Polkadot is a bet on a polychain future...

>trusting gavin wood with your money

Quant will never be BTFO'd by Polkadot, or any other project, as there's always a good reason to connect to any of these systems via Overledger as a middle layer.

If Quant create a Polkadot connector, it means enterprises can use Polkadot, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Corda, Quorum and many others simultaneously. Get all the benefits of Polkadot, but with the additional benefits and flexibility of many other blockchains too.

Soon the penny will drop that while new blockchain-based projects may kill off weaker projects, they will only ever make Quant stronger and stronger.

>not trusting Gavin Wood with your software

Read the article. Polkadot does all that in a decentralized manner.

>polkadot + chainlink > {quant,holo,anything}
Well yeah.
Mainstream smart contracts (i.e. the ones that can handle non-deterministic data, i.e. the ones that run on oracles) are going to power the next big crypto and mainstream fintech revolution.

Chainlink is the first step because it will unlock smart contracts by giving them connectivity. Polkadot is the second step because it connects all chains at the protocol level to allow multichain contracts easily

polka-what?

kek

deticated fan boy cant breakout of his low IQ

Exactly. Polkadot will make multichain smart contracts easily deployable by embedding Chainlink deep into it's inner workings.

upvoted +1

Imagine still thinking Chainlink is not the first and only oracle player.

>inb4 centralized oracles
They are not worthy of the name "oracle".
Oracles must by definition be decentralized, not in the least because they are supposed to reach a consensus off-chain before triggering on-chain transactions.

Don't believe me, see a blogpost by Vitalik from 2014:
blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/
>The approach is still low-trust, as no single oracle has the ability to unilaterally withdraw the funds

This is what so many people are not understanding, this is what makes Chainlink so brilliant; so I'll repeat it:
ORACLES MUST BY DEFINITION BE DECENTRALIZED

No it doesn't. When Polkadot talks about parachains, they talk about blockchains within the Polkadot network that have the same attributes as existing blockchains, not the actual existing blockchains themselves.

For that they need bridges, and so far they've only said bridges will be made for smart-contract compatible blockchains and only seem to be working on Ethereum.

Polkadot has a long time before it's released and Overledger is already miles ahead. Enterprises can connect to blockchains now via Overledger, and when Polkadot arrives, a connector can be made for that also. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and it would actually be much more beneficial to use both as the interface connector between centralized and decentralized systems.

Not to mention that Overledger makes it far easier. They handle all the back-end heavy work in terms of direct blockchain integrations so enterprises just require a simple connector to plug their system into Overledger. Any future forks or updates? No problem. Overledger handles that too.

None of you realize how fucking chad it feels to see huge projects like Polkadot and see it as yet another opportunity for Overledger's growth while you're all worrying about your favourite existing blockchain being BTFO'd.

>he doesn't know that QNT will Overledger Polkadotties.

Attached: 1_ZG2TpKxO-uXBmKXmbNEjBg.png (1000x562, 73K)

Enjoy your centralized, barely usable service. Far cry from what cross-chain smart contracts will be able to do.

Attached: polkadot-768x368.png (768x368, 158K)

The only way QNT will be useful to any degree is if it'll utilize chainlink.

Quant are also doing cross-chain smart contracts. You lose again.

You do realize that if centralized systems are connected to decentralized blockchain networks, there has to be a connector somewhere, right? There must be an interface that merges the two at the point where centralized data turns into decentralized data and vice versa. You cannot get rid of this.

That is Overledger, and even if it didn't exist, enterprises would have to create something like it. But now they don't, as it's already available.and easy to use with huge levels of interoperability.

All this obsession with muh decentralization makes people miss that Overledger is creating a powerful off-the-shelf version of a system that is ESSENTIAL for 90% of enterprise blockchain usage.

>if centralized systems are connected to decentralized blockchain networks, there has to be a connector somewhere
Yes, oracles.
Also between different decentralized blockchain networks.

Chainlink and Quant's Overledger are in a similar field but specialize in different things. They can both co-exist effectively for different purposes.

>ESSENTIAL for 90% of enterprise blockchain usage
It's lack centralized nature stifles its usefullness to toy, non-smart-contract utilizations.

Wrong.

If you have a centralized system, where you have full control over the data you feed in and take out, what the fuck does the decentralization of the oracle achieve? Just think about that for a second.

No matter what you do, you cannot fully decentralize the inputs and outputs. It's impossible unless the ENTIRE enterprise system is on blockchain, which corporations would never allow.

What you crypto hippies don't seem to realize is that enterprise can't have, and doesn't even want, end-to-end decentralization in 90% of cases. The benefits of DLT tech come from when the data is on the ledger. How it gets on there, and how it's used, is irrelevant, as most of the time these will be centralized processes anyway.

One day people will wake up to this, most probably when all this blockchain adoption starts happening with Quant and everyone starts losing their minds shouting "muh but what about decentralization".

So, toy utilizations. Understood.
Something like the recent microsoft logic-apps ethereum connector.
>channel9.msdn.com/Shows/Blocktalk/Logic-Apps-Connector-to-Ethereum-Blockchain-Networks

>what the fuck does the decentralization of the oracle achieve?
>you cannot fully decentralize the inputs and outputs
This is basic misunderstanding of what oracles do.
Oracles have nothing to do with the decentralization/reputation/reliability/... of the source. The source is held to entirely different standards and governed by entirely different motivations/regulations/...

Think of it this way: Toyota has nothing to do with the condition of the road it's driving on; that's up to the local authorities in charge of roadbuilding, the company that did the works, the individual road workers, etc.

Oracles themselves are by definition decentralized, and what they do is simply relay external information (be it non-deterministic data from any external source or even deterministic from a different blockchain) to a specific blockchain (i.e. deterministic).
They do this by reaching a specific off-chain consensus.

If you have centralized and decentralized systems working together, then most smart contract applications still require centralized inputs/outputs eventually. Parts of the processes can be fully decentralized and trustless for DLT benefits without trying to decentralize the entire process, which is impossible in most cases.

It's astounding that people still don't seem to understand this. Do people really think that corporations and enterprise only want to use blockchains to decentralize ALL their systems?

>thinking Polkadot is new
>thinking Polkadot is weaker

user...i

Exactly. So if the source uses something like Overledger as a middle-layer for the numerous benefits it provides, what difference does it make whether it's centralized or decentralized?

It doesn't. You can add as many decentralized systems as you like, but eventually, in most cases, there's going to be a centralized input or use of output, which Overledger takes care of.

The fact is this is badly needed by enterprise to facilitate blockchain adoption, and it has tokenomics to massively increase the intrinsic value of QNT if even half the proposed deals become reality.

It doesn't matter what happens, what blockchains are released or how well any of them do. Quant can't lose.

what in the freak are these 34 word salad replies implying

You misunderstood my point. I meant that big projects like Polkadot might come along and make weaker blockchain projects redundant, but no matter how successful it is, it will have little impact on Quant (and may actually make Quant stronger and more widely adopted).

>what difference does it make whether it's centralized or decentralized
Reliability. Decentralization enables smart-contract tier reliability in performing cross-chain actions. It makes message delivery trustless, which is incredibly important for the enterprise client.

Mate, don't worry about it. Crypto hippies gonna crypto hippy.

More like polkanope

>exactly
No, not exactly.

>it will have little impact on Quant
Because Quant will have little impact in general. Don't see a single non-toy/non-trivial way of using it.

For certain parts of systems, absolutely. But for others though, it will be useless considering the inherent trust nature of many inputs and uses of outputs.

Like it or not, many blockchains will rise and fall, and many oracles will achieve success too, but there's always going to be a need for something like Quant's Overledger, and with their patented tech, they can hold a monopoly over this that even oracles can't guarantee.

I wish projects like Polkadot and Chainlink well. If they rise to the top, Quant will be along there with them, so it's all good.

That ChainLink will make almost all separate cryptoprojects useless. And it's all part of a bigger plan than ANYONE here can even understand just yet, not even the most deluded ones just yet. Everything that requires an agreement will be run through ChainLink's network. Scalability is almost infinite. Fucking yes.

You are QNTpilled af, conservative price predictions for 2019?

>they can hold a monopoly over this that even oracles can't guarantee
Do explain.

This'll be good considering you have no idea what oracles even are.

$70 - $80. That would put it at a marketcap position which is very realistic.

Could be $100+ too. It still wouldn't even be in the top 10 at that level.

2019 is the year for Quant. There's a LOT in the pipeline even over the next few months. Whatever happens, we'll soon find out.

>inherent trust nature of many inputs and uses of outputs.
Exactly this makes chainlink indispensable.

But if you must trust the source, what difference does it make if you feed that trust-required data through a trustless oracle?

If you have data from a centralized source, you cannot make it fully trustless unless companies put their entire system on blockchain and replace all employees with robots.

Crypto adoption will move forward once the hippies understand that the future will be a mix of centralized and decentralized systems, and that full end-to-end decentralization is completely impossible in 90% of cases and not even wanted either. Business can still achieve trillions in savings without such an extreme.

Very reasonable indeed, user.

Attached: QNTprices.png (752x603, 45K)

>But if you must trust the source, what difference does it make if you feed that trust-required data through a trustless oracle?
Again, you have no idea how oracles work.

You have no idea how Overledger works.

How hard is it to understand such a basic concept? Oracles validate external data input, but much of the data fed to oracles is not trustless and it's impossible to make it so. Oracles therefore cannot validate whether the data they've received is true or not.

Overledger is the step before oracles or any other blockchains. An extremely easy and interoperable way to input and retrieve data. And that's what enterprises are desperate for, as the biggest cost, time and security benefits come between those steps when the data is on the blockchain itself.

If you don't get it at this point, just wait and see what kind of adoption Overledger has and what that does to the value of QNT via the tokenomics model. But don't be surprised when enterprises are more than happy to skip the use of oracles and avoid directly connecting to blockchains in many cases.

It's sad really that the crypto community echo chamber has created a set of beliefs that are so far detached from reality. It's no surprise that something like Overledger has came from a team with a huge corporate and enterprise background who will know what businesses are looking for more than anyone.

It's business 101: Don't create something and try to force it on enterprise. Instead, listen to what enterprise wants and then create it to provide a solution that does what they're looking for. Do the latter, and you get Overledger.

>You have no idea how Overledger works.
I haven't said a fucking word about Overledger.

You on the other hand have made several direct statements about oracles, clearly showing you know nothing about them.

money is softcare in this case. parity handling of both of their multisig bugs was unacceptable and shows hubris
if you're just a stinkie trying to pump your bags, carry on. i get the desperation
but for the love of god people, if you're going to fall for a meme, buy LINK, not DOT. at least you'll be at home with the other retards of this board

Gavin did write Ethereum, which is pretty successful and battle-tested.

Is polkadot just a holo clone?

lmao write another 1000 word essay
still doesn't change the fact that you don't know what oracles do

>You do realize that if centralized systems are connected to decentralized blockchain networks, there has to be a connector somewhere, right? There must be an interface that merges the two at the point where centralized data turns into decentralized data and vice versa. You cannot get rid of this.

Hello sir, do you have a moment to talk about our Lord and savior Chainlink?

I don't know user, I'm pretty deluded.. I think I'm starting to get the picture

Attached: 1550091318578.jpg (519x429, 47K)