Rip chainlink

faggot OP btfo

>If there is no token, how is the network >incentivized?

you pay the oracles/node operators/notaries with fiat money. Like you pay for your internet.

>If there is no nodes, how is it decentralized?

same way as EOS is decentralized. You pay notaries with fiat money and oracles are centralized (since data source is centralized anyways). The goal of corda is not decentrlization at all cost but to leverage the advantages of a digital economy aka digital assets being transferable and efficiency gains of self executing smart contracts.

>Thomson Reuters
Uses one data feed

Suddenly, op has gone quiet

first mover is being first to market and being used. Since B1 is not a meme token they do not need PR to hype the coin value. Development happens behind closed doors.

This works for Thompson’s Reuters data.

Chainlink works for any data.

Next.

>The goal of corda is not decentrlization
Makes you think

tries to find the value of a stock. Uses only one data source (nasdaq.com). Genius since there are no other data feeds.

>same way as EOS is decentralized.
Is this bait nigger? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
steemit.com/cardamon/@dan/peer-review-of-cardano-s-ouroboros

B1 is just a oracle/notary and could work with any data if needed.

If there is real demand and smart contracts become "mainstream" guess what happens. Gorillian comps fight for the lucrative smart contract space.

Guess what will actually happen? BlockOne will become a node on the ChainLink network

lol what are you talking about cardano!=corda

you realize what issue chainlink is trying to solve with that retarded voting/staking system? How to get the data on the blockhain without anyone being able to fake it and without 100% tsusting a party.

All that falls flat if a trusted party just signs the data.
I don not see how B1 being a node would make sense at all.

>A hosted service that interprets the requests and responds with signed content.
THIS IS NOT DECENTRALIZED YOU DUMB FUCKING BRIANLET

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISTRIBUTED AND DECENTRALIZED

FUCKING BRIANLET

What if any blockchain other than Corda or Ethereum wants to use Thomson Reuters data?

This. get rekt, OP.

Attached: 1522896696251.jpg (1053x1214, 266K)

What about Bitcoin smart contracts? What about data from any API source other than Reuters?

>trusted party
they want trustless smart contracts retard

>trusted party
trust my ass, nigga

Attached: pepe2.jpg (640x633, 41K)

they say they will expand on other chains if needed

so it's basically oraclize?

well it won't be needed, cause nobody is gonna use this trash :^)

why would they? They want smart contracts and the hassle free advantage of automated execution if certain conditions are met. Keep in mind that business are there to make money and not some ancaps who hate any authority or trust.

so like link?

you still don't get this right? The entire point of blockchains is decentralization. Centralized blockchains are just ridiculously useless, slow and expensive mySQL databases. Same with centralized oracles for blockchains. Completely fucking useless as the #1 reason and the only reason for using a blockchain vanishes.

similar with the difference of not being some backyard unknown comp but the most trusted news agency in the wolrd.

I think using oracles has huge psychological factor and people will trust reuters more which will accelerate mainstream adoption.

Attached: steve.jpg (1009x1177, 296K)

because it's a security concern. employees present a formidable risk to a company, for example, what's to stop a disgruntled employee from falsifying data and digitally signing it, since they work for the company? they could be pressured to do it by outside forces who would profit from the smart contract triggering under false data. therefore your trust model is flawed in that it presents a risk that is reduced by decentralization. hence chainlink

Smart contracts being centralized and trust based defeats their purpose.

You should stop thinking

>The entire point of blockchains is decentralization.

first corda is not a blockchain but a dlt, since it has no blocks. Secondly it is decentralized like existing dlt/blockchains are with mining pools/masternodes etc.

>Same with centralized oracles for blockchains.

decentralized oracles make no sense since the datasource will always be centralized. Unless you can crowdsource the data it is not needed and just a gimmick.

>decentralized oracles make no sense since the datasource will always be centralized

Attached: brianlet.png (215x235, 4K)

You're retarded son.
>apis are centralized so link is useless
This is so fucking dumb it's unbelievable that people still say this. Link takes out one more level of trust so that if a contract executes on faulty data we will know that the error lies is the data source. There is value in that. Chainlink can't make the data source provide correct data and that was never the point.

I am taking about the claim of centralization. If you read the article, which you didn't because you are a dumb nigger. Dan directly addresses and refutes the claim of centralization in eos due to the 21 producer approach.

>because it's a security concern.
agreed but I still think that centralized oracles are more safe than voting based (decentralized ones). Also you can use 2 centralised oracles (instead of 20 link nodes) to increase security without having unnecessary many node operators.

>, for example, what's to stop a disgruntled employee from falsifying data and digitally signing it, since they work for the company?

It could happen but decentralized oracles are also at risk that nodes farm/earn reputation than report false data to profit from that(like decentralized exchanges). Since they are anonymous and not contractually obligated you can do nothing after you got scammed.

With B1 they will likely be an option to be insured until a certain amount of damages in case of a an error on B1s part.

Crazy how every FUD just gets crushed by ChainLink decentralized oracles. Literally every single time it's another corporate with centralised oracles trying to FUD. Last time it the IBM user with centralised AI smart oracles.

Nobody is going to trust a smart contract with millions in it to a CENTRALISED oracle.

OP is saying strawmans that data is Centralised but this is very wrong. Even at SIBOS they demonstrated using data sources for interest rates from 5 different bank sources.

OP your insight is useless even if it was true (it's wrong). How would you profit on this? You can't buy blockone IQ meme tokens. I don't think you can short LINK on any exchange. Just poor FUD that doesn't persuade anyone to drop their bags

go buy your blockoneq then faggot
>-contractual obligation , no need for some random user neet to be an oralce
yes I'm sure they will provide insurance for multi million dollar smart ocntracts lamo

rip LINK

>Link takes out one more level of trust
Care to elaborate why. If you preselect the oralces based on reputation (but reputable company is useless) how is it trustless? All what link achieves is spreading the nodes a little more (unless you use the random node option). But then you are trusting LINKs algo to select fitting oracles(SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE).

what logic or evidence do you use to support your thought that centralized oracles are more safe than decentralized oracles?

Intel sgx

Please kys

>-contractual obligation , no need for some random user neet to be an oralce
so why use a trustless service
you are putting the entire point of decentralisation into question with that single comment

reputation farming is lesser risk than digitally falsified data. the move to trustless smartcontracts may not be perfect yet but it's a step in the right direction. and what us anons think is irrelevant anyway, what matters at the end of the day is which one will businesses adopt? as long as they save money or increase profit, it seems like they're going to jump on the decentralized bandwagon anyway, which a centralized oracle completely defeats the purpose of.

Okay guys lets let this thread die, we need to save some arguments for when OP posts the same shit tomorrow for the 4th day in a row

>OP is saying strawmans that data is Centralised but this is very wrong. Even at SIBOS they demonstrated using data sources for interest rates from 5 different bank sources.
>OP your insight is useless even if it was true (it's wrong). How would you profit on this? You can't buy blockone IQ meme tokens. I don't think you can short LINK on any exchange. Just poor FUD that doesn't persuade anyone to drop their bags

they're ust desperate faggots, they digg out some obscure centralized trash they can't even benefit from just to fud link
or sometimes they give up fudding the tech so they go with their favorite
>yea it will be successful but the token won't be needed

I'm screencapping every one of you pathetic faggots, so you better be here with your big mouths in a few months

you (will) trust centralized companies that they programm your self driving car in a way it does not kill you. Your life literally depends on corps.

Obviously no evidence since dec oracles do not exist.

But on the psychological side for example people trust banks more than coins (allthough coins are safe).
Business owners/large institions (aka normies) will like the idea that reuters/ms/samsung any big comp will do it.

maybe some other user but this is just the second time with several days distance I posted this.

You said yourself that you think decentralized oracles are helpful, you just said it in a round about way

>Also you can use 2 centralised oracles (instead of 20 link nodes) to increase security without having unnecessary many node operators.

So you clearly see the value in having redundancy to ensure the information is correct, and as a precaution in case one oracle perhaps fails.

That we have to trust certain things in life is no argument that we should be fine with digital rights and ownership being transferred over central trusted parties. Just because I have to trust that my computer was built well and will turn on when I tell it to, does not mean anything for whether I should be comfortable using a trusted network.

>You said yourself that you think decentralized oracles are helpful, you just said it in a round about way

I am not against decentralization (as much decentralization as necessary as little as possible). I am against the way chainlink decides what is true. Crypto signing is much better than rule of majority voting imo.

The end goal will be that the datasource itself signs the data upon request(you can request either signed or unsigned data), which would reduce the levels of trust (no notary in the middle) and still makes the data unfakeable.

ouch

So then we're back to trusting the data source. What if you want to aggregate multiple data sources just to be safe? What would you use?
Oh yea, ChainLink...regardless whether data is signed or not.
Now tell me, does BlockOneIQ provide off chain computation?

>off chain computation

kek

>you (will) trust centralized companies that they programm your self driving car in a way it does not kill you. Your life literally depends on corps.

A company has nothing to gain from crashing my car, it has a lot to gain by sending fake data to a smart contract.

This example of logic is a fallacy - it's a straw man. Trusting the integrity of a product to function as intended is different than trusting the intefrity of a data source. Let's consider an example using your AI car, though.

Say a self driving car gets into a collision with a human driver, and the human driver is at fault. The insurance will be handled through a smart contract. There will be some oracle service which gathers the data from the AI car, such as the speed it was driving, the speed limit in that area, the placement of the car on the road in relation to the yellow/white lines, a photograph of the human driver crossing over onto the wrong side of the road etc.

Now, if the human driver wanted to "trick" the smart contract, he would have two avenues of attack (that we will consider). He could alter the data source (the car), or he could compromise the oracle. We don't care right now about how he could alter the data source because ChainLink nor any other oracle intend to solve that problem. Instead we consider his avenue of attack on the oracle.

If the oracle is centralized, then he only needs to compromise one oracle in order to change the results of the smart contract execution. He can do this a number of ways, through bribery, hacking, or man in the middle attack. But at the end of the day he only has one target.

If the oracle network is decentralized, and the information is provided by at least 10 nodes, then he has to compromise 6 nodes to alter the smart contract using the same methods either way. So, decentralization increases security because these nodes may be spread all over the world, and will be anonymous, so his attempt to attack the oracle service will be ultimately futile.

>So then we're back to trusting the data source. What if you want to aggregate multiple data sources just to be safe? What would you use?

why easy if you can make it with a convoluted and expensive method. Smart contract itself checks integrity and aggragates the results of several (signed) sources if needed. It literally is just an if condition if delivered data matches. If it matches proceed and if not do nothing.

my assumption was based on the rogue employee theory.

>it has a lot to gain by sending fake data to a smart contract.

True (same as user CL nodes btw) but it would lose its reputation and might be criminally charged. Very risky for reuters. Less risky for user node opreator (we all now how scam ridden crpyto is)

>-all in one system thus less points of failures
>so centralized
All in one = Single point of failure

Plus smartcontract.com already does this.

kek

Has anyone changed your mind yet OP?
At least confess how many Link you hold and how many you are currently trying to limit buy

>singed content from (single entity)
So... Trust this data because (((we))) signed it?
The whole point is to replace (((we))) with decentralized consensus and cut out the single point of failure. What happens when the apocalypse happens and the (((signer))) drops off the face of the earth? All contracts that depend on the content will be dead in the water potentially holding millions of peoples' money - that's what.

no response OP?

Chainlink would be really good without the needles token

Now I am thinking that a combination of centralized notary or signed datasource and decentralized nodes (off chain computation) would be best to trigger the sm.

This way it would not be anymore the rule of majority. If one of 10 LINK nodes were to trigger a sm with signed data (the other 9 nodes are lying ie although the conditions to trigger an sm have been met they do nothing) it would still proof to be correct.

With the current model the lying majority would win and the truthful minority would loose.

I consider I might buy some as suicide insurance once Ether/BTC fall a little bit more.

I just can not take it anymore. I knew about Ether when it was 1 dollar and thought it was useless casue there were only ponzi schemes and gambling.

>all in one single point of failure oracle
kek

agree, it's like paying for google to do it's shit

What happens when the apocalypse happens and the (((datasource))) drops off the face of the earth?

Notary is just a intermediate step. Longterm datasource signs itself if sm ever get succesful.

please don't buy LINK we don't need brainlets that don't understand why it's so important. Cause we know the minute it goes -10% you'll sell like the weak handed brainlet you are.

>t. Still butthurt that bitcoin didn't implement smart contracts

Even worse, a simple dlt without blocks is basically just an excel spreadsheet

Jesus Christ you are one retarded fuck. I bet you think ripple is legit too.

>(((datasource)))
>implying a self-driving car can be a (((self-driving car)))
kek

My point is, signing data was the Web 2.0 solution to trust. "If this is wrong, you have a company to hold liable now."
The whole point of Web 3.0 (blockchain tech) is achieving trustlessness through decentralization, so there is nobody you need to trust anymore other than the robustness of the network.
ChainLink understands this, and is trying to solve the decentralized oracle problem.
This coin is just slapping the old signing paradigm onto the blockchain so we can do it the old way, and hold someone liable if they're wrong. It's not innovative and it doesn't align with the spirit of this space.

>since data source is centralized anyways
Oh my god the prehistoric fud that will never die.
BEGONE BRAINLET FUD YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE

Attached: Art_link.jpg (700x975, 369K)

Decentralized oracles are pointless. There's no need to verify that data isn't being tampered with if you just use a trusted third party. Trustlessness is vastly overrated and unnecessary. Besides EOS will make ETH obsolete anyway so LINK won't have any use.

chainlink is blockchain agnostic nice fud memer

It is still an ETH token. Besides, EOS will be used for everything, so it makes more sense to just use EOS's oracles. LINK will be obsolete before it even releases due to the superiority of EOS.

>Trusted third party
>Trustlessness overrated and unnecessary
What happens when that third party is either no longer trustworthy or no longer exists, or is no longer willing to provide that service?
What happens when all the contracts that depended on it come to a screeching halt holding millions in users' ETH?
What happens when the government itself sides with the trusted third party and is either unwilling or unable to prosecute them when they start acting in self-interest? When the government itself is incentivized not to prosecute, because they receive bribes or support from the third party, or they don't want to expend the resources?

>What happens when that third party is either no longer trustworthy or no longer exists, or is no longer willing to provide that service?
We use trusted third parties CONSTANTLY.

>What happens when all the contracts that depended on it come to a screeching halt holding millions in users' ETH?
ETH will be worth $0.00.

>What happens when the government itself sides with the trusted third party and is either unwilling or unable to prosecute them when they start acting in self-interest? When the government itself is incentivized not to prosecute, because they receive bribes or support from the third party, or they don't want to expend the resources?
Again this already happens. Decentralized oracles are not revolutionary like EOS is.

The fact is we use trusted third parties constantly and there are few problems. Certainly not enough to merit a decentralized oracle system being worth billions.

Originally I thought you didn't understand why decentralization is better than centralization, but shit like this has revealed to me that you don't even really understand the concept. Congratulations, you are one of the dumber cunts on this site.

Yeah but EOS is centralised garbage.
Its competitors are Visa and AWS, not DLT.

EOS isn't centralized.

A rogue employee might not care about the reputation of the company, he might risk his job to make a financial gain through a smart contract but he won't risk anything to crash some random dude's car.

Yes, we use trusted, signed data from third parties constantly, but the whole point of this space is trying to eliminate that and decentralize, so trust is automated and there is no middleman, or single point of failure.
Trusted third parties act in self-interest all the time, but the affects are largely unseen or subtle.
Solving trust through decentralization was the whole point of this wild ride since Satoshi - What, are we working backward now? Are you one of (((them))), trying to centralize blockchain before you can no longer control it?

I'm not attacking you, I think we agree on a lot of common ground, but I think centralization is a lazy solution that brings us back to old ways, whereas blockchain tech as a whole has been an exercise in trustlessness through decentralization - I think we should continue seeing what else we can make trustless - it seems to be the way forward.

Someone just needs to hack them though so in essence it defeats the purpose of using the blockchain to begin with due to the central point of failure it creates due to centralisation

>Yes, we use trusted, signed data from third parties constantly, but the whole point of this space is trying to eliminate that and decentralize, so trust is automated and there is no middleman, or single point of failure.
>Trusted third parties act in self-interest all the time, but the affects are largely unseen or subtle.
>Solving trust through decentralization was the whole point of this wild ride since Satoshi

It used to be that way back when people (early adopters, ancaps, drug buyers, techno) were in it for their ideals. Nowadays nobody cares about that anymore and all (98% ) are in it for the quick buck and pumping their coin. NEO is the best example how people have forgotten the aim of trustlessness and decentralization.

I do not think that the market all of the sudden develops back into its former state and chooses the decentralized solution.

21 named people are voted in to control the entire blockchain.
It's less trustless than Visa.
At least Visa executives are constrained by having to make money for shareholders.
These 21 could have ANY agenda.

Like, what, they're going to have election campaigns "please vote for me to control your money, I'm super trustworthy I promise".
Absolute, fundamental retardation.

Attached: stock-photo-two-fat-serious-guys-two-serious-bandits-693713647.jpg (397x470, 42K)

EOS is more decentralized than ETH. You're just butthurt that you don't have more EOS.

You're just going to ignore my facts. Ok.

I do not get the point of EOS. Even if it will become the dominate solution (it likely will) it can not grow that much anymore since it is already worth 6 bil and we are entering multi year bear market anyways.

Did you see that info graphic someone posted the other day comparing EOS to eth on a pie chart?