pop an addy and read the whitepaper nigger
Chainlink node
David Gonzalez
Liam Hill
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
Kevin Brooks
Shut up j3B, bOg is speaking.
Jaxon Bailey
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.
Samuel White
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.
Xavier Price
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?
Alexander Roberts
Just like Coinbase’s new acquisition, spring-something
Oliver Mitchell
>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.
Cameron Flores
>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
Bentley Mitchell
>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"