Is the Link token really neccesary?

The thing is you don't need a token to have a decentralized network of oracles. Here is how I will do it conceptually:

1. The costumer wants input data and request it to the network with the conditions (collateral, currency, and the number of nodes wanted)
2. The network will receive the request and the node operators will get the notification of a new job being requested. They will put the price for the work and nodes will compete for the job. The lowest the fee the higher chances of getting the job. They can offer more collateral, etc.
3. The customer will chose the nodes. There will be no reputation to make it perfectly decentralized.
4. The network (me) will get a 0.1% of the fees to maintain it a keep the development and make crazy mad gains

Prove me wrong

Attached: singularity.jpg (195x259, 9K)

“Costumer” kek.
3/10 fud pajeet.

dude this is like level 1 fud, we need 10c link please fud harder, please

What's wrong with my method? Do you really think Swift and DocuSign will go to Binance to buy shitcoins?

Hahahaha holy fucking shit OP can you at least for a second PRETEND you understand the whitepaper?

You would know the reputation of Oracles is important if you want high-profile, high-dollar clients on your network

Imagine believing that chink exchanges would be the only route to access the sacred tokens of the 4th industrial revolution

Question is Link really a utility token? Link is here only used for payement nothing more. Does that count as a utility coin?

Serious question

High reputation is a meme in a decentralized enviroment. And big companies will just use private blockchains with known node operators. There is literally no need for reputation and if you say the contrary you clearly don't understand what decentralization is.
>muh coinbase
Never happening

And how will you do the staking you massive pajeet

In Bitcoin or Ethereum

>They will never regulate Crypto to death as Crypto's their perfect pump n dump scheme.

They don't care about money.

They own all of it.

Their central banks controlling countries is more important than anything.

They won't let Crypto destroy Central Banks & Fiat.

Attached: F779064E-914A-411C-AAF4-22CD6F7B4034.jpg (678x381, 74K)

>coinbase
>Imagine believing that Jew exchanges would be the only route to access the sacred tokens of the 4th industrial revolution

Do you really believe there won't be a direct way to exchange fiat for LINK without using a gay crypto exchange?

That's not the point. Even if Link gets a fiat gate the token is a unneccesary step to the network. And the fact that Link needs a reputation system means the node economics are not well though. Just imagine miners having a reputation in Bitcoin.

Are you confirming Chain Link is not decentralized?

imaging thinking your smarter than ari. fucking brainlet

Bitcoin and Chainlink are not the same thing you dumb, stupid faggot. Reputation is important no matter what, but I'm sure you don't care about your reputation. Typical of a NoLinker.

Here's some parting advice you dumb fuck, pick up some LINK right now or be prepared to kill yourself when the singularity hits. Don't fuckin say I didn't warn you.

yes

>muh ary
Not an argument
Bitcoin don't need reputation because the economic incentives are well thought. Node economics are not clear and you need upvotes like reddit phaggots and instagram thots to keep a reasemblance of a system. Fucking lame.

yes for ponzi sheme

Yes, because it counts as a microlicense = utility. We're not there yet though and if regulations will be on our side it will probably become a security. The utility aspect was just for the tokensale

You don't need the Link token, you could have just made an oracle network that uses ETH as node collateral and rewards.
The only reason to have a seperate token is to raise $32 million.

It doesn't matter. They'll destroy crypto.

This was my main concern too, however the collateral argument disproves it to a reasonable degree imo. If the token is too low there is no security in LINK, it needs to be a few billion at least.

This is not true due to the fact LINK is chain agnostic. While it may be an ERC token at the end of the day, it is not really defined by ETH any more than fiat is defined by paper. It justifies having a separate currency as it is independent of any chain.

Dude, you are posting about some imaginary-fictional-useless digital token on a racist nazi wife beating cambodian image boarder.

Take a brake, mate.

wow how dumb are you? you have data coming from unknown sources, how can you know these sources are trustworthy? Imagine setting up a private link network and 2 of your nodes get hijacked, your smart contracts will get fucked.

now imagie using the public network, and ask for 10000 nodes to answer your request, first you'll need to as trustworthy nodes, second, you need to identify the nodes that were hijacked;

aggregation will tae care of the hijacked nodes, by signaling to the reputation system the nodes that didn't answer like the rest of the 9k nodes, these nodes will be punished and the money will be retrieveed by the requester...

it's n absolutely vital part of the network.

chainlink network, is really awsome, because it's basically creating a network of trustable data providers, by keeping them in check with reputation, and by comparing their results with other nodes of the network. if one of the nodes misbehaves, then its links will be taken as kind of ticket, just like with "speeding ticket" when you dont respect the law.

Even if that's the case, could haves don't mean shit mate. What matters is what is and what will be.

The fact is if your smart contracts are on a public blockchain, you must use LINK directly / indirectly. It's as simple as that.

brainlet the collateral can be in whatever currency and using the LINK network it connects that input to the contract

What a moron, you have no clue. Customers pay in fiat, nodes are rewarded in Link.