××÷÷
Once again everyone can see the package in transit because it's 2020 and this is has been available for a decade. You receive your shirt.
××÷÷
>Upon delivery all unpaid parties are paid with the $25 that was held in escrow.
÷÷

×× = public chain
÷÷ = private chain
××÷÷ = both

Attached: 1542288397498.jpg (1000x1000, 185K)

Oh shit, you're actually retard
I'm sorry

Lmao there are literally shadowforks of Link. We are so fucked in the near term.