Is he right?

I agree it’s bullish, but not nessesarily for BTC, though I wouldn’t doubt that, along with smart contract and decentralized cloud comp chains, there will also be a blockchain currency and perhaps a store of value chain as well. Maybe BTC will get its shit together and become the preferred store of value protocol.

decentralized oracles are still amazing for non-institutional transactions even if there are fundamental problems with complete decentralization for financial transactions and that twitter post is not the be all end all to large scale decentralized oracles.

dentralized oracles will still create an entirely new unprecedented peer to peer economy for things nobody has even imagined yet and even if chainlink doesnt get picked up by (((them))) it will still have it's place in providing decentralization to smart contracts for on chain and off chain assets that can be relied on. It still has a long way to go but being a competent early player will ensure chainlink always has it's niche, even in the worst case scenario it will be 3 digits of USD within 5 years. Could take 5 years to hit $100 but thinking that won't happen is delusional imho

>Is he right?
this guy isnt fudding chainlink. he's just stating the fact that the oracle cant be solved, just mitigated.
the consensus prtocol he mentions is exactly what sergay and the LINK team are doing too. i dont know what he means by an "external oracle" though. maybe he doesnt fully understand what he's talking about. but it's not fud, by any measure.

>Finland fud
What did he mean by this?

Attached: yli kekkonen.jpg (480x347, 38K)

sergey himself doesnt know what a decentralized oracle is but he's got 30 million buckos (estimating at least 1mil has been spent on big macs) to figure out how to hire people that can figure it out

>22 crosswalks identified
>try again
>13 bicycles later

if I had a fucking satoshi for every thing I identified, I would have like 3 dogecoins by now

Correct and if you read the rest of this twitter thread, this was pointed out to him and he did not respond with anything other than moronic comments to the effect that “cost savings” are a bad argument for DLT because DLTs are expensive to implement. NO shit dumbass, but if you can save a trillion dollars (see, e.g. derivatives) then it is worth it.

chainlink offers a dencentralized "network" of oracles which operates to some kind of consensus mechanism. this is as close to solving the oracle problem as you can get.

i'm in agreement with you both regarding the impossibility of complete decentralization, likewise i'm in agreement that the benefits of blockchain and related technologies will be realized on system back ends, out of sight and out of mind for the vast majority of people who will interact with them as if it were business as usual.

that said though, does not chainlink solve the oracle problem outright, or at least completely enough to offer a significant advantage over centralized oracles? as points out, with a decentralized oracle network malicious actors can still manipulate the outcome of smart contracts by tampering with the source of the data. i would consider this a data integrity problem rather than an oracle problem. oracles, even in the traditional greek sense, do not originate knowledge, they simply convey it from the requested deity. in this sense i think chainlink could provide substantial value by identifying the point of failure and thus making it easier to objectively prove which party should be held accountable. imagine a farm insurance example where a farmer will receive compensation if rainfall exceeds 10cm during a given period of time. if there is a rain event and different oracles connected to the same data source return different values, then the failure can be attributed to the dishonest nodes. likewise if oracles connected to the same data source return the same values, but the data source is in appreciable disagreement with other trusted sources, the failure can be attributed to the data provider.

>that said though, does not chainlink solve the oracle problem outright, or at least completely enough to offer a significant advantage over centralized oracles?

IMHO yes, absolutely. Look, let’s say you have millions of, say derivatives transactions. Occasionally you get a dispute between the parties to the derivative contract and this can lead to litigation or arbitration. So, you start using a decentralized oracle to sort out, e.g. price of copper on a given date. Let’s say you cut the number of disputes by 99%. Have you SOLVED the oracle problem for all time and everywhere? Well, no, I guess. But you have VASTLY improved the situation and generated literally billions and maybe trillions of dollars (derivatives market is 500 trillion) of value.

Again, this was ALSO pointed out in that twitter thread. It’s like driverless cars. Are they PERFECT? Will they eliminate All accidents ever? No, but human drivers in the US cause about 40,000 deaths per year, and autonomous cars are going to drop that number into the single or double digits.

the problem will almost never be with the hardware providing the data - on this people will just have to trust it. the issue will be with corrupting the data en route to the blockchain. this is the byzantine generals' problem, essentially.
without a decentralized network of oracles, oracles are essentially useless. most oracle providers didnt have the foresight to recognize this. one guy did though, and everybody is trying to catch up, hence the ridiculous fud going on right now.

I think you have brown skin

This is correct and I find it astonishing that people don’t get it, but maybe that’s because I spend too much time on biz.

Problem 1: how to avoid double spend. Answer: community consensus model where the people verifying transaction are incentivized to do the right thing -> bitcoin.

Problem 2: ok, but now we want to do more sophisticated transactions with business logic, e.g. a bond that pays out on a set schedule. Answer: community consensus model where the people verify the business logic is followed correctly -> ethereum

Problem 3: ok, but for almost any REAL world contract, we need external data, e.g. what was the rainfall on that date, did the package get delivered, what was the price of a barrel of west texas intermediate crude on a October 1. Answer community consensus model for verifying external data where those validating have skin in the game (via staking collateral) -> chainlink.

i should have read through the posts here and on the twitter in more detail. it's pretty clear we're all in agreement here. see you lads on the yacht.

Upvoted. When you read twitter thread, see in particular posts by finrekt, since he knows his shit and is quite kekworthy.

legit, how is this not obvious to people with an IQ over 100

no matter how many different computers run a smart contract, there will still have to be one originating source of truth. if I want to buy a Coke from a vending machine, only the vending machine can report that it dispensed a Coke.

if we’re going to trust a single source of truth anyway, you might as well save the computing power and just have the company you’re a customer of execute the payment (as they already do). Chain shit is a pure cash grab ICO scam.

>The oracle problem doesn't exist! Chainlinkers are delusional!
>The oracle problem will never be solved!

>talking about BTC in a smartcontracts thread
>being this dumb

>It's impossible to do full decentralization unless we remove all humans from the economy and replace them with interconnected robots.
Even if everything is done by robots, you have to trust the company/individual who owns the robot to have programmed it to honestly report true information. A lying counterparty can succeed in either a dentralized or centralized oracle scheme. Chain shit is completely retarded.

>you might as well save the computing power and just have the company you’re a customer of execute the payment

>you have to trust the company/individual who owns the robot to have programmed it to honestly report true information.

Attached: bear.jpg (346x346, 29K)

>derivatives
already automated on every single exchange in the world. decentralization adds zero value.
>insurance claims
who is going to prove the insurance claim was real? you still need an insurance adjuster to make sure I didn’t arson my own home. a robot will check it? then someone has to trust the robot is programmed to be accurate and tell the truth.

fucking delusional link shits

>derivatives
>already automated on every single exchange in the world. decentralization adds zero value.
this is only true if you have access to the exchange's computing infrastructure, which is extraordinarily rare and/or expensive.
the govenor of the bank of england has talked abt opening up the derivatives market through smart contracts to drive up trade. chainlink is literally at the forefront of the 4th industrial revolution.

Your concerns aren't related to how companies care about money, you are literally thinking about human automation and not about service/financial automation, honestly lurk moar

>service/financial automation
this too, with the new EU psd2 regulations about to come into force:

computerworld.com/article/3301167/financial-industry/eu-regulation-will-drive-us-banks-to-embrace-fintech-or-lose-market-share.html

>>derivatives
>already automated on every single exchange in the world. decentralization adds zero value.
You are either a complete fucking idiot or a complete fucking asshole trying to spread stupid fud and probably some of both.

ISDA trade association for derivatives, just released legal guidance for smart contracts isda.org/2019/01/30/legal-guidelines-for-smart-derivatives-contracts-introduction/

And they specifically talked about oracles:
“For example, a particular smart derivatives contract model may involve the use of external data sources or ‘oracles’. These oracles may interact with a DLT platform and be utilized to the extent instructed by the terms of the ISDA Master Agreement (or by the terms of a transaction governed by it).”

>this is only true if you have access to the exchange's computing infrastructure, which is extraordinarily rare and/or expensive.
Moving that computing to a bunch of smart contracts that run on Chainshit nodes will add zero value. It will just make the fees of trading derivatives much higher (and there's no way around this since the cost of executing something on one computer will always be less than doing it on N different computers). Also, it opens the door to hacking/gaming the system: I could move the derivatives market in my favor by DDOSing nodes, or I could directly steal other people's derivative securities by exploiting bugs in a smart contract.

These problems don't exist in regular derivatives exchanges. No one wants to pay more money to the same thing worse and slower. LOL.

>you are literally thinking about human automation and not about service/financial automation
I'm talking about both.

Service and financial automation already exists. All financial trades are automated. All payment processing except cash is automated. All banking operations are automated.

The point of """decentralized oracles""" is to not have to trust a third party for verification that the terms of the smart contract were fulfilled. Decentralization literally does not solve this problem.

It doesn't make things cheaper (it makes things more expensive). It doesn't make things more secure (it makes them less secure). It adds nothing. When people make insurance claims, they're perfectly happy with a server owned by the insurance company processing their paperwork. If the insurance company fucks the customer, the customer would have also been fucked had the insurance company used decentralized oracles to do so.

>Service and financial automation already exists.
>All financial trades are automated
The reason you are a miserable piece of shit is that you know enough to know this is complete horseshit and you are just trying to fuck over another anons by spreading fud.
Yes finance trades are automated but Goldman Sachs estimates that 10% of them require manual intervention because they contain errors. businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-blockchain-cash-equities-trading-2016-5https://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-blockchain-cash-equities-trading-2016-5

Right now when handling finance transactions there are multiple players (e.g. market makers, brokers, clearinghouses) each with their own records that have to be reconciled against everyone else’s records. This is VASTLY expensive both in terms of expensive labor and also delays. That is why they are interested in Smart Contracts and many of these will need oracles for the reasons linked above. If you are so sure that adding smart contracts will make fees from trading derivatives much higher than you better tell that to ISDA and the biggest lawfirms in the world that just wrote the report that I linked above. Better yet, fuck off. You had a year to accumulate. You are now trying to fuck over a bunch of neet anons who are driving extra shifts delivering pizzas so they can throw an extra $100 into link. That may really change their lives around. And you are trying to fuck them over, I guess for jollies. Seriously, fuck off.

>you have to trust the company/individual who owns the robot to have programmed it to honestly report true information.
what is open source

You still have to trust that the company actually installed the open source code without modifications (impossible).

Also if them using open source code is enough to trust them, then why decentralized oracles??? Let them directly charge you for your payment. No need for expensive middlemen (Chainshit nodes) processing the same information twice, lmao.

im no stinky but in theory users would set up their nodes compiled from source which they can read, the company just provides the code
>why decentralized oracles?
i dont fucking know actually.. most providers of data would be pulling the data from centralized sources anyway, defeating the purpose

>You still have to trust that the company actually installed the open source code without modifications (impossible).
More utter horseshit.
The smart contract could run on a public blockchain, or on a private blockchain (e.g. one operated by an exchange). So concern about company “installing the code” is more bullshit fud.

>most providers of data would be pulling the data from centralized sources anyway
Maybe maybe not. Let’s take the case of weather data. Yes they may get that originally from a centralized source, but they are not just copying and pasting they are VOUCHING for the data. Same for providing prices. If contract is important enough, there may be THOUSANDS of nodes around the world vouching that the data is correct.

Your first point is correct is some ways but you are really missing the bigger picture. A decentralied network, ledger, computing etc. however you want to define it will always be more expensive then a centralized one. The only advantage a decentralized system has over a centralized one is security. Its a rather slow and expensive database otherwise. But because you now have the advantage of security using a decentralized system, a finacial company can save x amount of money from settlement failure which I can guarantee you is a lot more money saved then what was spent of overhead cost of operating on the network.

>Also, it opens the door to hacking/gaming the system: I could move the derivatives market in my favor by DDOSing nodes

Ignoring the embarrassingly obvious fact that this in itself shows a clear misunderstand on how these networks operate, I will explain your error in thinking.
Remember, the only advantage to a decentralized network is security. If you wanted to “DDOS nodes” it would be a hell of a lot easier to target a single node then it would be to target 100, 1000 exponentially.

I’m sorry but you sound like a real uninformed script kiddy.
>i could directly steal other people’s derivative securities by exploiting bugs in a smart contract.

Geez. Made my eyes roll.

>The only advantage a decentralized system has over a centralized one is security. Its a rather slow and expensive database otherwise. But because you now have the advantage of security using a decentralized system, a finacial company can save x amount of money from settlement failure which I can guarantee you is a lot more money saved then what was spent of overhead cost of operating on the network

In addition to avoiding costs from settlement failure, there are also vast costs when every single player (and for a securities transaction there may be 10 or more — buyers’ and seller’s brokers, clearing house, transfer agent, market maker, ) has to keep their own redundant records of the transaction. They can avoid this (not at first, but eventually, after they come to trust the system) and save HUGE amounts of money. In addition, with more RELIABLE transactions they will not need to RESERVE as much capital against settlement failure.

so its a matter of trust really, do you trust thousand random people or one trusted source thats been on the game for years or decades?

>because you now have the advantage of security using a decentralized system, a finacial company can save x amount of money from settlement failure
Settlement failure is not a security problem. Settlement failure is much more likely to happen with a blockchain since a settlement has to pass consensus, rather than directly go from A to B in a few milliseconds through the wire on a regular (centralized) network. Bitcoin/Ethereum transactions fail or get stalled if you pay too low of a miner fee. No such thing happens on traditional networks.
>Remember, the only advantage to a decentralized network is security
That's an advantage of a blockchain, not decentralization.
>If you wanted to “DDOS nodes” it would be a hell of a lot easier to target a single node then it would be to target 100, 1000 exponentially.
In a hypothetical derivatives exchange that settles trades with Chainshit nodes, I could freeze the entire marketplace by DDOSing or Sybil attacking some percentage of nodes, except for ones I operate which would move the market in my favor. Someone trading billions of dollars of derivatives in this hypothetical exchange would have every reason to do this.
>target a single node then it would be to target 100, 1000 exponentially
That's linear, not exponential.
>>i could directly steal other people’s derivative securities by exploiting bugs in a smart contract.
>Geez. Made my eyes roll.
Yeah, because immutable smart contracts have never lost anyone any money ever due to bugs. Fucking clueless December buyer.
coindesk.com/dao-attacked-code-issue-leads-60-million-ether-theft

Attached: 1542825010025.png (866x900, 94K)

>, do you trust thousand random people or one trusted source thats been on the game for years or decades?
I absolutely postively 100% trust the thousand random people, who have each put their money where their mouth is by staking collateral, over that “one trusted source”, e.g. JP Morgan, who I think is trying to fuck me over at every turn. Also, note there is no reason that “one trusted source” can’t run a node themselves, and benefit from their reputation.

>Settlement failure is not a security problem. Settlement failure is much more likely to happen with a blockchain since a settlement has to pass consensus, rather than directly go from A to B in a few milliseconds through the wire on a regular (centralized) network.
Moron tier and you have no idea what you are talking about, or, as I said earlier, you have some idea but are deliberately spreading fud. Settlement failure happens when there is a DISCREPANCY between records of different players, e.g. one has the order as 70 shares at $1000 and the other has 1000 shares at 70. This can lead to a “trade break” which can then lead to a settlement failure, meaning that the trade does not “settle” i.e buyer doesn’t get shares and seller doesn’t get the money. The idea of using a DLT is that it is a SINGLE source of truth re: the transaction, making settlement failure FAR less likely. Settlement failure is a security problem in the sense that, if we are going to have a central source of truth, we need to secure it against attackers. That’s what DLT does by using consensus mechanism.

>In a hypothetical derivatives exchange that settles trades with Chainshit nodes, I could freeze the entire marketplace by DDOSing or Sybil attacking some percentage of nodes, except for ones I operate which would move the market in my favor. Someone trading billions of dollars of derivatives in this hypothetical exchange would have every reason to do this.
Moron tier. You are talking about DDOS on the entities that have VAST profits at stake and devoting VAST resources to security. You going to ddos All of them simultaneously? Why not take down the bitcoin network while you are at it?

but the nodes credibility is based on their reputation which will eventually centralize the provision of data again. When you have 'thousand random people' of which only a few are actually trusted, what do you end up with?

>when there is a DISCREPANCY between records of different players, e.g. one has the order as 70 shares at $1000 and the other has 1000 shares at 70
This is not uniquely solved by a blockchain. The exchange, brokers, and clearinghouses could just set up a shared Oracle/PostgreSQL/MySQL database that they each read and write from, performing the exact same function as a blockchain at much less cost. If they REALLY wanted to use a blockchain despite its increased costs, they could create a private blockchain that they share among their companies. They could buy their blockchain software from Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, who all have their own blockchain product offerings. No need for public shitcoins in the middle.

And obviously there is no need for Chainshit in the picture. Decentralized oracles have absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a single database of truth--that's solved by a (private) blockchain or traditional database.

Attached: 1516576016082.png (785x757, 512K)

it's true. there is simply no solution to the oracle problem. this whole LINK thing is just one big wild goose chase...

Unclear how the dynamics will move over time, and unclear whether it will centralize the provision of data. For one thing, maybe very different for different types of data. Note that this will almost certainly start small, and nodes will build up reputation over time. Think about reputation system on, say, eBay. Started out with small transactions, and over time people gradually built up reputations. The chainlink TOKEN is the way they do that, btw. That’s what they stake, and that’s how they get paid. REmember that the whole point here is to INCENTIVIZE people to do the right thing. Look no further than the growth of bitcoin network for how this can work. Think about early days of bitcoin: “you mean some random dude running a computer in Latvia is going to verify my transaction? I’d rather go with a bank that has been around a long time” Not making fun of you, just suggesting that you consider the parallel.

>single database of truth--that's solved by a (....) traditional database
Those projects are always multi-year horrible failures. Look up some some info on Data Warehousing projects and what a huge pile of shit they are.
Blockchains address shortcomings of those pretty neatly. With Chainlink, one can have reliable, trustless code executions between entities who don't trust each other.

The fact that it's possible means it will happen.

Meanwhile there is zero possibility of someone doing the same attack on the NASDAQ exchange. Why? They are smart enough to not farm out critical infrastructure to a bunch of random shitcoin nodes.

it’s true linkies are delusional as fuck. it’s like a cult

>This is not uniquely solved by a blockchain. The exchange, brokers, and clearinghouses could just set up a shared Oracle/PostgreSQL/MySQL database that they each read and write from, performing the exact same function as a blockchain at much less cost
No they couldn’t and they haven’t because they don’t trust each other to have a single database in the middle. They need to SHARE the LEDGER of the transactions and so they need to DISTRIBUTE control over that ledger using TECHNOLOGY, aka DLT, which is, for example, what Australian Securities Exchange and Hong Kong Stock Exchange are doing.

Chainlink does NOT require public blockchain, and will work fine across multiple different blockchain. E.g. data provider might be providing data for Australian Exchange, and NASDAQ and London Exchange.

delete your post before someone catches on
I'm serious dude

You think there is zero possibility of attacking an exchange? valuewalk.com/2018/01/stock-exchange-hack/

>delete your post before someone catches on
I'm serious dude

This whole fucking board is psyop. JFC.
Against my better judgment, can you, unironically, explain wtf you are talking about? Or is this just your idea of a joke? Or what?

An actual substantive Chainlink thread. nice.

How much longer are u deluded cucks going to hang on to chainlink???? its a /biz pnd nothing more, wtf is wrong with yall

What about more nodes=more security do you not understand?
Imagine you wanted to 51% bitcoins network. Do you realize the amount of hashing power you would need in order to do that? Now imagine how silly it sounds when you say that you could simply Sybil attack this hypothetical exchange. Theroretically possible yes but the larger the network the more money the more nodes. Also, anyone attempting to game this hypothetical exchange would have money tied to their nodes that would Be held in escrow. The finacial incentive to Sybil the network isn’t there because any money you would receive from gaming a contract would be lost with the money you originally staked accepting the contract.

And I Remember the DAO hack clearly. I remember the creation of ETC and the endless FUD that sprung from that. I survived holding ethereum through that and chainlink is a walk in the park comparatively. But you are referencing an anecdotal example. Error in coding but there wasn’t necessarily a bug in the smart contract. How could there be when it’s deterministic. Simply a protocol of if x then y.

>no matter how many different computers run a smart contract, there will still have to be one originating source of truth. if I want to buy a Coke from a vending machine, only the vending machine can report that it dispensed a Coke.

This btw, is more bs. We could imagine LOTS of businesses emerging that could provide independent verification of this. That’s what AUDITORS are for publicly traded companies. Is the system perfect, well of course collapse of Enron and, with it, Arthur Andersen, shows the answer is no. But the system works pretty amazingly well, all things considered and has created vast wealth that would have been unimaginable through most of human history. Imagine how Enron would have played out if there were THOUSANDS of auditors reviewing the records,each independently incentivized to tell the truth.

In the coke machine example, imagine the bottler, and the landlord, and many many others each independently verifying the transaction, and each incentivized to provide the correct answer.

every utility token is like socialism. it requires a very specific utopia for them to maybe have any use case. in reality it’s just a pump and dump scheme for smarter people to take advantage of the herds of npcs

>delusions of price suppression
>keep normies poor
>gatekeepers of chainlink secrets
>you're unworthy of riches and don't deserve to know this
>i have diarrhea all day and can't go outside
>fudding is fun because brain no work good
>it's funny in discord you wouldn't understand
is there an explanation you would find satisfying?

Would you say eth and link is the god tier portfolio?

>is there an explanation you would find satisfying?
Fair question, and of course the answer is no. Was wondering if there was something other than the usual suspects (which you have done a good job listing)

So the user posting to keep quiet is trying to prevent more anons from catching on how good chainlink is?

Its about not letting the normies know the potential till its too late and the news is public. At that point they'll be buying at $10 not $0.50

Normies dont deserve it below 10 bucks, they haven't endured the hard work or emotional fucking labor we have

>Would you say eth and link is the god tier portfolio?
Fair question and my honest answer is, I think so, and that’s how I have invested, but lots of life experience has made me a lot less confident than I used to be in my ability to predict how things will turn out. Lots of things I THOUGHT were sure things turned south for unexpected reasons. Lots could go wrong — not for the reasons that the fudders in this thread are saying, but for some reason that no one even suspects right now. Lots of ways that ANY project, including link, can fail.

I DO think that smart contracts (or whatever they eventually get called) are going to change things in the next decade. I do think they are going to change the way people do business and interact with each other. And I’m trying to place my bets so that I can benefit, and I’m doing my best to diversify, e.g. by trying to move my career in the direction to benefit as well.

BUT, you MUST MUST MUST make sure that you have not invested more than you can afford to lose. If chainlink — and all of crypto goes to zero tomorrow and stays there, will you be ok? You MUST protect yourself against the downside risk. DESU I kind of suck at that, but I’m trying to get better at it.

I highly doubt normies know about Jow Forums anyways. Even if they did, normies don't have the money to invest, they spend fiat on the most useless and banal shit imaginable.

So what's this thread abojt someone give me a qrd

some schmuck sees your post, put's 1+1 together and now they're in for the ride.

user I'm telling you this because I love you and want to see you be successful in life. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss every opinion that doesn't fit in your worldview. Be more open minded and consider that you may be wrong from time to time. Nobody is perfect. Humble yourself. I find that whenever I learn something that expands my understanding of the world, it is very rewarding. This is maturity and growing as a person.

ETH 2.0 has private "shards" aka data silos that work as protocol level oracles that natively interact.

Get fucked linkies.

Don’t worry about downside risk, fren. Keep making calculated risks, and don’t get discouraged by the failures. Better to be wrong 10 times and keep powering on to the next thing than resign yourself to a life of wage cuckery after the first failure.

This is exactly the kind of fud we need to keep around for plebbitors. The autists here have had there heads in this so long that we can see right through it, but it sounds plausible and concerning enough to scare away normies. It hits the perfect sweet spot

Can any user refute this?

Does Ethereum sharding really negate the use of chainlink?

We are the past the point of this shit going to zero. The network effect is too large now. Every fucking exchange could get hacked and it wouldn't kill crypto.

It really was just a temporary solution all along

Time to sell my linkies the dream is over

It's a serious question...I thought that sharding simply enabled mass scaling which would result in large amounts of tx/second...does state sharding also enable the ethereum blockchain to access external data without an oracle network like chainlink?

He is right. Chainlink gets called a "band aid" solution for a reason.

Nice thread, I've learned so much more new informations.

At least 2 more years of this. Strap in marines.....and wait