So Chainlink has been proven to be a scam, now what?

>still fudding chainlink
Not gonna make it

Yeah it's a terrible project.
Make sure you sell your whole stacks (if you have any.)
Also you can use the filter system on this sub to filter out a whole bunch of stuff. I'd recommend things like "linky" "chainlink" "sergey" etc. It stops you from being overloaded with this shit so that we can focus on the discussion of projects with an actual future like nano and vechain.

wtf just sold 100k thanks

Attached: scam confirmed.png (896x338, 91K)

Do you have any suggestions for what I should diversify my stink stack with?

Amoveo oracle design is much better

The OP's point still stands. How will Link solve sybil attack in decentralized node?

I didn't even use an ad hominem you stupid faggot, go flaunt your nigger brains somewhere else you objective subhuman shitskin

TEE

>Trusting some literallywho NEET's node over the provider themselves

Attention dear (((market maker))), I have an announcement to make:

*AHEM....*

I

AM

NEVER

FUCKING

SELLING

&

MY

LINKIES

STAY

SUPER

STINKY

IN

COLD

STORAGE
-----------------------------------
N E V E R S E L L I N G

E

V

E

R

S

E

L

L

I

N

G

Attached: 1561819595577.jpg (923x713, 86K)

the worst part of the whitepaper was its assertion that trusted hardware from fucking intel will solve these issues.

The entire whitepaper, is baffle with bullshit, vague your way through it, and footnote the important parts, and then don't explain the apparent masterful solution in the very footnote that is supposed to provide the solution to oracles.

linkies. I commend you on your pump. its gone above and beyond everyone's expectations. it could even go further, just so long as this bullshit is in development and your meme power saturates this board.

but don't think for a second you've invested your monies into something that will work.

it utter vapoware to the core. so please, take profit, and at least recover your initial investment. then just ride the train if you want to play this retarded game.

but i promise you, those unrealized profits will burn your fucking mind clean of all your delusions when this thing goes back to top 200.

so take profit, cash out at least your initial investment x2 to retain some sanity when this thing inevitably implodes

>google
>oracle
>swift
I know you own link and I hope you sell early and kys you subhuman attention seeking discord tranny

now go dilate

Attached: 1530572856677.jpg (684x529, 76K)

linkies on suicide watch

They’ve discussed this. Extreme valuation of the token will make a Sybil attack threat essentially void. You couldn’t gather enough LINK under a common banner to do it, and even if you could the amount of money you’d have to risk to do it would be insane already there’s no reason for you to try to scam a contract.

$1000 is fud, literally.

How can you morally justify profit of a scam in the course of your lifetime? Just because others did it is not a valid argument?

>make a token that incentivises "decentralized oracles", hence, decentralised data collection
>the data collection still has to come from a centralised API
>introducing a method to make data aggregation "trustless" when the initial data isn't even trustless at all and can never be trustless no matter the aggregation process
>Jow Forums thinks banks and enterprises won't spot this circle-logic retardation in one glance at the whitepaper

It's fucking hopeless at this point.

If the team can't answer this question I don't believe some random user on a mongolian basket weaving forum could do that.

now you go dilate and shit in a street

You're funny user. Actually really funny, made me laugh, thanks.
> t will go to $20-30 this year, but anything above that is a big risk.

The big risk is investing. Not how much money it might bring, if successful.

Attached: pp.png (500x377, 60K)

oof except it's already been answered here - reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/8x553t/attack_by_nodes_security_of_using_cl/

you should already be aware of this information though since you come from rebbit

it's kind of funny how no one has read the whitepaper despite thousands here being in the cult. This is answered within the first three pages.
Data is provided in a commit-reveal process so that oracles can't cheat by copying other oracles to get free money. The "truth" is defined by the creator of the contract, and LINK provides some default aggregating functions. It could be a simple "yes no" response, or averaging the numerical responses of the oracles
I believe the oracles are chosen at random, so you would need to own a something like 30% of the nodes to even have a small chance of rigging the answer. for corrupting 4/5 oracles that's .3 * .3 *.3 *.3 = 0.8% Given there is a reward there will be more people competing for oracles and you're not going to corrupt them all.
also, at the end of the day of all the oracles coordinate to give fake data, people stop querying chain link because it doesn't work, and the golden goose disappears.

the responses are signed using public key cryptography, so you have immutable proof that an oracle gave a faulty answer, so their reputation score lowers. I assume that also lowers their chances of being picked.
t. nolinker

github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/other_blockchains/chainlink.md

its 2019 and swingies still use the its a scam card

Attached: kkee.jpg (265x190, 5K)

This. The data has to come from a centralized source

All in brapper

I already know how link posters will answer this.

They will claim that it will use proof of stake and a collateral. The only problem with this answer is that a real proof of stake design require a way to do decentralized randomness to choose a random node, which is very complex (don't think it's ever been done anywhere) and not explained how they would do it in the white paper. There's also a multitude of unanswered questions like who decides what's valid data, what's the penalty, where all this state is stored, is it on Ethereum? Is it on some "Chainlink blockchain"? What happens with the 65% owned by the team, wouldn't they have absolute power in a PoS system? The white paper is purposefully vague in an attempt to deceive.

They might also mention TEEs, which really do nothing to fight sybil attacks or contribute to the actual decentralization.

That vitamin c bit made me kek

you had two years incel

>it's kind of funny how no one has read the whitepaper despite thousands here being in the cult. This is answered within the first three pages.
>Data is provided in a commit-reveal process so that oracles can't cheat by copying other oracles to get free money. The "truth" is defined by the creator of the contract, and LINK provides some default aggregating functions. It could be a simple "yes no" response, or averaging the numerical responses of the oracles
>I believe the oracles are chosen at random, so you would need to own a something like 30% of the nodes to even have a small chance of rigging the answer. for corrupting 4/5 oracles that's .3 * .3 *.3 *.3 = 0.8% Given there is a reward there will be more people competing for oracles and you're not going to corrupt them all.
>also, at the end of the day of all the oracles coordinate to give fake data, people stop querying chain link because it doesn't work, and the golden goose disappears.
There's many problems with your answer. How are they gonna do decentralized randomness? That's an entire problem in itself. How are they gonna prevent people from creating infinite amount of nodes? If it's by staking, what's preventing me from having more stake and stealing your collateral? The mere fact that these questions are still unanswered 2 years after raising $32mil makes Chainlink a proven scam.

To be fair, Bitcoin was all vague too in the beginning.

Not shilling for Link here.
It must and will fall as of a few hours ago.

It will be able to make a bit of money again though, I think.

Just the illusionary 100x 1000x these kids dream of

2 years you guys had, and you guys are still sitting on the sidelines, listen here you uneducated fool, we are never ever fucking selling do you hear me ? now go wagie wagie in your cagie cagie

Attached: 1560448383471.jpg (540x720, 33K)

Just buy a grip of EVE and throw it in cold storage for 6 months. unironically only need 100k tokens to make it.

Attached: evelambo9.gif (500x281, 41K)

You are selling already

As are Chainlink themselves

That sounds very expensive. If you are going to do that level of verification, why not provide a cryptographic proof of the validity of the data at the source. Say my dentist sends my dental records to a smart contract, my dentist should then use her private key to verify that the data is correct. That would be much cheaper than sending the data to 10 different oracles that would all want to get paid in LINK, and that would compare the result among themselves.

that's a nice house of cards system user
wonder who of the giant node clusters will get weak hands first

I'm not sure if you're purposefully lying but this is not true. The bitcoin whitepaper explains every non obvious concepts needed to created bitcoin bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf . So did the ethereum yellow paper.

The Chainlink whitepaper is vague in order to deceive.

this is the most stupid FUD i ever read since two years(im a 100% all in linky since si os 2017) im also a software enngineer and been doing ut for 10 years.

this FUD makes no sense, because you are implying no source can be truzted. as in imagine i use a google API for geohashing and google just lies on the data and gives me fake data. how in the world am i going to verify that google lied? ohh yeah let me guess your answer, you're gonna say ohh i'll just query another geohashing service and verify googles answer... oh? really? what are the chances that the api you are using to validate is more trustable than google? well guess what? this fud is just that FUD to try to create fear in the inveztors, iin the real world the data providers selected by the smart contracts are written i. the terms of the contract. the client will HAVE to accept those terms. if a smart contract uses 3 nodes that are trustable youll just have less chances that the 3 nodes will lie than use 1 source of data you dumb fuck. the more sources you use (the more nodes) the more security you get.

Basically, it goes down till tomorrow and then at I don't know, maybe 2 dollars, it will pick up again till 5 dollars. And then the whole thing starts over again user.

If you want to become a multi millionaire by investing 10 dollars, you will dream on for a long time, I'm afraid.

Yes? Does that mean it can't make money?

For fucks sake Phillip Morris makes money

Then why have the middle man? They’d just use the API

you cant, imagine that the geohashing api gets its signature updated or the format of the response changes or the server hosting the api moves. you cant hard write the url of the api in the smart contract, the smart contract is immutable. you need a third party that xill migrate to the new server or process the new data format.

>iin the real world the data providers selected by the smart contracts are written i. the terms of the contract. the client will HAVE to accept those terms. if a smart contract uses 3 nodes
I'm not sure if you realize but the design you've just described is not decentralized. It's just a normal centralized oracle. Except there's 3 and you average them out. It's also extremely trivial to implement as a developer. I could do it in maybe 50 lines of code. Why would I use Chainlink? How is this not a scam that a project has $4bil valuation for this?

what do you think of hypercash/hxchange

Look at it this way: even if it was built to create highs and lows and make some kids money like from 29c to 3,5 $
Why not be smarter about it and let it run?

Problem here is you assume crypto isn't all about scamming. The space is entirely digital rent seekers looking for nothing more than to pump their bags. Even some of the more "promising" projects have coins that are in fact completely useless

why the fuck does blockchain tech need to be transparent?
which fucking industry is transparent on the solutions it provides?
wtf boy

>e format of the response changes or the server hosting the api moves. you cant hard write the url of the api in the smart contract, the smart contract is immutable. you need a third party that xill migrate to the new server or process the new data format.
Why can't the API operator run his own oracle to do this?

>infinite number of nodes
nodes require staking link, which is finite
>randomness
first your node has to satisfy the contract also reputation plays a part, and if you never provide the right answer, it doesn't matter how many nodes you have, none of them will receive jobs. decentralized randomness is not so hard as you think, it can be coded in the contract.
>That sounds very expensive
public key cryptography is free, and should only take less than a milisecond for signing.
> my dentist should then use her private key to verify that the data is correct.
If the oracle signed the data, that is proof that the data is from that oracle. what you're talking about is not a good usecase of link because the data can only be from one source. Link is better suited for derivatives gambling. What is the price of LINK at Jan 1 2020? Link can not be used to make private orgs give up private data.

Thats exactly what they'll be doing, retard. They'll be selling their data that gets requested via smart contracts for stinky linkies.

Why even go blockchain with that argument? Look broader. Google definitely are completely transparent, as we all know XD

>except there are 3 and you averafe them
yes thats how a decentralized node network works. the 3 or 50 nodes or 1000 nodes you query are completely unrelated entities.

>why the fuck does blockchain tech need to be transparent?
Because all legit projects have been transparent so far. Because this is academic level shit that requires peer reviews. If you're not transparent, you're scamming. There's no excuse. Simple as that.

>How are they gonna do decentralized randomness?
With an RNG.
>How are they gonna prevent people from creating infinite amount of nodes?
Nodes are hardware and not software.
>If it's by staking, what's preventing me from having more stake and stealing your collateral?
Nothing but you only do that by being right 100% of the time, thereby fulfilling Chainlink's goal of nodes being incentivized to do the right thing.

Ah Chainlink. The Enron and Pets.com of crypto.

the you are not decentralized and you are not trustless. because the contractor would have to trust the company histing his smart contract. you would lose the whole purpose of trustless decentralization brought by blockchain. at this point just use a database annd write your contract with jjava code thats enough, no need to sell to your clients that you are using the blockchain

But muh Google! They've never been transparent. Yet wouldn't you fucker like to hold 1 percent of their shares?

>who decides what’s valid data
Majority consensus
>what’s the penalty?
Loss of reputation
>where all this state is stored
?? Don’t understand the question
>is it on ethereum
Blockchain agnostic. Using eth is temporary for now
>is it on some Chainlink blockchain?
Blockchain agnostic it can be used on any blockchain existing or to be created.
>what happens with the 65%? Wouldn’t they have absolute power?
Nodes are chosen randomly. It’s not always going to choose their nodes.
It’s not purposefully vague you just have to be smart reading it.

so where is the design for all this? You're being just as vague as the whitepaper. You need to understand that there's infinite amount of possible flaws for this design you're talking about. No specs = the team is scamming.

I really don't have time to argue about vague theoretical designs. Show me specs, and we will tell you if there are flaws or not. Show me no specs after 2 years, and we know you are a scammer.

Exactly, it seems like it just adds an unnecessary middle man. If the enterprise itself is running the node, how does this add an extra layer of trust

So Chainlink is really for cases where you're getting the same data from multiple API sources?

You cannot use RNG to do decentralized randomness. Again, show me specs, or the team is scamming. There's no point in arguing about high level vague design. This is exactly why Chainlink is a scam.

2 years + 32 mils + no specs = scam

That would be redundant though .. if you were gathering the same data from multiple APIs that would be just as trustless as LINKs proposed function

I actually tried to tell you all this 3 nights ago, when I was sitting here drunk as fuck. Nobody listened.
I'm sure it is in Jow Forums's storage now.

Chainlink is not a lost thing though. It will keep generating money, as I said. Just not the wonder pill make me a billionaire type.

I don't, pussy.

>>who decides what’s valid data
>Majority consensus
Means literally nothing. Just as unspecific as the scam white paper.
>>what’s the penalty?
>Loss of reputation
Means literally nothing. Just as unspecific as the scam white paper.
>>where all this state is stored
>?? Don’t understand the question
>>is it on ethereum
>Blockchain agnostic. Using eth is temporary for now
Means literally nothing. Just as unspecific as the scam white paper.
>>is it on some Chainlink blockchain?
>Blockchain agnostic it can be used on any blockchain existing or to be created.
>>what happens with the 65%? Wouldn’t they have absolute power?
Means literally nothing. Just as unspecific as the scam white paper.
>Nodes are chosen randomly. It’s not always going to choose their nodes.
Means literally nothing. Just as unspecific as the scam white paper.
>It’s not purposefully vague you just have to be smart reading it.

You are a literal retard my friend. It seems specific to you because you're not a programmer.

How do you think programs are made?

int consensus = "majority"

BOOM. WE'VE SOLVED IT GUYS

You are a literal retard and have no business talking about software.

Price predictions? Say, by EOY 2020?

What are you invested in friend

This. Bunch of 4channers tried to force it as /ourcoin/, during the presale ico phase of chainlink there was a minimum requirement of 300eth to enter the presale. Bunch of anons pooled up together and shared presale links to fill them with their eth. Coin continued to get shilled and pumped up and hyped for the sibios event that link was attended, whole event turned out to be a flop chainlink had a presentation in a room of like 18 people next to the public toilets, literally no news or partnership came from the event and the coin dumped back to below ico prices and created 1000's of bagholder anons. Now during this alt bull run lots of anons and took advantage of this and shilling this coin to all the new money and newfags that joined in december and don't know this story. The coin is HEAVILY manipulated and the supply is dried up from huge whales who accumulated below ICO price to create a artificially lower supply (a lot like REQ) and these people have so much room to dump on all of you faggots to still be in profit when the time comes. In regards to actual project that chainlink aiming to achieve it's nothing more than a basic json parser for smart contracts, would take like a day to add to ethereum by itself.. literally making links whole concept pointless and definitely no need for a token. Would take a lot longer to get it working with bitcoin but the bitcoin core devs would be able to work out the solution a lot quicker than chainlink will, think that's something worth noting that literally nothing is completed and you're literally just buying a whitepaper, they have only 2 developers and they don't communicate at all with no proven background on either, in fact sergey was involved in a project before chainlink called NxT that he since been abandoned until it was took over by a new developer team

there's nothing vague about what I said, you're just a retard. it's pretty clear you didn't even read it if you have basic questions like this.

So Chainlink is a network for data validation and aggregation, like a data repository that different blockchains could use. I could see that being useful, but perhaps, as the complexity that smart contracts is able to perform increases, data could be sent directly to smart contracts and aggregated within the smart contract, and the logic of the smart contract could solve the correctness, so that people would not have to pay the Chainlink network. But yeah, it is probably easier to just connect to chainlink for now.

unecessary middle man? no, you are literally implying that the blockchain is useless and legacy systems is the way to go retard stop acting like you are actually trying to be relevent when youre just fudding

It is hard to predict. But I'd say it will keep going back and forth between 2 and 5 or even 6 dollars, which is a huge win span anyway if you compare it to traditional, safe and sound stock.

It amazes me that people believe in the idea of winning the lottery, just because it happened once.

Rather look at it this way: continuously keep winning the small lottery

>a way to do decentralized randomness to choose a random node, which is very complex
Like using an oracle network with TEEs on each node to generate random numbers according to your favorite random number algs and then aggregating the results? kek

DO NO INCLUDE ME M8

I NEVER FORCED IT ON ANYONE

In fact, I always was critical

What’s your question here? Yeah consensus means the majority but you still have to get the value for it, which is what Chainlink is going to do.

>yes thats how a decentralized node network works. the 3 or 50 nodes or 1000 nodes you query are completely unrelated entities.
OK but that's completely useless. How do I know which oracles are reputable? How do I know which oracle is "Google"? Because they've KYCed with Chainlink? How is that decentralized? What if Google decide to cuck me and my contract? Who decides what's valid data? How do I get Google's collateral if they cuck me? What if they have more LINK than me?

This is not decentralized or well designed at all.

Doing God's work user

Your response
Means literally nothing.
You're not making counter arguments here.

no, chainlink is just necessary for smart contracts to function. if a company doesnt want to use blockchain they can write their own code and maintain it and sell to their clients that they are the ones that define what the contract doesi dont have a problem with that. but if a company wants to automate processes and contracts using the blockchain, then they will HAVE. to use chainlink.

chainlink is a necessity

thats why chainlink has a reputation system. refer to the whitepapet

>unironically responding to 2 year old pasta
how fucking new are you?

Attached: C90B5631-46A4-4C55-8775-7EFE60D4D0DC.jpg (936x960, 82K)

>>a way to do decentralized randomness to choose a random node, which is very complex
>Like using an oracle network with TEEs on each node to generate random numbers according to your favorite random number algs and then aggregating the results? kek
That again, is some vague bullshit. Where are the specs? I don't really care about your vague ass theories. Where's the proof that TEEs can do decentralized randomness? I highly doubt that it's true. You just pulled that shit out of your ass, just like Chainlink did with their white paper.

And it will keep making money.

Just hate to see these kids here thinking they will be rich because of it. That is not so.

So Chainlink will provide decentralized AND centralized oracles then?

I didn't even read it (you would have noticed that looking at timestamp) just saw you including me/my posts

for data that is publicly owned, there is an incentive to give incorrect data.
that is the problem link is designed to solve through crowd sourcing.
if your smart contract's data has no off chain data that needs tamper protection, you don't need link

but if you're executing derivatives payouts based on smart contracts... you want protection

If you think "majority" is an acceptable consensus algorithm, there's really no point in talking to you kek. You're basically a monkey

Huh, I actually don’t know the answers to these. Some of them I do, like if Google tries to cuck you then it loses its LINK. it doesn’t matter if Google has more LINK than you, you’re paying other nodes to verify your data. So let’s say both of you only pay $3 worth of Link to assure the validity of the contract. It doesn’t matter if Google has $300,000 worth of LINK since both of you are only paying a small price for the contract. And the result doesn’t always choose googles nodes since it is random.
I don’t know the answers to your first few questions but I imagine that’s why the white paper is vague, if they don’t have the answers yet but they have a general idea of the solution. I imagine that’s why it’s taking 2 years, they’re trying to find solutions to your questions, not because they’re dodging them and being scammy.

Attached: A4195C70-876A-43AA-BCC0-9FA56291FBEA.png (1080x1067, 747K)

>majority consensus means literally nothing and is unspecific
Yeah it's called a blockchain m8. Please learn the concept first.

Good effort though. Also appreciate the autistic coding purist touch, take it to Jow Forums and you'll be treated as a demigod there.