Smart Contract Oracle Question

I understand hashing algorithms to a degree, but I don't see how they are relevant to the central issue of my question which is - say all those nodes spit out the same, false value, becauae for example they are reading data from the same faulty group of sensors on a shipping container that say it's empty even though it's really not. The contract will execute as if the container is empty. Does that question make sense?

the biggest critique i've heard about link is that it's "putting a band-aid on an open wound", in other words, it's built to connect existing old infrastructure with smart contracts, but the better solution would be upgrade those infrastructure period, build actual blockchain protocols. like swift is trying to use link to salvage and still use its old infrastructure, but why do that when ripple already has a better solution?

Because you can't just switch to complete decentralization overnight, even Sergey said that there needs to be a solution for the next 5 years, and that's what ChainLink is

Is that the problem with the nodes or a faulty sensor?

Sergey has stated that nodes would be providing data that varies in precision and specification. If we took your scenario and added on what Sergey has said, why wouldn't other nodes state that this contain is empty or is not carrying anything of value?

What I am saying is once you add multiple layers of authentication through variance and range of the data you can feed in, it negates a lot of the potential for edge cases to come through just like in your sensor case.

The same reason why they would use LINK. The money. You know how much time and money it would cost and the sheer insurance liability of the entire banking system of the world to overhaul and use Ripple compared to using an adaptable plug and play middleware?

Have you worked at places like Boeing where highly sensitive calibration machines run on incredibly archaic programming language that they don't replace because of the sheer cost?

This guy gets it.
Link is a more cost effective solution

so it's only a solution for the next 5 years? sergey said that? then how does it achieve a billion dollar valuation if it's *known* as just a stop-gap solution for 5 years?

FUCK I NEED 10 DOLLAR LINK RIGHT NOW

The same reason Vitalik things ETH is incredibly overvalued, just because they understand the concept behind their creation, does not mean they understand economics.

we can ignore the valuation for now... but it's true that even in the best case scenario, chainlink will only be relevant for 5 years? then it's obsolete and we're on to better? that doesn't sound very promising.

>Vitalik things ETH is incredibly overvalued
stop. this. meme.

Chainlink is just as viable in a fully crypto world, there would still be the same need to connect external events to the blockchain for executing smart contracts in a decentralized manner.
It's definitely not merely a transitional measure or a bandaid.

The traditional banking system needs a low-threshold and decentralized smart contract solution like Chainlink, but Chainlink doesn't need the traditional banking system.

so if ripple can solve the problem for banks while side-stepping oracles, why can't other domains do the same as well?

How is it solving the problem by side stepping the issue of mass adoption and rapid adoption?

If another solution comes, it won't be centralized like Ripple.

And it likely wouldn't require the adoption of a completely new infrastructure.

Allowing external data sources within a decentralized network to compete in a free market-type environment is probably the most elegant and straight-forward solution you can find.