Reminder

Daily reminder, that if you are a noLINK...you will be sucking dick for 0.1link or 4$ in 2019...

Other urls found in this thread:

coindesk.com/swift-completes-blockchain-smart-contracts-trial/
reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/73bmvx/running_a_node_what_we_know_so_far/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>desperate bagholder shilling

1 billion coins 50% owned by 1 guy who's never coded anything in his life.

R
E
N
T

F
R
E
E

>waste of digits faggot

Guess he installed a fucking age of empires 2 copy on the fucking swift network and played regicide with vitalik, then went on to lie to swift ppl how test phase 1 went super successful.

Fucking end urself dickwad

It's kind of amazing how BTC is going on this massive bullrun and yet 80% of the threads on this fucking board are about a coin that has been tanking for the past week.

Also u'll be sucking it for 3$ cuz u talk shit about Sergbro

>he thinks link has long term potential.
>He thinks a dev team of two people ran by a guy with a B.A in philosophy can solve the biggest problem in crypto

i used to be a link holder but after doing my research man you people are delusional its insane. Link is not a good solution it is pretty shit

Fucking this

People were talking about link nonstop and I check the charts and I'm like "...this is it?"

>Rory: Mr. Nazarov, have you prepared for the conf-
>Sergey: *flushes toilet*
>Rory: SIR, I ASKED IF YOU H-
>Sergey: *BRRRRRRRRRRRRRAPPPPPPPPPPPP*

U need a fucking bitch-ton of cash to profit from 5-10% bitcoin gainz... what is so fucking hard to understand?

Hurrr duuuurrr i don't understand how ppl are poor... u can just invest 10mil in real estate and live of rent and interest...

do you mean the profit is so tiny from holding BTC that it isnt worth it unless you have a lot? I agree and thats why i plan to ride shit coins until i have enough capital to put it in ETh and BTC and leave for a few years.

So u did research how? Perhaps u should apply as analyst at swift, cuz clearly u are better then their whole fucking setup right?

>m-my Links will 4x in two years!
Lmao. With every other coin you can make 1000000000x that in a year go suck a dick deluded linkie faggot pussy boii

Exactly... with 50btc i'd be comfy... but 2 btc give me jack shit...

What? Do u even into numbers user?

SWIFT and Link arent partners, they just had a discussion.

cut the western shit

Also fucking check em

Sergey and team have refused to give a definitive clear answer, unless they say the words we are partnered it manes nothing.

FUD

They had a little more then discussion mate

ok provide a source that they are partnered?

Did they? because sergey and crew didnt confirm it was anything more.

You really do like to talk about sucking dicks, eh?

And i bet u shall hear shit soon... it is not bad news that tanked this coin... no alt ever had such a backing, fucking swift mate, axa, sony... probably many more, we'll be hearing it soon. Literally could be biggest thing since eth

But there is no backing, provide a fucking source or shut the fuck up. They had a fucking conversation that is it

coindesk.com/swift-completes-blockchain-smart-contracts-trial/

How fucking new are u? How is this a conversation? If I slide head of my dick into ur gf, if u even own one... did i talk to her?

>coindesk.com/swift-completes-blockchain-smart-contracts-trial/

The article you provided doesnt show any evidence that there is a partnership.

here is a direct quote from Sergey which the article quotes

>"We have successfully completed a phase one PoC with Swift, and are in active conversations about how to move further with the work we've done."
>active conversations

where did Sergey claim its a partnership? You understand that conversation means nothing until pen and paper meet right? You are so emotionally invested in Link that you arent capable of thinking logically. This is the reason you will stay poor forever btw

If there was news of actual partnership and swift saying they are going to start using smart contracts tomorrow, u would be sucking my dick today, not in 2019 now would u? This would literally be biggest news in crypto... in like ever... and testing phase 1 succesfully, by swift... is a little bit more then conversation u dickwad...
OMG pumps due to a fuckinf sticker... here we have cooperation with swift ... SWIFT... and u highlighting the word "conversation" in that text out of any context makes u a fucking brainlet

Can't believe lack of ur grey matter...
>completed phase 1 of testing
>in active talks with swift
Dude they were just talking means shit
>getting a bj from ur gf
>talked about possible anal
We were just talking user, I swear, nothibg happened

>>getting a bj from ur gf
>>talked about possible anal
>We were just talking user, I swear, nothibg happened

>keeps posting threads begging people to buy it

20 cents and dropping bagholder

Iron Hands Gents

I
N

Y
O
U
R

H
E
A
D

...

Good find user.

This is ur Captain speaking... keep em adamantium hands strong soldier!

Ok this is a bit better than a conversation but its still not a partnership.

Full partnership is something we are waiting to get announced, i am still in green with my link-bags. When the announcment is made it will go up up and away.
Do u think that after succesful phase 1 test Sergey would get to present this to swifts clients at sibos if they had no intention on going further to phase 2?
Just stop and think... also do u realize how important this is for swift? They need a blockchain solution badly... ripple is gonna be up their arse soon. Maybe even so inportant they would subject Sergey to NDA perhaps? He said info is coming after SIBOS, we are at that point now, i expect info to come in following days and weeks

Well Links solution to the oracle problem isnt really good until the solve the issue with whales controlling nodes.

Whale problem is gonna get fixed when link is added to another exchange, some rumours are going around this should be done by end of the month. Nothing solid yet... oracle problem is fixed, price problem will get fixed with an exchange and news... whale won't be able to keep price down, nor will the gook-bots, link has been gradually transfered of binance, atm retardDelta holds more link than binance...according to user who does research and posts daily

I am not talking about exchange whales i am talking about whales who set up nodes and are given priority based on how much Link they hold.

Fake as fuck 1/10 shill.

The amount of LINK they hold doesn't automatically give them priority. The amount they stake on their correctness, known as the penalty payment, is just one of the metrics available to you when aggregating nodes for your ChainLink queries. If you want you can ignore the stake entirely, stop caring about stake over a certain amount (for example, include all nodes who stake at least $10 on their answers without weighing higher stakes any more heavily than that), compare it to their entire stack so you weight them by % staked instead of absolute value, or literally any other criteria your reputation and aggregation contracts are able to calculate using on-chain data. You might decide that the most important data when selecting your nodes are the user ratings, uptime and accuracy metrics which are automatically recorded for all ChainLink nodes by the validation and reputation systems.

The only thing that actually outright gives a node priority is their bid for your specific query. You - the user querying the ChainLink decentralized oracle - will ask for (n) nodes that satisfy whatever criteria you specify, and the system will select the (n) nodes with the lowest fees that satisfy that criteria. If you're worried about a specific organization who everyone else happens to trust, you could even manually exclude them when you query ChainLink. Or maybe for data that has no local boundaries you'll select oracles from a variety of nations, making it extremely difficult and unlikely for any whale or collusion of whales to control a large enough share of oracles answering your query to successfully falsify data or engage in other dishonest behavior.

>If you're worried about a specific organization who everyone else happens to trust, you could even manually exclude them when you query ChainLink

how?

People still don't understand that even if billions of dollars were being passed through chainlink smart contracts the tokens would still have very little worth

>for example, include all nodes who stake at least $10 on their answers without weighing higher stakes any more heavily than that

what purpose do i have for holding more link then if i wont have priority? There is no point for the staking aspect to take place then so there is no need for chainLink tokens, is this not a problem in their vision?

...

Wait im wrong you still have to pay with the Link tokens but why not just use ETH at this point. There is no need for Link tokens if the staking aspect is removed and the staking aspect has to be removed in order to have a decentralized oracle.

nothing. Fucking dumbasses who made up this "hurr durr a node with more link gets more traffic" thing tricked everyone.

Section 2.1 of the whitepaper, "Oracle Selection":
>An oracle services purchaser specifies requirements that make up a service level agreement (SLA) proposal. The SLA proposal includes details such as query parameters and the number of oracles needed by the purchaser. Additionally, the purchaser specifies the reputation and aggregating contracts to be used for the rest of the agreement. Using the reputation maintained on-chain, along with a more robust set of data gathered from logs of past contracts, purchasers can manually sort, filter, and select oracles via off-chain listing services. Our intention is for ChainLink to maintain one such listing service, collecting all ChainLink-related logs and verifying the binaries of listed oracle contracts. We further detail the listing service and reputation systems in Section 5. The data used to generate listings will be pulled from the blockchain, allowing for alternative oracle-listing services to be built. Purchasers will submit SLA proposals to oracles off-chain, and come to agreement before finalizing the SLA.

I imagine that most users would in fact trust you more when you stake more LINK, since you have a lot more to lose if you deviate from the consensus. All of those are just examples off the top of my head of how you as a user might decide to program your contracts to avoid the hypothetical whale accumulation problem. The ChainLink protocol does not mandate any specific system of oracle selection.

What movie is this from?

>having lots of money is better than having less money

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>From the Slack - “it will not be a requirement to have LINK tokens to run a node, but it will be an option, and it will be a metric which will increase the rest of the network’s willingness to use that node operation…which then translates to more payout for that node operator”. the node operator will take on using low cost options like Amazon, we’ve made it easy through the use of a docker”
>it will be a metric which will increase the rest of the network’s willingness to use that node operation

Thats the thing you arent deviating from the consensus because you own all the nodes in the pool that are selected. Whales will be able to match us at every parameter of the SLA, they can even offer their faster more reputable service for lower price to push us out due to no incentive. This wont happen immediately but over time they will push us out getting bigger in the process

source for the slack message


reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/73bmvx/running_a_node_what_we_know_so_far/

What reason does an oracle network have to pick me or you as nodes over the whales??

staking this shit sounds super complicated

Oracles. Right now the answer is "hey we can hire Oracle X to do the translation to represent this bank dollar transaction on the blockchain." The "oracle problem" with this is that you are 100% TRUSTING that oracle to act prudently. That they don't tamper with the data. So we can kill coinbase but now we have to trust the oracle instead of coinbase. This is a HUGE problem for Banks who want to get into blockchain but have to trust a centralized oracle to translate data. This Oracle can be hacked, falsified, defrauded, really all the problems that come with cenralization.
ChainLink - this service DECENTRALIZES that translation process of the Oracle. Now, the translation is trustless, and you have a trustless data feed that informs the trustless smart contract.
Multibillion dollar institutions can rely on distributed blockchain technology and know the data that informs their smart contracts is tamperproof.
So that's what ChainLink does. ChainLink is the first decentralized oracle that allows anyone to securely provide smart contracts with access to external data, off-chain payments, and really literally any other API you can dream up.

Anyone can now engrain off-chain data directly onto the blockchain in an actually decentralized way and use that data to directly inform trustless smart contracts, and since the oracle is decentralized you know the data feed is secure and you’re not concerned with tampering on the oracle’s part. This is like a skeleton key to actualize the data on the blockchain and apply that data to real world use cases.

That slack quote is pretty straightforward. It seems people misinterpreted it as "node has more LINK = node gets used more" but what they're really saying is what's already described in the whitepaper. Nodes provide penalty payments which are lost when they provide invalid or incorrect data, and that penalty payment is visible to the users selecting them. After a certain point it's not feasible to increase your stake since the risk of giving an invalid answer due to reasons outside your control such as faulty hardware will outweigh the fees you stand to gain. For example if you have 99.99% accuracy, can obtain your data for 100% free somehow, and bid 0.1 LINK, then if you stake 1,000 LINK you'll be breaking even and if you stake any more you'll be losing money.

>What reason does an oracle network have to pick me or you as nodes over the whales??
Diversity of nodes and diversity of sources. Users might decide to pick x "big" oracles and y "smaller" oracles, or oracles from many different countries, or oracles getting data from a different source than those whales are. If you have a node that provides accurate data with decent uptime then people will want to use you.

>but what they're really saying is what's already described in the whitepaper. Nodes provide penalty payments which are lost when they provide invalid or incorrect data.

But they said you arent required to have Link token to host a node in the slack qna, the white paper doesnt mention how the bid is paid by nodes (in ETH, USD etc). The token i used to pay for the service by the person requesting it.

The only scenario in which I would trust a node with more link is if the link was earned by that node for validating data. If i were choosing a node I wouldn't give a fuck if one had a ton of link transferred from a wallet. If anything I would trust a node with less link (but with a good history of lots of LINK earned) because it wouldn't be able to pay penalty fees and therefore might incur some worse penalty for fucking up my data.

agree, the economic incentives are not clear.

It doesnt say anywhere that Link nodes pay with Link tokens.

sorry not pay but bid to be apart of the oracle network.

Uh old meme.

Ok dont buy any and see what happens retard

But how do you differentiate between a node who received Link tokens from completing services or one who purchased it off exchanges? Staking seems like the worst way to handle the oracle problem

well... he missed out on a 70% dump so all good on his end

>gets proved wrong
>still in denial

You are a prideful little bitch cuck

>But they said you arent required to have Link token to host a node in the slack qna
Right, you aren't. And if you don't the users will see that and most likely trust you less than someone who is literally guaranteeing their accuracy. If you can't afford to stake much or stake at all then you'll have to lower your bid to compete.

What do you mean? It says right there in your image:
>[...] they will need to pay their chosen ChainLink Node Operator using LINK tokens, with prices being set by the node operator [...]
The "prices being set" part is the bid. Users will choose the nodes that ask for the least amount of LINK that also satisfy your criteria for reputation, accuracy, stake, etc.

>satisfy your
satisfy the users***

Dont question rory

>What do you mean? It says right there in your image:
>>[...] they will need to pay their chosen ChainLink Node Operator using LINK tokens, with prices being set by the node operator [...]
>The "prices being set" part is the bid. Users will choose the nodes that ask for the least amount of LINK that also satisfy your criteria for reputation, accuracy, stake, etc.

yeah kek im retarded i confused my self you are correct sorry about that.

>If you can't afford to stake much or stake at all then you'll have to lower your bid to compete

wouldnt whales just set their bid lower than yours ? Like they do on the markets

This is the perfect time to buy. 70%? Youre definitely a retard as well.

Staking is a way to incentivize honest oracle behavior. It's an important aspect but by no means the only metric available to gauge oracles trustworthiness. If whales actually manage to create enough nodes to own a third or more of the network's providers of a specific type of data and then use that influence to falsify that data to their benefit, a record of the false data will be a permanent part of the blockchain, and all that trust they built up for their massive network of nodes is permanently lost. It's hard to imagine any transaction being:
1. valuable enough to be worth throwing away all the fees you'll collect for running your nodes honestly
2. being that valuable but NOT requesting more oracles than one entity such as yourself controls to prevent such an attack in the first place.
But in the even that both of those were true, then it is in the whale's best interest to fuck with that data. Admittedly this is the one part I agree with you on being worried about because it's not automatic and not tied to the blockchain. They simply describe a (persumably manually operated) "Certification Service" in section 5.3 to discover this behavior.

With the one caveat that the Certification Service actually works, then the whole system as described rewards honest behavior more than dishonest, which is what makes it an effective decentralization.

>being that valuable but NOT requesting more oracles than one entity such as yourself controls to prevent such an attack in the first place

yes this is exactly my concern as there is very little incentive to be a node operator.

Alright thanks ill take a better look at 5.3, ive spent way too much time on this today kek.

And actually, after reviewing the whitepaper again: I'm not certain that the stake is actually up to the nodes. Maybe somebody could ask this in slack to get a clearer answer? The part that sticks out to me is this statement in the "Oracle Selection" section:
>When an oracle service provider bids on a contract, they commit to it, specifically by attaching the penalty amount that would be lost due to their misbehavior, as defined in the SLA.

That seems to imply that the user's service-level agreement specifies the penalty and it's up to the oracle to decide if the transaction is worth the stake, rather than the oracles presenting their stakes and the users selecting them based on that. If this is true the users still have the historical penalty payment data on each node to judge them by, but for their specific transaction they're not going to be choosing between oracles with differing stakes. It would also mean that a node with absolutely nothing to stake would have a very small selection of transactions to bid on: those that don't ask for a penalty at all.

TL;DR does the node stake however much they want or does the user specify the stake for all nodes bidding on their transaction?

gonna second the what movie is this from comment

Why not both?
>This is how much I'm willing to stake, take it or leave it
>This is how much someone must stake for me to use them
Either will meet the other.

But yeah would be interesting to know for sure.

The system would be secure anyway if for any service the amount staked must heavily out-value the any potential profit/loss possible by giving incorrect data. Some services might even require several whale oracle providers for this reason.

Yeah, the orders would be matched either way so it doesn't really matter. The main difference is that if all nodes answering a specific query are on an equal playing field as far as penalties go, I guess it would be a bit more resistant to whales accumulating a ton of LINK since it's just about meeting the users' threshold rather than getting priority by staking a huge amount.

We live rent free in your head

and in reality. because homeless dont pay for their cardboard boxes

HAHAHAHAHAA ALL WHO PANIC SOLD

Fuck, I ran out of money to throw at chainlink, really wanted to buy at sub 25 cents but I don't get paid for a couple more days!

Please chainlink, fucking die one more time for daddy.