I'm a developer and I looked over the Chainlink white paper and documentation, as well as the blog post by Google. Here's a few reasons I would not use Chainlink for my own apps:
The current "mainnet" is not decentralized. there's no way to decentrally assess if an oracle is any good or not.
It took them 2 years to basically build centralized oracles, which is extremely unimpressive (and already exists). I do not have much hope for the future or the competency of their engineers.
The white paper doesn't coherently describe how they plan on making their centralized design decentralized one day. They broadly go over their "decentralized" reputation strategies as if creating sybil resistant decentralized reputation is something of an afterthought, when it's actually an unsolved computer science problem. They've had 2-3 years and $30M in funding to actually publish technical specifications for this and instead they decided to build trivial centralized oracles. Extremely worrying. It kind of reminds me of IOTA "we'll remove the coordinator later". No you won't. You don't know how.
News outlet and journalists keep reporting on "partnerships" with Google and Swift. But if you actually read the source for the "partnership", it's just a blog post by Google Cloud that promotes their own service (BigQuery) and shows an example about how Chainlink users can use Google Cloud if they want. In no way is Google partnered or planning on using Chainlink themselves. The Chainlink codebase is extremely trivial to rebuild if Google wanted to get into the blockchain oracle space.
While there's certainly profits to be made by trading Chainlink, I recommend you do not HODL it with the hope that one day developers will adopt it as their source for decentralized oracles. That certainly won't happen.
Pretty good fud actually. All true points and can’t honestly refute it without devolving into belieb in da team bullshit
Grayson Bennett
>The current "mainnet" is not decentralized. BUY RLC
Logan Martin
What's your email soldier?
Mason Collins
Link was a simple 20x PND scam. You had weeks to get out at $4. It will soon follow the TOMO path.
Buy Trustverse if you wans solid, long-term uptrends.
Asher White
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER
DO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF POSITIVE THOUGHT! ESPECIALLY COLLECTIVE POSITIVE THOUGHT!
THIS SHIT IS GOING TO REACH $1,000 EASILY! HOLD THAT THOUGHT AND VISUALIZE IT IN YOUR MIND EVERYDAY AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE STARTING NOW AND IT WILL MANIFEST INTO REALITY. DO IT! I'M NOT JOKING!
VISUALIZE AS OFTEN AND AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE!
EVERYTHING IS ENERGY AND VIBRATION ATTUNE YOUR VIBRATIONS TO MATCH THAT OF MONEY AND IT WILL FLOW TO U
Here is the trick. Pay close attention or you will miss it. You do not want decentralized Oracles. ChainLink offers something that has real world value. What that is you will have to find out on your own or in time.
Asher Bell
Well done user
Ayden Richardson
Look everyone, its this pasta again
Asher Taylor
You are a MANIAC!
Cooper Garcia
I work for Google. This is a scam, sell now!
Thomas Miller
go back to plebbit faggot
For anyone who doesn't know, this was posted by a larping plebbitor originally on plebbit
Grayson Bennett
I'm a developer and I looked over the Chainlink white paper and documentation, as well as the blog post by Google. Here's a few reasons I would not use Chainlink for my own apps:
The current "mainnet" is not decentralized. there's no way to decentrally assess if an oracle is any good or not.
It took them 2 years to basically build centralized oracles, which is extremely unimpressive (and already exists). I do not have much hope for the future or the competency of their engineers.
The white paper doesn't coherently describe how they plan on making their centralized design decentralized one day. They broadly go over their "decentralized" reputation strategies as if creating sybil resistant decentralized reputation is something of an afterthought, when it's actually an unsolved computer science problem. They've had 2-3 years and $30M in funding to actually publish technical specifications for this and instead they decided to build trivial centralized oracles. Extremely worrying. It kind of reminds me of IOTA "we'll remove the coordinator later". No you won't. You don't know how.
News outlet and journalists keep reporting on "partnerships" with Google and Swift. But if you actually read the source for the "partnership", it's just a blog post by Google Cloud that promotes their own service (BigQuery) and shows an example about how Chainlink users can use Google Cloud if they want. In no way is Google partnered or planning on using Chainlink themselves. The Chainlink codebase is extremely trivial to rebuild if Google wanted to get into the blockchain oracle space.
While there's certainly profits to be made by trading Chainlink, I recommend you do not HODL it with the hope that one day developers will adopt it as their source for decentralized oracles. That certainly won't happen.
Thomas Sanchez
tx, just dumped 700k
Ian Barnes
While this is obvious tranny fud, the funny thing is its all true
Alexander Cruz
>copypasta - doesn't know about coordicide or IOTA's coorporation with Telekom kek
>coordicide kek the coordinator is still not removed as of right now, that is a fact. They say they figured out how to do it, but until it is done, IOTA is and has been a centralized scam all along.
Hudson Garcia
This post is not true. I'll tell you the real story.
I'm a developer and I looked over the Chainlink white paper and documentation, as well as the blog post by Google. Here's a few reasons I would not use Chainlink for my own apps:
The current "mainnet" is not decentralized. there's no way to decentrally assess if an oracle is any good or not.
It took them 2 years to basically build centralized oracles, which is extremely unimpressive (and already exists). I do not have much hope for the future or the competency of their engineers.
The white paper doesn't coherently describe how they plan on making their centralized design decentralized one day. They broadly go over their "decentralized" reputation strategies as if creating sybil resistant decentralized reputation is something of an afterthought, when it's actually an unsolved computer science problem. They've had 2-3 years and $30M in funding to actually publish technical specifications for this and instead they decided to build trivial centralized oracles. Extremely worrying. It kind of reminds me of IOTA "we'll remove the coordinator later". No you won't. You don't know how.
News outlet and journalists keep reporting on "partnerships" with Google and Swift. But if you actually read the source for the "partnership", it's just a blog post by Google Cloud that promotes their own service (BigQuery) and shows an example about how Chainlink users can use Google Cloud if they want. In no way is Google partnered or planning on using Chainlink themselves. The Chainlink codebase is extremely trivial to rebuild if Google wanted to get into the blockchain oracle space.
While there's certainly profits to be made by trading Chainlink, I recommend you do not HODL it with the hope that one day developers will adopt it as their source for decentralized oracles. That certainly won't happen.
