Chainlink node

im pretty sure yes.

>, but what will be released by the CL team when the time is right

Pardon? I will say I want trust CLCG, I sent one of their executive's contact info to the founder of a data provider I used to work for. So I am rooting for them, if only to protect my own hide.

This is pretty cool and I think would bring CL a lot closer to what I envisioned it being the first time I heard about it. I thought a node operator basically received a job to retrieve a certain piece of data from an API defined in the job request, rather than being locked down to a single API and smart contracts only picking you if you provided exactly the data they wanted.

I feel like with the honeycomb system you could basically just be a node that is plugged into Honeycomb, and then you can retrieve any data from any API that honeycomb is subscribed to. So instead of just delivering live data on some incredibly niche API item like the temperature in Bangkok or whatever, you are suddenly able to service a vast multitude of smart contract with any kind of data they'd like to receive.

I guess my only issue would be, if honeycomb is an aggregator of subscription APIs and a ton of chainlink nodes are routed through it, then it would become another centralized point of failure in the system.

>CLC group
AKA "gay discord gang"

Interesting as fuck. Our first glimpse of the 3rd party identity and node listing marketplace.
I am so fucking intrigued as to how this is all going to work. On the one hand you have this company running Nodary, Node IDs to ensure that every node is independent and running without collusion.
Then on the other hand you have LinkPool with their intended fuck ton of nodes, and now their direct links with the CL team.
There are so many possible outcomes at this point it's impossible to even guess how this is going to look upon deployment.

Please give us some hints here. I've been assuming that something like this, but very professiinal quality would be in the team's pipeline. Is that an accurate assumption?

Chainlink nodes are not locked down to a single API. Where did you hear that? I think Honeycomb's centralization would only be a problem if a majority of the nodes use it. There could be competition eventually if the business model works.

>executive's
they started from a group on Jow Forums FYI
professionals, but anons

contact the chainlink team. they are all about developing partnerships with data providers.
going to the source is always better

The real value-add here is the creating of all the external adapters and the nodary verifying. Much needed service, hopefully competitors will print up too. Thomas reviewed the whitepaper so that’s a good sign.

Once everything is up and running I will personally pay one of you nerds to come to my house and show me how to set up a node

pop an addy and read the whitepaper nigger

If chainlink essentially becomes a ubiquitous plugin middle ware or even semi ubiquitous, what exactly is the case for it having such a high value? Why does link somehow become the sum total over centralized services utilizing it?

Not fudding, I just dont understand the high value case for link tokens

Shut up j3B, bOg is speaking.

Attached: 1548221441223.png (774x667, 285K)

The problem I have with this is:
Node operators are still a single point of failure. Smart contract developers can switch to another node operator they trust more, but the point of the whole blockchain space is to remove trust - make operations "trustless" where the concern is automated entirely, so they need not pick.
The second you introduce that choice, you are no better than DocuSign, centralized SSL cert registries, domain providers, and so-on.

What would be more clever is a way to make operations redundant on a random 51% of node operators, so all of them split the fee, and all of them contribute to consensus automatically.
You know, like the roots of blockchain tech in the first place.

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 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 Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

Your saying their service is effectively redundant?

How many adapters do you think the team has written?

Can we assume previously written adapters are signs of integration/partnerships/whitelabels?

Just like Coinbase’s new acquisition, spring-something

>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 reputation
This, exactly. ChainLINK would benefit from finding a way around the reputation system, and ACTUALLY doing some automated distributed consensus via cryptography. This is the only quality that has convinced institutions to trust Bitcoin after all these years. There is no rep system - the magic is in the mechanics that cause the network as a whole to be fiscally incentivized to keep itself honest and robust.

>Your saying their service is effectively redundant?
not redundant, it will have its place, just saying don't think its something cutting edge that the team hasn't planned and designed for

>How many adapters do you think the team has written?
I'd suggest there are many chainlinks that will be ready to go even day 1 or at least in the very early days of the network. there are many customers using single oracle nodes

>Can we assume previously written adapters are signs of integration/partnerships/whitelabels?
would be an assumption, but i would think so. why do work that isn't required when there is required work to be done

like i said, only my comments as a data provider, and the discussions we've had with the team in regards to that. they are still pretty tight lipped on the who's, but there is confidence in the way they communicate. if you have a legitimate use case, contact the team, have a conversation with Dan

>This is the only quality that has convinced institutions to trust Bitcoin after all these years.
kek, all that institutional trust in bitcoin.
10 years and no network use

>fiscally incentivized
like the token
staking collateral
and reputation

go read the whitepaper on the reputation metrics. it comes from on-chain data from contracts, not jonny sitting there saying "this guy is alright"

>there are many customers using single oracle nodes
Lame

>fiscally incentivized
I'm talking infrastructure, here, not just the incentive for participating.
Bitcoin works because Satoshi cleverly aligned incentives such that if you assume your opponent to act in their best interest, they will always choose to aid the network rather than harm it, because the compute power necessary would be more profitably spent mining, and so-on. Incentivization structures for robustness of the network is different from just rewards.
Also, see The second you have a list of most reputable nodes, and combine that with the choice of running your call on a single one of them, you have centralization. It would be better to blindly choose nodes with no strikes, and have all of them reach consensus on oracle data, rather than try to figure out which ones do it better and have your clients pick one.
What happens if a node acquires a clean reputation so they could wait for a mission-critical operation to come from some big client, and act maliciously at that time? Yeah the network will weed it out, but at that point the damage is done.

ChainLink tokens need to be locked up in nodes as collateral so there's an inventive to not lie or cheat. The marketcap of ChainLink need to be at least the size of all collateral required at any given time in the nework.

Tldr
Inelastic demand as you need to pay nodes in link token
Shrinking supply and unmotivated sellers due to people locking up ChainLink in nodes

Hope this helps

>the choice of running your call on a single one of them, you have centralization.

this is literally what Sergey has talked about the last few talks if you have listened. what amount of decentralization is wanted by customers, and what is it worth to them.
I think maybe the Web3 talk, he said something like this is the next thing we will learn, or the next part of our thesis. i forget the wording

remember this isnt a blockchain, this is blockchain middleware.
they are allowing you to chose the level of security, decentralization, and reputation your project needs, at a market price.
people will chose more if they see fit. but some shitty contracts wont need everything you are talking about, and the CL network will be flexible enough to cater to all these different use cases

t. singularity

Nah. You’d want the smart contract to have that type of security itself but the middleware should be flexible. You are already paying a premium for decentralization that will change.

Damn, you really know your shit!
I appreciate the research you've put into this, and thank you for sharing it. I hope others seriously consider your warning.

Attached: 1530842412734.png (1920x1080, 201K)

This is my favorite pasta of all time

I see what you're getting at, but the responsibility of securing oracle data should lie outside the smart contract.
The smart contract theoretically cannot verify non-deterministic data, which is why off-SC infrastructure must be built to provide SC's with data they don't have to verify. That infrastructure is what we now call Oracles, and all other middleware that brokers between the API and the SC, such as ChainLink.
It must be the responsibility of this infrastructure as a whole to figure out what outside data is true to reality, and feed only the true data to the contract. Otherwise there is no point, and you might as well stick with SC developers standing up a centralized scheduled task on a cheap server that posts transactions for them regularly.

Theyre hiring at witnet, maybe you should go pass on all this sage wisdom

Attached: 1548766874655.jpg (1000x1000, 69K)

1K eoy

you obviously dont understand what the Oracle Problem actually is, and therefore dont understand what oracles are there to do.

It's going to be YUGE

If Jow Forums has changed the working definition of the oracle problem, then Jow Forums is as usual moving in the direction opposite of value.
What's valuable is not getting my centralized API data on-chain - Any company or individual can do that easily. What's valuable is the end-goal of quantifying and translating reality into a trustless network so we can eliminate corruption and attack from the equation of agency in societal functions.
Re-specifying the problem so it's a non-problem then solving that non-problem so you can pat yourself on the back is laziness.

Note: I don't mean to imply that Chainlink is not valuable - Middleware is great, and I understand that Chainlink isn't attempting to solve the oracle problem - Don't be contrarian and move the goal posts of the oracle problem for the sole purpose of countering me just because you assumed I was FUDing LINK, because that adds unnecessary noise to the direction on the space which is a detriment to us all. I am long on LINK in the coming years.

Attached: stinkystacks.jpg (1224x1257, 396K)

you havent got a clue about what an oracle is there to do. isnt it there to "verify" that the data provided by a source is "correct" or "true"; an oracle simply provides a means of ensuring, to the highest standard possible, that information leaving a source has not been corrupted en route to the blockchain.

this is really basic shuff, and yet idiots who dont even know this will wax lyrical about why chainlink is so shit. #sad!

The problem with this scenario is I believe there are just too many inputs, outputs, too much diverse data for the network as a whole to reach consensus on just 1 contract.

Your argument is great if there is limited data that a smartcontract economy would need. But the economy is boundless. The data choice is infinite. It won't work if the network as a whole needs to come a conclusion for a smartcontract at a time.

The way the Chainlink infrastructure is set up is so far the best choice for truthful data discovery pairing with a smartcontract economy

i fucking love this one too.

Thomas already has some good guides on setting those up on the site itself. Check out chain.link/docs

I'm sure these guys would make it ez to sub to APIs

>subscribe to them and pay

nigga you gay

Finnish CEO

clcg.io along with linkpool.io is a nice glimpse of the upcoming infrastructure being built. it looks like both will offer SaaS/NaaS to run a node easily. can't wait to stake my linkies

fuck off delphi

>Node operators are still a single point of failure.
What are multiple nodes for $500, Alex?
Right? That's what decentralization is, no?

Attached: 1515017418990.png (432x391, 201K)

This is very bullish, another sign of the changes that are coming and another indication LINK is legit. Very comfy, Hodl on.

Is there a way a brain let with a 10k stack can run a node? Where do I get my data sources for for instance?

Attached: DqsCTccU8AAWRV.jpg (1119x1039, 230K)

don't wrorry it will all be handled and made idiot proof. see

Linkpool.

THIS IS BAD NEWS FOR LINKPOOL HOLDERS

start making memes about linkpool vs clcg
virgin linkpool vs chad clcg
spam the whole board with brapper comparisons
there should be at least 20 threads up at all times about this

implying they compete. more like synergize each other. did you even read any of those two project's whitepapers?

Oye hole up dogg ain't you been readin them wide pepper?

Attached: brownBunny.jpg (498x592, 117K)

this. Jonny even reviewed the paper. LinkPool nodes and their NaaS clients will be able to connect to high-value APIs through the marketplace and also benefit from Nodary and the listing service. This isn't so much a competition as it is the pieces of an ecosystem falling into place. Bullish for Chainlink, LinkPool, CLCG and every Jow Forums linklet.

Choders unite!

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 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 Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

Can I run a node from my iPhone?

Attached: 1549259136183.gif (600x600, 203K)

fast forward 1-2 years then yes