Timo is one of us

Same thing you do when a Bitcoin node lies: you verify with one or more other independent oracles/nodes.
It's called decentralization.

Read Sergey's mainnet blogpost you derp.
blog.chain.link/chainlink-live-ethereum-mainnet-connected-consensus/

Piss off onions lord. You are not one of US.

What is the difference between decentralized and distributed?

Yet it's still easily possible if there is incentive, compromising the integrity of the data.

If the oracle can lie it's not an oracle and thus the service can not be an oracle service. I sincerely hope you didn't buy StainStink.

Here comes Sybil, which means that when you ask "another independent oracle/node" you're actually asking from the same entity. StainStink has nothing to shield you from this except KYC. This means it's not decentralized, trustless oracle service.

>StainStink has nothing to shield you from this except KYC.
KYC is a good example, but there are more.
Read the white paper.

>This means it's not decentralized, trustless oracle service.
If Chainlink isn't that, then what is?
Or what would be, according to you?

He is a manlet, that played very dirty, and failed an ICO. fuck him

I know you are just fudding and having fun, it's fine, I've done that too, but seriously, read what TEE are. You can't compromise the data if you don't know what that data is

>but there are more.

No there aren't. They are not even doing anything to fix it right now

>If Chainlink isn't that, then what is?

Nothing yet. StainStink isn't, nor will it ever be one. The biggest reason is that Sergay will exit scam it way before they have a chance to actually start solving the problem. That's because he has a track record of exit scamming (NXT). He left the project for dead and created a new one (StainStink) to milk more money about the same concept that he wanted to achieve with NXT.

Well you've at least got to admit he's done an incredibly good job of exit scamming. Imagine the looks on the faces of Ari Juels, Evan Cheng, John Wolpert, Tom Gonser, Fernando Ribiero et al, man they're all gonna be steaming!

>implying they're not in on the scam

The only one who is going to be on the losing end are the Stinklets in Jow Forums and reddit. The guys you just listed are all profiting, and when Sergay ditches StainStink for another, his new better oracle project you'll be here with your dick in your hand bewildered about what just happened.

I just googled TEE. Can't say the results had anything to about verifying data that the verifier doesn't know about.

>No there aren't.
You only say that because you didn't read the white paper.

>Nothing yet. StainStink isn't, nor will it ever be one.
Basically, a decentralized oracle network is simply a certain number of independent oracle nodes.
Period.
Chainlink is definitely that, and much much more.

Timo is a dead man walking

>You only say that because you didn't read the white paper.

And yet nothing has been implemented even though it's been how many years since this scam was started? Exactly what has Sergay been doing all this time? Eating BigMacs? It looks like there are no real ways of dealing with Sybil except KYC.

>Basically, a decentralized oracle network is simply a certain number of independent oracle nodes.

Which StainStink does not have, because you can't trust any of them (Except KYC nodes). They are a centralized oracle solution just like any other (due to KYC). It's a limp dick shadow of what it was supposed to be and what was promised.

if you are so worried about chainlink being a scam you shouldn't buy it

>And yet nothing has been implemented
What?
They've been on initial mainnet for nearly three months now.

>Which StainStink does not have
But it does.

>because you can't trust any of them (Except KYC nodes)
Damn, you really don't think much of decentralization, and you sure seem to like your KYC, huh?

>They are a centralized oracle solution
Even on the very first day of mainnet there were three independent nodes.

>It's a limp dick shadow of what it was supposed to be and what was promised.
Read Sergey's mainnet blogpost.
It's not that fucking long.

>They've been on initial mainnet for nearly three months now.

The mainnet was supposed to be Sybil resistant. That's the basic, minimum requirement. KYC is a spit on the face of anyone who wants decentralization.

>But it does.

So does any provider who has 2 nodes. Literally anyone. the whole point was a decentralized TRUSTLESS oracle system. KYC is not trustless. Now instead of Amazon or IBM we have Stainstink inc as the gatekeeper.

>Even on the very first day of mainnet there were three independent nodes.

To which nobody could trust, because they might have very well been all created by mr BigMac himself. On the other hand if they were KYC nodes it was just three nodes by Stainstink inc.

This is where the JSON parser meme comes from. Without the trust layer it's a simple project that could be done by the companies themselves. No need to use Stink tokens or go through the hassle.

>Mainnet missing it's main feature
>Muh read the blogpost

Sergay will exit scam before it dawns to you that they never had an intention to complete it.

Your entire rant is about how you're against KYC, while it LITERALLY says KYC is optional in Sergey's mainnet blogpost (you know, the one I told you to read so many times now).
And on top of that, you yourself seem to claim KYC nodes are the "only ones you can trust", and you shouldn't trust the rest.

Are you a mental patient?

No he is a discord or solo fudder. No one cares if a project is shit, you have to want something to actively fud it. They want cheaper chainlink. That’s just it. I don’t fud many other coins that I don’t give a shit about because there’s no financial incentive to do so. I have chainlink in my portfolio obvs.

I'm not sure he wants cheaper Link.
His bullshit is so obvious that he might just be reverse psychology shilling Link.

>"Chainlink is shit because it has KYC even though KYC is optional!"
>"KYC is terrible, but you should only trust KYC nodes!"

I mean come on.

All that is relevant regarding the jews russians and german soibois surrounding timos merry band of discord trannies is, they will have to deal with the German Finance and have their doxes plastered all over the internet linking them with nazi frogs, that is basically a dead sentence in Germany

If you can't understand the point after it's been reiterated so many times you must have some sort of disconnect between parts of your brain.

I know you can host a node without KYC. However, because StainStink doesn't have any protection against Sybil save for KYC it effectively means you can't trust any nodes other than the ones going through the KYC process. Sure you can use them, however there is no guarantee you won't get Sybiled. This lack of guarantee is the whole point of it. The whole point, the sole point, for the existance of StainStink was to have this trust. StainStink literally fails it's only purpose.

When the board has been constantly flooded with StainStink shills posting their retarded memes and $1000EOY it makes you want to lay out some truths before them. It'll be plenty cheap after it goes back to $0.1 and beyond due to dev team constantly emptying their bags. Not like I'm gonig to buy this shitcoin even at those prices. Anything above $100 000 market cap for this is way overvalued.

And this is why nobody uses StainStink. Because it fails in the only thing it was supposed to do. That is the point I had about KYC. Nobody will use StainStink because it's just an inferior version of existing tech.

A "decentralized oracle network" is a bunch of oracles.
How does this offer any basic protection against Sybil?

In no way at all. It's an insecure implementation.

>It's an insecure implementation.
An implementation of what?

of decentralized oracle network.

So a "decentralized oracle network" is an insecure implementation of a "decentralized oracle network"?

yes. It's naturally isnecure which is precisely why it's dumb to implement it as is.

>yes
You realize how retarded that sounds?
"A car is an unsecure implementation of a car"

>It's naturally isnecure which is precisely why it's dumb to implement it as is.
How are oracle nodes different from Bitcoin nodes in that sense?

>You realize how retarded that sounds?

a decentralized oracle network is an insecure implementation is completely fine. It's also the truth, which you didn't even try to refute.

>How are oracle nodes different from Bitcoin nodes in that sense?

You just admitted you're clinically retarded. Maybe because bitcoin nodes aren't oracles? no?

I mean it's not just retarded, it's just logically impossible.

X can never be an imperfect version of itself.
X is simply X.

So say what you actually mean.
What is a "decentralized oracle network" an imperfect implementation of?

>a decentralized oracle network is an insecure implementation is completely fine
See >You just admitted you're clinically retarded. Maybe because bitcoin nodes aren't oracles?
They both aim to achieve consensus among themselves.
So how are they different in terms of Sybil attack vulnerability.

>I mean it's not just retarded, it's just logically impossible.

you're just grasping at straws here. I can change it for you then, since you can't understand the meaning behind those words. A decentralized oracle network is an insecure design. Happy now? More mental gymnastics and trying to ignore the meaning behind the words?

>So how are they different in terms of Sybil attack vulnerability.

Because bitcoin uses PoW. Next stupid question please.

>A decentralized oracle network is an insecure design.
So you're actually saying "decentralized oracles" as a concept are flawed?
That's very different from "decentralized oracles are bad decentralized oracles".

So why are you yapping about things like KYC and Sybil when your problem is with the very basic notion of decentralized oracles?

>Because bitcoin uses PoW
PoW is part of the consensus mechanism.
And like I said, both oracles and Bitcoin nodes aim to achieve consensus among themselves.
PoW only makes Sybil attacks expensive.

So again: how are oracle nodes and Bitcoin nodes fundamentally different in terms of Sybil resistance?

When can we see this happening

bitcoin and eth over mathematical/cryptographical security thats almost absolute unless aliens visit us. chainlink can never reach that level of security but comes pretty close, there is no mathematics which can cryptographycally prove real world data is 100% correct and sign it.

>>So again: how are oracle nodes and Bitcoin nodes fundamentally different in terms of Sybil resistance?
oracle nodes dont use the previous hash/PoW challenge to ensure they are correct in the future, they just need to provide "good enough" security on request of API call. getting control of bitcoin nodes means nothing because of how strong the PoW is against sybil attacks

You have a very low iq. I can tell.

You will know. Don't expect the doxes to be posted on Jow Forums, all the Jow Forumslets who never leave the board will notice is, that a lot of low quality stink threads and off topic posts will not reappear anymore

>So why are you yapping about things like KYC and Sybil when your problem is with the very basic notion of decentralized oracles?

Are you trying to intentionally misunderstand? Decentralized oracle network is suspectible to Sybil attack because it's decentralized. Therefore you need to come up with a system to counter Sybil attacks in order to make it secure. You can't use KYC for this because it effectively centralizes the network to the one entity doing the KYC process. A KYC version does not require a new token. It's a model that's easy to create by any entities that might want to. There is no reason for StainStink to exist if going the KYC route.

>So again: how are oracle nodes and Bitcoin nodes fundamentally different in terms of Sybil resistance?

"Bitcoin never uses a count of nodes for anything". Straight from bitcoin.it. Next stupid question please.

you know that the promotion of national socialism is forbidden in Germany, and that there are tax sponsored gangs of low life commonly known as anti fa that hit first and ask questions later when it comes to somebody they think is a nazi and know his address

You're doing God's work user. Fuck those trannies.

you forgot to add that the only way to prevent such attacks is for provider to sign the data, which completely removes the need for LINK or chainlink network since u can just use 1 server to send transaction to your sc.

Listen, listen.... chill, all you gotta do is trust in sergey doing the lords work. And I think you forgot a couple of things, sybil attacks were more probable on bitcoin in the beginning then they are now. You see as network matures, more nodes come in, the harder the sybil attack. And besides who gives a shit anyway? you have forgot about TEE, and some other stuff. Muh sybil attacks, fuck you trannie

i mean i can see how this tech is beyond your understanding, therefore youll never make it man. Buy in , shut the fuck up, and enjoy the ride for next 3 years. or fuck off youve had 2 years to dyor

> thinking if a data provider signed some data that it means it's always correct and the 1 node will always be online and functioning
bunch of retards left on this board

prove me wrong?

Why? Sergay will exit scam StainStink jsut like he exit scammed NXT before it. He'll soon after cojure another scam out of his ass. You don't trust a scammer.

did you not read what I posted?!

>you forgot to add that the only way to prevent such attacks is for provider to sign the data
The Chainlink white paper literally addresses this you moron.

Fuck off, you had two years.

>Decentralized oracle network is suspectible to Sybil attack because it's decentralized.
So you're saying decentralization is bad.

>You can't use KYC for this because it effectively centralizes the network
So you're saying centralization is bad.

You are a retard.

>KYC centralizes the network to the one entity doing the KYC process
There would be a multitude of such entities.

>"Bitcoin never uses a count of nodes for anything". Straight from bitcoin.it
lmao, so a single node is good enough for consensus?

My god how did you survive to make it to typing age?

>Therefore you need to come up with a system to counter Sybil attacks in order to make it secure.
And according to you, "decentralized oracles" are inherently incapable of doing that?

Even though "decentralized oracles" are exactly what the world of crypto at large (Vitalik, Joseph Poon, literally everyone) views to be the ideal manifestation of external connectivity?

>So you're saying decentralization is bad.

Strawman

>So you're saying centralization is bad.

Strawman

You just lost the game, moron.

>There would be a multitude of such entities.

Stainstink.inc

>lmao, so a single node is good enough for consensus?

You're literally whining and bitching about the official (It means multiple people who are all smarter than you, Stinklet) description about Sybil attack regarding bitcoin. You lost, so why don't you just go gobble up the next 700 000 StainStinks Sergay will dump down your throat.

>And according to you, "decentralized oracles" are inherently incapable of doing that?

Strawman. Right now they are, and thats why someone (Not Sergay, he's incapable of that) needs to solve that problem.

>Even though "decentralized oracles" are exactly what the world of crypto at large (Vitalik, Joseph Poon, literally everyone) views to be the ideal manifestation of external connectivity?

Vitalik who endorsed multiple scam ICOs and Joseph Poo. This has nothing to do with them and now you're just trying to appeal to authority. Too bad that those guys have none.

It seems you lost it after I rekt your ass and started to pull out retarded strawmen about what I supposedly said. Deliberately misunderstanding and not even trying to understand what was being said.

Imagine still arguing with fudfags in the Year of Our Lord 2019 lmao.

Attached: divineserg.png (1280x720, 1.32M)

You literally said "it's susceptible to Sybil BECAUSE it's decentralized".
That's you saying "decentralization is bad".

You also literally said "you can't use KYC BECAUSE it centralizes the network".
That's you saying "centralization is bad".

>You're literally whining and bitching about the official (It means multiple people who are all smarter than you, Stinklet) description about Sybil attack regarding bitcoin.
Bitcoin only makes Sybil attacks expensive.
Just like Chainlink's range of Sybil prevention methods.

page #? post screenshot please ?
>use some randoms node who staked $30k worth of link
>use HTTP API to your server
>log his nodes IP
>ddos his node
>he just lost his rep and LINK
>take it one step further
>threaten to DDoS his node unless he gives you % cut

so, chainlink by design nulls out 99% of the world who can host their own node due to infrastructure requirements because if you stake > $100k on a centralized point of failure rest assured you will be hit with a 1Tbps DDoS attack.

>Strawman
You literally said "A decentralized oracle network is an insecure design".

>Vitalik who endorsed multiple scam ICOs and Joseph Poo. This has nothing to do with them and now you're just trying to appeal to authority. Too bad that those guys have none.
Then what is a better way to achieve external connectivity?

>page #? post screenshot please ?
Read the white paper.

>Chainlink is flawed because DDOS!!!
lmao, the entire internet is flawed then.

since u've read it so many times, why cant you point me to the correct page? whats wrong snowflake?

>lmao, the entire internet is flawed then
exactly, unless you have the infrastructure required with 10 Gbit cards and FPGA/ASIC firewalls to protect you, you can't host shit because u will go down instantly. only the big boys can play, notice how cloudflare owns 40% of the internet? a single entity

>since u've read it so many times, why cant you point me to the correct page?
Read it.

>exactly
Then we better abandon it.

why are you picking straws with 1 word? how can u be so delluded into bagholding user?

youtube.com/watch?v=TAGbrM-MMRk

Imagine fudding the entire internet just to badmouth Chainlink.

>1Tbps DDoS attack.
Planning on opening your node to the internet?

imagine strawpicking out of a strawpick just to keep bagholding.
no, i plan to use a HTTP GET adapter to my own URL/server to log the nodes IP address.

>You literally said "A decentralized oracle network is an insecure design".

Which is entirely correct. That is why somebody needs to solve the problem. I never said that decentralization is bad like you asserted I was saying in Do you have any shame? You're lying and putting words in other peoples mouths.

>Then what is a better way to achieve external connectivity?

A way that doesn't get Sybiled. Go on, solve the problem. Sergay won't.

Destroying your pathetic arguments is easy.

So you plan on attacking an aws node that doesnt have any ports open to the internet how?

>Read it.

He read it and didn't find what you were saying. Now that he has read it can you finally answer the fucking question.

>aws node
Is that a requirement by chainlink? who said i'm going after amazon?

>Which is entirely correct.
Then don't say I was strawmanning.

>I never said that decentralization is bad
You literally said " "you can't use KYC BECAUSE it centralizes the network".
That's you saying "centralization is bad".

>A way that doesn't get Sybiled.
That's like saying "we should make a lock that cannot be picked".
Bitcoin isn't impervious to Sybil attacks either.

>He read it and didn't find what you were saying.
Then he didn't read it.

why cant you just take a simple screenshot or quote the answer here since you are so well researched into CL? are you just using "read the whitepaper" as a way to deflect how dogshit CL is?

>why cant you just take a simple screenshot or quote the answer here
Because it's literally in the white paper, which you can start reading and perusing in like five seconds.

Aws, azure, gcp, anyone with a brain should be using enterpise tier hosting.
Anyone hosting their node on home internet or similar is begging for your script kiddy shenanigans

and you think they have no ports open or respond to ICMP or other protocol,rofl

>Then don't say I was strawmanning.

You were strawmanning by asserting "So you're saying decentralization is bad."

It's pathetic how you try to squirm your way out.

>You literally said " "you can't use KYC BECAUSE it centralizes the network".

The goal was to have a decentralized network. Requireing KYC centralizes it. It's counterproductive towards the goal. Follow me? Are you even trying to understand?

>That's you saying "centralization is bad".

No it's not. Thats a retarded strawman.

>That's like saying "we should make a lock that cannot be picked".

A good thing I'm not responsible for making it. I can point out flwas in designs other people make without having to provide a solution. Just like how Apollo pilots had to make a square peg fit in to a round hole, a good thing they were smarter than you.

>Bitcoin isn't impervious to Sybil attacks either.

This has been discussed by hundreds of people who are smarter than you. Sybil is not a problem for Bitcoin, StainStink on the other hand is a lot more vulnerable.

Just learning the internet i see, whos a big boy.
Yes if a halfwit like you setup a node, im sure it would be a half baked piece of shit open to attacks
Doing it right means you address security

Jesus, this place. Is summer over yet?

There wasn't anything like you claimed in the white paper. The burden of proof is on you. Sorry, but thats how it works.

i see you came from Jow Forumsprogramming or Jow Forumslinux to gloat your NPC ego, let me know when u peak more than 5Tbps, until then sit down.

there is

Certification Service design.The ChainLink Certification Service would seek toprovide general integrity and availability assurance, detecting and helping preventmirroring and colluding oracle quorums in the short-to-medium term. The Certifica-tion Service would issueendorsementsof high-quality oracle providers. We emphasizeagain, as noted above, that the service will only rate providers for the benefit of users.It is not meant to dictate oracle node participation or non-participation in the system.The Certification Service supports endorsements based on several features of or-acle deployment and behavior. It would monitor the Validation System statistics19
on oracles and perform post-hoc spot-checking of on-chain answers—particularly forhigh-value transactions—comparing them with answers obtained directly from rep-utable data sources. With sufficient demand for an oracle provider’s data, we expectthere to be enough economic incentive to justify off-chain audits of oracle providers,confirming compliance with relevant security standards, such as relevant controls inthe Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) Cloud Controls Matrix [26], as well as providinguseful security information that they conduct proper audits of oracles’ source andbytecode for their smart contracts.In addition to the reputation metrics, automated on-chain and automated off-chain systems for fraud detection, the Certification Service is planned as a meansto identify Sybil attacks and other malfeasance that automated on-chain systemscannot. For example, if all nodes agree that the moon is made of green cheese, theycan causeUSER-SCto ingest this false fact.MOON COMPONENTS = {GREEN CHEESE}will be recorded on the blockchain, however, and visible in a post-hoc revie

>You were strawmanning by asserting "So you're saying decentralization is bad."
That is what you were saying.
You said "Decentralized oracle network is suspectible to Sybil attack BECAUSE it's decentralized".

>The goal was to have a decentralized network. Requireing KYC centralizes it. It's counterproductive towards the goal. Follow me? Are you even trying to understand?
KYC doesn't preclude decentralization lmao.
Anonymity has nothing to do with decentralization.

>This has been discussed by hundreds of people who are smarter than you.
And they all agree that Bitcoin is not Sybil-proof.

>There wasn't anything like you claimed in the white paper.
Oh yes there is.

The oracle problem cant be fully solved you absolute morons. Even sergey knows this

>The oracle problem cant be fully solved
Just like the double spending problem.
Just like the internet security problem.
Just like the car safety problem.

It's not even that, it's much more literal.

The jew problem

This degen swinger sold at 60 cents and vanished for the longest time