A while back there was a clip that cirulated where a bitcoin maximalist said something to the effect of "if someone were to solve the oracle problem, it would be worth more than all of crypto"
He then went on to give the standard counterargument that sybill attacks fundamentally prevent resolution of the oracle problem. He was almost right
Here's the reality: in isolation without external factors this is correct. Put differently: if all of crypto was created de-novo and no data/api providers existed before the advent of chainlink, there would exist an equilibrium at which sybill attacks would be more profitable than delivering quality data or outputs. If this was the case, there are ways of breaking this state, but they involve exchange of value first in a non-deterministic manner and then using the experience from that to bootstrap an oracle network.
Fortunately, before crypto the world did exist. This led to trust systems being developed to reign in this situation (lawsuits, word-of-mouth reputation, the value of name recognition) in a world of non-deterministic interactions. For chainlink this is an absolute blessing.
The network will launch with actors providing APIs and data that are linked to their real-world names and practices. This means that even outside of the sybill equilibrium, there will be significant pressure to have high quality inputs and outputs. A bank can't expect to keep its good name if it makes a habit of screwing its smart contract customers while keeping good practices with its standard customers.
So what follows logically from this? The initial network has to tap into this entropy of trust left over from the non-deterministic world. In other words, it can't be decentralized initially unless the network wants to go through a growth period where bad behavior is actually game-theory optimal (with asymptotic approach to trustworthy behavior). Human beings being what they are, such a period would sour people against the use of smart contracts if they could be scammed early on, even if they were safer than conventional alternatives.
For an example of this look at common perception of bitcoin. It has provided 24/7 value transfer at discount rates since its launch 10 years ago. During that time billions have been transferred without loss. On top of that it has increased in value from less than a dollar to over a thousand dollars. Any stock, bond or precious metal that did that would be hailed as the greatest investment in the history of the world.
Austin Bailey
Poo poo pee pee
Connor Turner
But human perception matters.
For that reason the chainlink network cannot launch decentralized and must launch with as much provider/node transparency as possible. This sets the floor for node behavior when the network does decentralize. Only though doing it this way will people, with all their flaws, see the value.
Put another way: the only way to successfully launch any oracle network is from the top down with respect to real-world trust. If you could launch a perfectly coded, perfectly transparent, perfectly decentralized oracle network right now you would still lose to chainlink. An oracle network must first have the buy in (and implicit pledge to perform) of those agencies with the most real world trust. The network which harvests these residual trust sources from the real world is the one that wins, and the one that wins is the de facto monopoly because those that can't harvest this resource must traverse the sybill period to launch.
Asher Cox
>newfag just read the pasta that has been around for over a year and got all wet
The oracle problems isn't a real thing in computer science or even economic studies.
Stop dreaming.
Eli Nelson
You are about to see an entire industry (the trust assurances industry) be swallowed whole by a decentralized network. The marginal value of all trust assurances services in the world (contracts lawyers, non-criminal courts, administrative workers etc.) will become the chainlink network. Those groups which don't make this transition will cease to exist. In 20 years it will be hard to imagine how the world functioned without such a network, just as it's hard to imagine a world without the internet now.
You're about to watch the whole world realize, slowly, this new reality. Remember that it takes hours and hours of dedication to get what I'm saying right now. Next year you'll just have to be a CEO/CTO level person to understand. The year after that, someone who is considered smart and cutting edge. You're about to witness all of this happen.
At this point, there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Even if the whole chainlink team died, the cat is out of the bag. Once traditional trust assurers understand this, such a network can't not exist.
Angel Hughes
I'm numb to everything except LINK's fucking price at this point. They could partner with literal space aliens and it wouldn't matter to me. Please, just pump already.
So the gist of this pasta is that link doesn't do anything invulnerable from a technical perspective, but only positions itself as invulnerable in an economic sense by getting the big contracts early on and thereby being the "generic name" of smart contracts the same way Bitcoin is itself a byword for cryptocurrencies as stores of value? Or am I completely wrong?
Tyler Stewart
You interpreted it correctly, desu.
Josiah Nguyen
So it stands to be for smart contracts what Google is for search engines? But from a business perspective what makes that inevitable? I don't see why smart contract systems couldn't be proprietary, whereas search engines by nature encourage centralisation.
Ryder Johnson
kind of.
the most important line which sums it up is basically "If you could launch a perfectly coded, perfectly transparent, perfectly decentralized oracle network right now you would still lose to chainlink."
It's first movers advantage, but multiplied massively due to the circumstances. Some RLC shill can argue that their code is better (not true but let's say) but none of it matters. It's the same thing as how BSV could be argued to be technologically superior to BTC.
This is my pasta so Ill answer: Development of an oracle layer requires either a period of game-theory-optimal dishonest behavior at launch or leverages real world trust assets to skip this stage.
The part about a perfectly coded competitior losing to chainlink is the logical conclusion of this.
Andrew Williams
It’s a network effect. There’s no reason to compete, especially since chainlink isn’t in the business of running oracles and reselling data. Instead, they’re providing the framework.
Adrian Long
>proprietary You do realize smart contracts require decentralization? And for a decentralized network, you require some sort of incentive (cryptocurrency/tokens)? It literally can't be proprietary.
John Bell
>Development of an oracle layer requires either a period of game-theory-optimal dishonest behavior at launch or leverages real world trust assets to skip this stage. How would dishonest behaviour help launch an oracle? And I don't get the specifics of how chainlink would be protected from being usurped by a technologically superior opponent, even if I understand that they could establish an insurmountable economic lead by being first to get the big contracts.
>You do realize Nope, sorry, I don't. As far as I understand "smart contracts" it's a system for automating input/output conditions for contract updates, hence "smart contracts". I don't understand it to the degree that a necessity for decentralisation would be apparent to me.
Jose Carter
if you are triggering smartcontracts with a centralized party, what is the point of using a smartcontract?
Daniel James
I don't understand the question.
Chase Reed
imagine actually reading that shit
link is a scam and you all got played like fiddles
Jonathan Rivera
You’ll never get a finger on my butterfinger
Brayden Perez
the whole point is to eliminate thrust of the equation on a contract
you can only do that with a decentrilized oracle
Cameron Lee
You mean trust? But how does that align with what the copypasta seems to be saying - that trust is the essential ingredient that gets link off the ground and into an insurmountable head start on potential competitors? How can the system function without trust? Isn't that what they call the "Oracle problem"?
If I'm asking too many questions that aren't aimed at the right target it might just be easier for you to just explain what chainlink is and what it's supposed to do overall, because I probably don't have enough of the big picture for the details to improve my understanding.
Jayden Lewis
DR;NS
Owen Hughes
This
Easton Wood
This. Checked and based 1000$ EOY
James Adams
Best thread on biz right now
Cooper Gomez
Is that a high bar?
Sebastian Johnson
>You mean trust?
kek i'm braindead at this time
the trust it mentions on the pasta it's just the trust the network itself need to aggregate so that companies start to see it as an alternative to the old system
you can imagine a decentralized oracle as 100% pure neutral entity that will execute a contract once the terms are met, no matter what
imagine a credit default swap contract, the company that secures the contract will try everything they can to never actually pay the insurance in the event whoever they are covering defaults, they can't do that if it's all under a smartcontract
If i'm not making sense, just watch this interview, i guess it covers the whole thing
So what's your opinion on cl worth two years from now?
Adrian Wood
A classic criticism of all oracle layers is that they are theoretically vulnerable to sybill attacks. This post showed how Chainlink addressed that problem. As Chainlink has effectively monopolozed residual real world trust entities this solution is unavailable to competing networks.
Brody Lopez
Global adoption of LINK as a universal standard for contract settlement and creation is already priced in. Do you guys really think you're that ahead of business magistrates and tried-and-tested geniuses? Yes, your product will work, but everybody already knows this. At most we'll reach $3 in over the next decade to account for inflation and the remaining few unexpected events.
