How does this make sense?

How does this make sense?

>buy new car with smartcontract insurance
>take hammer to sensor

“Oops looks like I was in a collision”
>smart contract automatically outputs payment to bank account

Attached: B83539F2-E6E5-4730-BA55-A9DDC1C02DFB.png (750x1334, 156K)

Other urls found in this thread:

link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper
warosu.org/biz/thread/S12076959#p12080891
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Imagine having a single digit iq like op

Wouldn't this require your car to be connected to the internet at all times? No thanks lol

What do you expect from a 2 person team lmao incompetent potheads

great point glad you could enlighten me

Holy shit that's a 10bn usecase
A FUCKING
10BN
USECASE
ONLY ONE
IS WORTH
10BN
IMAGINE THE REST

holy shit you're right. just sold 100k

He's talking about new cars like a Tesla. Insurance is going to want a car to upload data to a trustless blockchain, not Tesla servers, to determine insurance payouts. You do know about the tsla/link connection, right?

I think it’s a valid question. Architecting smart contracts will be a form of art. The hardware will lag behind the software initially, but time will fix this.

t. nopants

This is the problem with smart contracts. There's no value add running things on a decentralized whatever the fuck. You need a court with humans in it to run everything anyways.

elon musk asks "what things should be developed on ethereum?" on twitter while also pursuing insurance as a Tesla offering. i guess it's pretty likely he's gonna drop the blockchain bomb soona nd WE'RE FUCKING AR;LJRICIIICHHH RICH FUCK EYAADSS

Cars connected to IOT will be standard. Everything starts out in high end vehicles then becomes the norm.

There are some use cases that are fine

However from the beginning I’ve asked how “subjective inputs” will work. Things that are binary in nature (true or false) type of agreements are great for smart contracts.

However what I’m questioning is a “subjective input”

You are motherfucking stupid to think that a sensor that checks for collisions would be designed to break to signal that the car crashed, a sensor that breaks gives NOTHING like NULL instead of the lb per pound, the jerk, and the jounce required to check for a collision

*per inch

fuck you

>This is the problem with cars they need Oil where would you even get that from. Who needs a car when you have a horse and it can just eat grass on the side of the road.

Here's the spoon. Now eat you dumb motherfucker.

link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper

Attached: 1557664650963.jpg (814x1136, 398K)

thats why jaguar and iota is a big deal

Durrr here’s your spoon for subjective inputs

Only person with a Brain here

>smart contract says you'll pay once the goods are delivered
>sensor will detect that the good have arrived
>sensor goes off, you pay the company but good were never delivered
what now?

high iq except for the first line

The question in itself is valid. It will be a cat and mouse game of designing hardware that can keep up with those who will try and fraud the system.

>tfw literally nearly every question or argument Jow Forums brings up against link is answered in the whitepaper
>tfw people here are too mentally challenged to read 30 pages

kys unironically

Attached: 1557680602668.jpg (840x747, 98K)

I think the article comes off as broad use cases. They released right before the hackaton so it's probably to help jump start ideas for developers. Also, we are early stages, many of these will develop over time, with simpler models coming first. As one user mentioned, designing smart contract will def be an art.

Also, smashing with a hammer is way different then the metric you get from a crash.

This is a prime example of a “subjective input”

An “objective input” would be say, a price aggregation, temperature aggregation.

Hard to have an “objective input” when the data source is centralized in a single point (delivery) in your case

Or in my OP the case of a collision or fraud collision

I mean it depends on how you do it. You could use an e-signature too if you wanted or have Gps location trigger it.

You guys don't fucking get it, do you? Data providers (ie insurance claim investigators) would use similar methods to provide data to the nodes, only now they can automate their checks with tech (cameras, sensors, beyond anything you can fake) without requiring trust because it's decentralised.
No one gets the extent of how revolutionary it's all going to be. You fucking idiots.

It has been always like this, doesn't stop the industry in moving forward, see high voltage lines ac vs continuous current

Link is shit

you don't get the fucking point do you? LINK won't be used for fucking collision insurance in the next few years or so. look at pic by the time we are using smart contracts for things like that, tech will have developed so far to a point where we can hardly imagine it today (think internet in the 90s to now)

You could also solve the problem by decentralizing the inputs.

This will be much easier when two chainlink-connected cars collide (we're likely 4-5 years away from chainlinked collision data written to the blockchain is used as evidence in a court trial), but also throughout the car.

In fact, it's hard to imagine this system being useful unless there are multiple sensors spread throughout.

Use your brain opie

Fuck. Chainlink is literally going to enslave us. Everything bounded by contracts.

They planned this for when they get rid of whites. They need a way to keep the subhuman goyim in line.

Holy shit you are stupid. You are missing the core debate of the question. See

Attached: B0218550-2AC0-4B38-A773-D2B2C7A56D3C.jpg (638x1000, 92K)

wtf are you talking about? id much rather have my data uploaded to tesla servers than some public blockchain

This. I think LINK makes sense for crop insurance, but only if the data is taken from NWS weather stations or something else that can't be gamed, If it's IOT sensors on the farmers property, it invites more problems than it solves (nigger farmers hosing down their rain gauges, hairdrying thermometers, etc)

see

I don’t think any company would trust just one employee to verify the trust of a large currency transaction. So I don’t see why a smart contract without multiple stages of data triggers would be used.

And this. But even these link connected cars would be few and far between. Only rich people could afford it at first.

It's called a TEE and zkps. Data can be kept private

>no one gets it
>it's all we've been talking about for 2 fucking years
ok

see
and
warosu.org/biz/thread/S12076959#p12080891

Yeah layered smart contracts will be very important. They won't just use one data point metric. Probably will want many where to makes it real hard to game the system.

I don't believe people here even have a degree in the first place, like the most basic arduino shit you do in the first courses in uni for mouthbreathers teach you about how to measure signals and correct them and how it all works, also sensors are cheap af, the only reason your shit isn't filled with sensors everywhere it's because there is no current use case other than data filling and monitoring

They check multiple factors. OP is retarded if he thinks he can smash a sensor and it pays out automatically.

The problem is a single sensor triggering a payout that can be manipulated. Or as I was calling it earlier “a subjective input”

your gpu has like 8 different temperature sensors, every circuit in the world has several temperature sensors that literally cost like 5 cent

Yes exactly that’s just life

why do you think there will only be one sensor? I just can't wrap my head around this amount of stupidity.

"It can be tampered with" is a contract language problem, not a chainlink problem, and contract writers will develop a variety of ingenious ways to foil efforts at manipulation -- that's the easy part. See

How many sensors are there going to be? How hard is it going to be for a person to manipulate each sensor to get an automatic payout?

>sensor monitoring if a headlight works
>i take a hammer to that headlight
>free insurance money
ok now this is epic

See, you simply don't get it. Everyone still thinks in centralized terms. Fucking morons.
Hint: privacy will be completely a thing of the past very soon

credit default swaps is a 10 trillion dollar market

Yeah baby, once the link team determine the "road quality" of whatever shitty street you're driving on then.... well, then they'll know that information. So they'll have that. So that's good.

Very based and extremely bullish thread frens. Reminds me of last years comfy threads.

Attached: 1557792936377.png (1082x695, 503K)

More like the experts come toncheck your car, takes picture and validates everything on his chainlinked ipad application using docusign bridges.
Then OP gets paid

I remember some local engineering project for some farming industries that were about putting several arduinos in a large km radious near the hills to detect in real time the weather and automatically close the farming indoors if there were going to have lots of raining or the weather was going bad

They didn't put just one data input, they put a lot of them and it was cheap af to do

fraud exists now, shoplifting exists now. Life marches on though because they are fringe costs.
If the savings of automated insurance schemes are greater than the uptick of fraud, implementation is a no brainer.

Also, with chainlinked smartcontracts, there is a PERMANENT EVIDENCE TRAIL. Committing blockchain fraud is going to be more risky than it has ever been before.

>be business
>automate deliveries and payments to pay on delivery
>sensor detects package is in correct spot
>delivery driver confirms it was delivered
>gps in truck confirms location
>employee e-signs on it
>pays out

>open container
>wrong product

dude just need more inputs to prevent subjectivity

Jesus christ the future is coming fast.

Even some of the most bullish holders don't get it. The architecture is presently in place, the whole building is built, the wiring and the plumbing are more or less already done -- we've just needed someone to turn on the lights.

What kind of collision is focused on just a small area? Something the size of a hammer hitting as hard as a person swinging a hammer on area the size of hammer probably won't register the same as getting hit by a train. The other sensors will be broadcasting too. Not to mention the sensors in the hammer, it would be trivial for the company to tell that something fishy is going on.

That will be completely up to the insurer to cover such a thing though. If they’re comfortable with providing this type of service then jokes on them. Also another user said cars are equipped with 360 cameras now days, I do believe this will play a role.

>still need an expert to confirm

Isn’t the point of smart contracts to put these types of middlemen of trust out of a job?

literally btfo'd your post before you posted it

Attached: 1557267110476.png (500x500, 242K)

You need to think more on the empowerment of consumers side too.
At the moment, if your car is insured for market value, the market value is decided arbitrarily by your insurer, and a lot ot times, what they give you wont be enough to buy a replacement off the actual market.

Something like a market value oracle would give more power to consumers

let an extra sensor get delivered with 2 buttons.
Both need to press one button, fixed !
fuck gonna fuck bitches when rich yeehaa
swiet howme yalabama

Attached: 111222336.jpg (764x551, 152K)

Jokes on you we will probably some forehead chip that will be able to validate every fucking product in the world like some walmart cashier before the smart contract even fires

Just one of many inputs a smart insurance contract might have and need

You wouldn't even need to break your own car.
What's stopping you from cutting off your cars connection, then emulating your car much like how you emulate a virtual server.

have you even read anything posted in this thread

Attached: 1558125013286.png (861x877, 186K)

>what's stopping you on fucking around with your power consumption meter

>to get an insurance payout you need to be lucky enough that the guy who crashed into you had a chainlink connected car
So it can only work if the state mandates chainlink sensors for all cars?

Sirgay already covered this in a talk last year. Some things are just retarded to try and smartcontract. The pajeet gave the exact same scenario as you did too. How do I know my pine nuts aren't actually corn? If this isn't obvious to you then you probably shouldn't put it in a smartcontract. Smartcontracts are perfect, they do exactly what you tell it to do. If you know this and then try to make it do other things without putting it in there, well sometimes it might not do things that they aren't specified to do. Truck weigh stations and dynamic road taxes make sense. You can't fake the weight nor the road they are driving on. Determining if the truck is carrying manure or mandolins is a little trickier. Use the right tools for the job and you have no troubles.

Yeah, I read the whole thread
It's a bunch of people handwaving away cybersecurity which is a recipe for disaster

Once again core debate

Subjective inputs vs objective input

>cybersecurity
so you haven't read the whitepaper then? it goes into security quite heavily.
fucking newfags.

Attached: 1557943073409.jpg (229x220, 7K)

You must think of this as «where am i saving money» even if i pay the expert, on whom both the insurance and OP can agree on, you are both saving money from paying the stacies that actually handle the money transfers.
Insurance can deal cheaper plans and OP gets is sure to get paid instantly when the expert report is sent.
Win win situation for both parties.
All other insurance companies must then follow because if you don’t, you die

1k eoy is fud my friends

Real time video being analyzed by AI...

Nodes will use fucking cameras everywhere. Cameras on other people's cars. Send drone robots with sensors. Or people. Whatever. Whoever gets reliable, true data out first on the network gets the link.
You guys are not thinking this through.
You're just thinking about how it will be in early stages.

And also you must consider the trust issue we have when dealing with normal insurance providers, here where it is backed by a smartcontract, OP feels kinda safer with his insurance plan and how the payment is processed automatically

Subjective becomes objective if enough people agree. That's one benefit of decentralising

>Consequently, CHAINLINK-SC
does not have direct visibility into oracle responses and cannot itself monitor availability and correctness.

So they literally admit in the white paper that can't do anything about someone sending in false data about their car?
If availability cannot be monitored that means I can switch out my real car with a virtual car and send erroneous data, this applies to anything that's dependent on one user sending information as opposed to many.

It doesn't matter if you have 1 sensor or 10,000 sensors in your car. Do they all have their own connection to some satellite? Of course not, that would be cost prohibitive. It would use one single central connection to a satellite. All you need to do is be the man in the middle.

I am thinking it through
It's you who thinks Chainlink will make hacking and fraud impossible.

This is an issue. You’d have to have some sort of automation aspect to this process or it would really slow down efficieny.

I suppose a service for earning link could be developed to review these videos.

You're retarded. You can easily give a car a unique digital identity and so if the info doesn't come from that identity then it doesn't get accepted.

LMAO what?
have you read anything in this thread relating to data collection or aggregation?
also fraud will ALWAYS be a thing, it doesn't somehow make link less valuable. no one has ever said chainlink somehow solves fraud completely.

They just assume it’s fud or “it will all work out” while we may be overthinking it, it is important to look for flaws

No one is denying chainlink has a good usecase or isn’t important to crypto. I just wanted to see what people would come up with. Some reasonable stuff and some ridiculous sci-fi nonsense. Then the idiots who think it’s just blatant fud

Yeah that's a use case that isn't ready just yet. I'm just throwing it out there because it will likely be possible in the future.

literally every single one of your arguments has been BTFO by multiple anons
the only half argument you have is for use cases that won't even be a thing for quite a few years. but by then tech will have improved enough to solve these issues.