HEAR ME OUT

>This doesn't answer my question.
What happens if people start demanding $1 big macs

Those contracts are not manual where you have to do a lot of work, you offer an oracle api and someone consumes it. So, we are not looking at $10K collateral, but maybe $10 or $100 for a data feed.

Even if we say $10K, If your node gets 1000 requests/day, you made your money back in 9mo.

the real question is who is going to trust a random node in the first place, regardless of how much is staked?

a contract operator only trusts the network they're running on, because that's the network that's validating their contract. they don't trust a random third party network like chainlink, full of untrusted third party nodes, to get centralized api data. they do trust that centralized api data, so all they need is to grab the data via a trusted node that is operated by the centralized api, or even better, skip the middleman and get the data directly from the website, with a signature that 100% verifies the data directly.

>Node is not responsible for bad data
and this is why chainlink has zero value, and will never be used for high value contracts or high value data. it simply offers you no protection, and no recourse.

chainlink is only good for hobbiest purposes.

What part of trustless do you not understand? It's like you haven't even heard of chainlink yet you somehow have an opinion on the subject.

>an oracle has zero value if all it guarantees is the performance of the oracle

Listen to yourself you monkey.

>the real question is who is going to trust a random node in the first place
That's why oracles mostly only make sense when DECENTRALIZED.

Thx for the shill, Chainlinkfren.

percentage of total value staked. i think anyone would be pissed off to lose 10%+ of their stack in a very short period of time, especially if the penalty starts to multiply.

More collateral equals higher cost of the job. There is some breakeven point, while some will want cheap jobs and others more secure higher collateral jobs. Also, if the token goes up alot in value, then less tokens go further since each one is worth more.

Also you have to remember that collateral can be split amongst nodes so 1000000 dollars amongst 100 or 1000 nodes might not be as much for a high value contract.

its not trustless because you now have to trust the centralized apis themselves, AND chainlink, a marginal network compared to the much more secure ones actually running your contract in the first place.

they've just build a weird layer of redirection when simple digital signatures form the apis would do. its like somebody trying to build bitcoin in the physical world by using hologram cards until somebody came up with the smart idea of using public key cryptohraphy instead.

>its not trustless because you now have to trust the centralized apis themselves,
Chainlink is a decentralized ORACLE network, not a decentralized source network.

This fud would've been dumb as shit in late 2017.
Today it's just retarded.

and an oracle is only as good as it's data. people are still talking about this because you guys really seem confused about chainlink's actual value proposition.

>and an oracle is only as good as it's data
Banks today make BILLIONS of API calls every day.
These APIs are what you're fudding, not Chainlink.

You absolute trenchbrain.

because you all seem to think that because some apis might be in high demand, that means that chainlink's funding token is somehow going to reach a high price, but those are two completely disparate scenarious.

we know chainlink can't provide any value on the security or validity of the data itself, so chainlink itself has no value, the value is entirely contained in the centralized apis it relies on, thats where the value is, and there's nothing that brings that value onto chainlink itself. the apis aren't being fudded, you guys are just confusing the value of the apis with the value of chainlink, when the two are completely disconnected.

its not like a real platform, or blockchain, where the validation is entirely self-contained in the network itself, the value in chainlink is completey outside of it's control, and by the nature of how chainlink validates aipis, that api data is available completely bypassing chainlink's middleman service.

>how is the LINK penalty system going to make sense from an economic standpoint?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_(finance)

OP, its time to do a little bit of reading. this is part and parcel of large financial agreements.

Attached: file.png (1053x1500, 2.73M)

>we know chainlink can't provide any value on the security or validity of the data itself
Just like roads can't provide any value on the state or validity of the cars that drive on them.
Keep posting this dumb shit, it's entertaining.

A pure Adelyn rush

What happens if:
You are providing data from API A
Contract wants 10 different APIs
API B C D E F G H I J all have a value of 10
API B has a value of 9 because some cunt fat fingered the wrong number.
You get penalised for this?

Smart contracts are fucking stupid. The oracle problem can not be solved through decentralisation.

cooking up a nice meme there, user

You don't get penalized for mistakes made by the source.

Lurk and learn more.

How does the smart contract determine that the source is wrong and not a bad node?

See >Lurk and learn more.

Would love for you to explain how those api will get onto blockchain without an Oracle?

>an oracle has zero value if all it guarantees is the performance of the oracle

Uh, but that's right. The big issue is trust, not performance. Nobody is going for decentralized oracles because it increases performances.

>Fud from 2017
I
smell
SKYTARD

Attached: grug bash brainlet.png (1637x1160, 708K)

Why do you say a fraction of a cent to 5 cents?

I could see it being a sliding scale. The higher the price the lower the % fee. Ranging from 3% to 15% depending on the job.

Keep in mind that smartcntracts have already cut the cost of regular financial infastructures and commissions in between. 10% of the collateral in LINK will be nothing to the smartcontract creators. But, once this network is fully mature I can see it being more in the range of 4% to 5% of your link holdings within the node per job.

Another set of decentralized oracles. It's oracles all the way down, fren.

>The big issue is trust, not performance.
Yes, trust in the performance.

This is getting more hilarious by the minute.

Well, people currently trust Bitcoin, 60b market cap. I don’t think you understand how this works.

up to 15% commision payed at first to 4% to 5% paid for every job once the network is mature

So basically you dont know. Typical linkie

Thanks just sold

>So basically you dont know.
link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper

>link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper
>Ctrl + F "How does the smart contract determine that the source is wrong and not a bad node?"
= 0 results found

Damn, didn't think you'd actually Ctrl + F it.
You got me user.

If what we're pointing out is all wrong and link is that very useful middleware to APIs for some unknown reason, then why is nobody using smart contracts or link yet? Or is it reality conspiring against you? I find that even more hilarious.

>why is nobody using smart contracts or link yet?
Because Link isn't out yet.
And because of general latency when it comes to true innovation.

Attached: 1551144732635.gif (600x686, 3.52M)

What are you going to cry? Piss your pants? Maybe cum?

Roads do provide value, but does the road network have even a micro percent of the value of the goods traversing over it every day? Of course not, because if one road shuts down, an alternate path is easily found, even if it's not land based. The value is in the business providing the goods, and the customer paying for it.

Getting data onto the blockchain is as simple as sending a transaction on ethereum. The difficult part, the part chainlink hasn't even solved, is verifying that the data comes from the centralized source you trust, and that's a solved problem in the same way we solved public key cryptography.

If you think getting apis onto the blockchain is going to be a big deal, then those apis can simply sign their own data, proving it has come directly from them. Anything less is open to fraud/manipulation. If they can't or won't offer their data in a signed way, then we'll need more than a single middleman service to get that data into a blockchain. Using chainlink as the only middleman service is just irresponsible, and as we've seen today with services like Maker, for high value data they will be using their own bespoke service, not a generic middleman.

Chainlink might be a good fit for high volume low value data, but not much else, certianly not as the only oracle provider, by a long shot.

>Roads do provide value, but does the road network have even a micro percent of the value of the goods traversing over it every day?
Well no because roads don't have collateral mechanisms, which oracles do.

>my car is slow like a snail
>ah but does it eat lettuce? Of course not, so it isn't a snail
This is you.

No, you're (unsurprisingly) missing the point. Let's just assume that these middleman networks do become a thing, here's what's going to happen:

These oracle services are all 100% fungible, because they're all providing the exact same data over the exact same APIs, because the APIs are being chosen by the contract, not the network. Competition is going to necessarily drive these services down to earning basically nothing, which consequently drives the security of them way down.

The only way a middleman service like Chainlink can maintain it's security on a staking/collateralized model, is if what's being staked isn't the only source of income for the service itself. Given these contracts are all on Ethereum, staking ETH would give you real security, because you're leveraging the security of the same network the code is running on.

Remember, in your (poor) analogy, the roads are valuable because of what's travelling over them, but one company doesn't make every road, many are private, and if a road has maintenance, traffic can simply flow around it. A toll bridge doesn't get paid more based on the value of the goods flowing over it, it gets paid the bare minimum it's able to be to stay competitive with businesses relative to gas and time costs. If another bridge opens up and undercuts it, it has to lower its own toll. The race to the bottom is very real even in the physical world. In the digital world, it's trivial.

Wow, you sure just typed a lot of shit.
Are you sure you want to be here, telling me all this shit?
You drew your conclusions, so move on with your life.

The fuck is wrong with you? Get help cunt

Sorry you're slowly starting you realize you've made a big mistake. Maybe listen to the early adopters once in a while for a little reality check. Not everybody here is an emotional investor.

>you're slowly starting you realize you've made a big mistake
Lmao, no I'm not.
I'm just realizing I wouldn't spend a fucking second posting anything about a project I don't believe in.
You on the other hand seem desperate to convince people.

Yikes. Your FUD is just so old but you're too new and think you're fucking Rainman. This is hilarious.

>Maybe listen to the early adopters
You're not an early adopter

based

Not a rebuttal you're just coping because your biggest holding is a scam.

>Not a rebuttal
Are you gonna call the police now?

If you know he's wrong prove it instead of laughing at his face. You're not convincing.

>If you know he's wrong prove it
Or what?

Yeah, you wouldn't waste a second because you're happy to let late adopters on biz think for you. You guys are just interested in feeling like part of a group than anything else.

I don't need to convince anybody, I'd be happy with any kind of counter-argument, but there never is, just more spam, repeating digits, and constant complains about people "suppressing the price".

>FUD
Keep dreaming. If you think link is a good investment chances are I've "made it" in crypto longer than you've even heard about it.

If I'm not an early adopter then you guys are so late you might as well not even bother.

You sure type a lot for someone who was fudding data sources in a retarded attempt to fud Chainlink.

>lalalalala fud! it's all fud!

>you can't trust Chainlink because you can't trust data sources!
t. you

I wouldn't call that fud, just embarrasing.

it's a simple combination of chainlink having zero network effects and not being able to add trust to otherwise centralized apis that makes it highly questionable as something anybody would want to use for high value data when alternatives to it are already being used for smart contracts already. what about that don't you understand?

You just typed a lot of words again, completely ignoring the fact that you claimed you can't trust Chainlink because you can't trust data sources.

Just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and you just spent many hours yapping on about something you think is worthless.
What the fuck are you doing with your life?

>if Internet is so cool and all, why won't I see anyone using it? regards a guy in the 90's
oof

Attached: ääri.jpg (616x697, 87K)

and what refutes that point? the data sources are the sources of trust, chainlink is incapable of adding trust, and can only remove it by adding a rube goldberg layer of indirection involving intel and other black boxes along the way. chainlink has nothing that makes it more trustworthy than any other middle man, and anything able to bridge that gap directly can reap the rewards without losing any decentralization. if you can't see why this spells disaster for their fee model i dont know what else to day.

>What the fuck are you doing with your life?
says the guy who keeps posting here and doesn't even get anything out of it other than hanging about in link support group threads? like i said, being an early adopter lets me spend as much time as i want on this shit, and throughout this latest shitcoin wave from 2015 on i've been proven wrong enough times with enough of an upside to make this worth it.

if there wern't so many npcs spamming link on biz it wouldn't be something to discuss at all.

HEAR ME OUT
My name is OP and I like big fat dicks in my mouth and butt because I am a faggot

>the data sources are the sources of trust, chainlink is incapable of adding trust
You just keep digging your grave deeper and deeper lmao.

>"you can't trust the sources, so you can't trust Chainlink"
Jesus Christ.

If we can't trust the sources, then how the fuck is the entire world of business and finance even working?

by doing business directly with the sources they do trust, not involving random people (nodes) on third party public networks (chainlink). how do you think swift works, for example?

you can always get more trust by bypassing chainlink, and you can get equivalent trust using another middleman, and you can get slightly more trust using chainlink in combination with any number of other "oracle" networks.

effectively, chainlink by itself is not a very good sell to anybody that wants to get high value information onto a contract, and that means competition, which lower fees, which means lower security, are you getting it yet?

>the sources they do trust
Wait, so you CAN trust sources?
Well I'll be damned!

Also, type more words and spend more time and effort yapping about something you think is worthless.
Your life must be miserable if you think this is a good way to spend your time.

if you wern't so ESL you would understand by now that the sources than can be trusted aren't chainlink's problem. chainlink's problem is that it inherently reduces the trust of everything that goes through it.

>Your life must be miserable if you think this is a good way to spend your time.
yes im sure you're having a much better time than me, replying to everything with your hands over your ears still trying to get rich off of link.

Why are so many companies using chainlink?

>chainlink's problem is that it inherently reduces the trust of everything that goes through it.
So you pivoted from "you can't trust sources so you can't trust Chainlink" to "Chainlink reduces the source's trust".
Good on you, I guess.

To rebut however, look up saas. By your logic saas should never get off the ground because it's a third party processing source data and thus "inherently reducing the trust" of said data.

they aren't. they don't even have a product to use yet, and from what i can see they don't have anything other than your average ico-level "partnerships".

no, it's the same problem. you can't trust chainlink at all, you have to put your entire trust into the source, which means you already have to know what you trust in the first place. you're splitting hairs now. the problem has always been that chainlink demands you trust more people than without it, and their model means it's likely that chainlink will never be trustworthy above a very low level/value.

saas is irrelevant because it comes with SLAs, contracts, support, a legal entity to go after if they break terms. with chainlink you throw it all out and instead trust a little black box from intel. it's not comparable in any sense.

>SWIFT, zeppelin, accord, docusign, brave new coin, etc
>ico level partnerships

LMAO OP just btfo these stupid stinky linkies. Get dabbed on stinkers. Nice piece of shit middle-ware band aid solution

>it's the same problem
No, it's not.

You've been in here for over 7 hours now, talking about something you think is worthless.
Why?

you've just listed a bunch of memes on biz as if they were facts. there's no evidence to suggest that chainlink, and explicitly link, is going to be used in any of those places.

Now I know you're fudding or just need to lurk more

My company has a deal with oracle. If they fuck up with the data they send to my business intelligence tool, they provide me with insurance. The insurance is paid by a third party

because nobody has been able to come up with a single refutation other than arguing the semantics of what i'm saying.

you wouldn't understand if you haven't been around for long, but biz used to be great for actual discussion, especially around the launch of ethereum. going much deeper on ethereum than i was comfortable with back when it wasn't looking good for ethereum at all (delayed launch, lots of high profile [legitimate] criticism against it) has made me significantly more money than i would have otherwise. until you've experienced that you're free to think of biz as an echo chamber for your comfort threads, but it's definitely worth my while to actually try and get some information, and surprise surprise, nobody ever actually discusses chainlink outside of biz.

>lurk more
a bunch of meme comfort threads by bagholders is not evidence of actual usage or intent. again, most of these supposed partnerships would necessitate only providing the data, never trusting anything from it, they simply couldn't get insurance using something like chainlink.

And another long-winded post about something you claim is worthess.
You must have the shittiest life imaginable.

there's some serious projection going on here, must have been hit hard last year.

Every company I listed has information related to chainlink outside biz.
Trustless smart contracts don't need insurance.

The point of it is to automate the middleman and not improve the data itself, but to mitigate fraud. This is very valuable, first and foremost in regards to interest rate trading, which is what I think Sergey created it for.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal

In the scenario above, the nodes were the banksters manipulating the LIBOR rate in order to decrease interest rates to save money. In a chainlink like situation, the node would be a server that would fetch aggregate data from any bonds being sold in real time, getting a more honest LIBOR rate. The node would not relinquish collateral in the event of somebody overpaying or underpaying for a bond, but it would allow honest traders to understand what the going rate actually was, as opposed to overpaying for a bond because of fraudulently decreased interest rate data by London banksters. In the event somebody spoofed the rates (disclaimer: I don't know how one would accomplish that within chainlink), the collateral would be relinquished to well, I don't really know who, probably the government or whoever paid for the bad bond. It is not a system designed to mitigate natural chaos, but a system to prevent fraud, which is why they are targeting the legal, trading, and insurance sectors.

I don't know at all where the collateral goes to in the event of fraudulent or bad data. Probably something to look into.

The companies I listed aren't memes. Again, why are they using chainlink?

who hurt you OP? take this

Attached: cheerupfren.png (1387x702, 660K)

>projection
That would mean I also think Chainlink is worthless.
You need to learn what words mean.

yes, the simple pull data and push to a blockchain is the only part of chainlink that has ever made any sense. the problem is that part doesn't necessitate a token given that high value data can simply be source-signed in the first place, then the pull-push middleman is just a dumb pipe. for low value data the chainlink model would work when combined with multiple oracle networks secured by their own collateral backed by different things, but for high value data companies want confirmation from the source itself.

if they're doing it right the collateral will be burnt, like most proof of stake systems, redistributing it doesn't help because in the event of a fraud you want the supply to decrease to compensate for the possible price decrease due to the failure, if it's high profile enough.

don't embarrass yourself

To extend on this point a bit, nodes will not be run by random bumfucks, but in the case of interest rate swaps, by the banks themselves, because a banker knows exactly how much he can trust another banker (not at all), and if it works for one bank, and they become more trusted, then they will all use the CL protocol. The banks will aggregate the buys and sells of all the interest rate swaps/bond sales they make to get a reasonable and accurate number of their current rate. God knows they are losing more money in lawsuits than they are making in interest rate swaps right now.

>biz used to be great for actual discussion, especially around the launch of ethereum
If you were an actual oldfag you'd know that the fundamentals of Link haven't changed since the white paper, and every single fud has been absolutely done to death since then.
ESPECIALLY your little "Link doesn't decentralize the sources" talking point.

Newfag.

>haven't changed
yeah, they've been questionable then and questionable now, and nobody has been able to actually refute any of the fundamental questions about it.

>Newfag.
we're getting to 4k levels of projection here