Still don’t know what chainlink does ... am i dumb?

so you have blockchain, is decentralized, so the perfect system for sending sensitive information. but!! you can't just feed all kinds of data into this, that's what chainlink is for.

>but!! you can't just feed all kinds of data into this
Why not?

Correct. And those applications are decentralized. The problem is most of them need some sort of data input to conduct the contract. And this data input is currently not decentralized. So chainlink build a network of nodes who decentralize those inputs

Woah. Stop asking questions, read the whitepaper hurdurr

You can but that data comes from a centralized source and often defeats the purpose of the decentralized app

ETH is already decentralized. Sorry OP, these retards will give you one of three answers "decentralized", "Oracle problem", "read the white paper". You're 100% right, there's no reason to buy LINK/GAS when you can just use GAS.

So whats the simple answer? it provides for a way for people to input data on ethereum ran applications in a decentralized way?

but ultimately data always starts centralized...so where in the process exactly does chainlink start its magic?

not when I can see shills struggle to translate it

>And this data input is currently not decentralized. So chainlink build a network of nodes who decentralize those inputs
What does that accomplish? Are those inputs native to the blockchain or do they come from external sources - I assume it's the latter.

But isn't the data always going to come from a centralized, or even worse, an ad-hoc source unless it's native to the blockchain (such as escrow within the same currency?)

It's the first decentralized input network that will allow smart contracts to be implemented in mainstream transactions.

That's pretty revolutionary.
In fact, that's how "smart contracts" were theorized to begin with in the 90s. And Chainlink will allow that theory to become reality for the first time.

The oracle problem is this: oracles are either EXTREMELY trustworthy or they are worthless.

And the ONLY way to ensure trustworthiness is to have them be decentralized.
The more different sources corroborate the findings, the more trustworthy.

Chainlink is the first and only decentralized oracle system.

Btw, decentralization is what makes the blockchain so effective and interesting; the proof of all the work ever done is distributed among all of the hundreds of thousands of nodes controlled by hundreds of thousands of third parties, so it is pretty much as unfalsifiable as it gets.

Thanks for this, with this kind if explanation I am starting to understand it more.

Because by their nature, blockchains only understand inputs in their own language.

If you put an order for X amount of tokens at the price of Y amount of [insert cryptocoin name], that's a transaction that is native to the blockchain.

However, say you want to input the landing time of an airline flight; you'd need something to translate that into data the blockchain can understand and process. That's what oracles do.

You don't need to understand it, just fucking buy it and enjoy the magic meme moneys

Lol.
Good luck entering external data into the ETH blockchain without oracles.

Vitalik himself literally said oracle solutions were going to need to be built "on top of" the base layer that is ETH.

Sorry but you're going to have to do a lot more basic research.

>there's no reason to buy LINK/GAS when you can just use GAS.
Except Chainlink is designed to work on multiple blockchains, not just ETH.
This is exactly why tokens even exist.

wow what a load of crap lol.

so there's a decentralized platform with dApps sitting on it and you need to feed data into the platform and the data you feed into this decentralized platform for dApps to pick it up now also needs to be decentralized? How does this even work? Where does decentralization stop?

like when you make a transaction you start with say "a unit of data" (for lack of a better word) and then it gets decentralized.

And now you say you need to put this "unit of data" into chainlink that will decentralize it and feed into the decentralized platform? that doesn't even make sense

>However, say you want to input the landing time of an airline flight; you'd need something to translate that into data the blockchain can understand and process. That's what oracles do.
Why is that unique to Chainlink... more to the point, let's say I'm a airline company, since my ticketing system is to use crypto jargon "centralized" couldn't I theoretically revoke a ticket after a smart contract has been "completed"?

Like someone pays for their ticket, the smart contract says Coin? Yes. Ticket? Yes. Gives them their ticket, but then for whatever reason the airline REVOKES the ticket but doesn't refund the coin?

Like I don't see how introducing Oracles makes Chainlink, or any blockchain more trustworthy than traditional escrow or Mastercard or Visa.

>Where does decentralization stop?
NEVER

>but then for whatever reason the airline REVOKES the ticket but doesn't refund the coin?

then they get sued, lmao, fucking moron.

See Decentralization is what makes the Blockchain what it is.
If you want to use "smart contracts" for mainstream transactions, the blockchain is the most effective tool for doing so.

BUT you need middleware that translates external data for the blockchain to use.
This middleware is "oracles".

BUT if you centralize the oracles, you completely defeat the purpose of the Blockchain, which is decentralization.

Everything step along this path has to be decentralized. The second a single step is not decentralized, nothing is.

kek.

So, so why do we need Oracles again? To make something that might not be trustworthy at least trustworthy as far as the transactions within this specific blockchain are concerned?

>Why is that unique to Chainlink..
Chainlink is the first and only solution to use DEcentralized oracles.

The whole point of the blockchain is that it is decentralized; meaning the proofs are everywhere in the hands of many third parties.

This is exactly what financial institutions want: to not have to "trust" any single party with the recording/processing of their transactions.
The hottest buzzword in current fintech is "distributed ledger technology" or "DLT". Keyword: "distributed".

If you add a centralized step (i.e. centralized oracles) in between, that completely defeats the purpose of the blockchain's decentralization.
Because as soon as a single step along the path is not decentralized, suddenly nothing is.

It appears a lot of people are like me :)) Thats reassuring

maybe you should ask SWIFT, they seem to be pretty interested in these useless oracles...

>so why do we need Oracles again?
To enter the data for "airline revokes ticket" into the blockchain, so the pertinent contract clause (e.g. refund) can be automatically executed.

There's something very basic you seem to be missing.

audibly keked

>make LINK purchase
>need to put my linkys somewhere
Any recommendations for a wallet? I also have XRP I want to store

This kind of thing can be overwhelming for the best of us.
Don't expect to understand everything in a day or two, you'll just get frustrated and turn hostile without cause, like a few people itt already.

Revisit this regularly, it'll become crystal clear eventually.

...

Answer my question, how does that ensure that the data coming in is trustworthy? That it can be retroactively revoked by a centralized external API?

Firstly that snide remark is not a counter argument. Secondly SWIFT, if I memory serves correctly, is not "decentralized" in the first place.

>so the pertinent contract clause (e.g. refund) can be automatically executed.

But as far as the Airlines API is concerned it'll say "ticket wasn't revoked" even though in their actual booking system it'll say it wasn't there so there is no contract clause to be triggered - - in this hypothetical scam example. I know that no company would sanely do this because of the bad press, but the very fact that it is possible even if remote makes me question the utility of Oracles in the first place over Escrow, or current banking systems, or Mastercard or any other credit card.

I mean say it's P2P marketplace. I offer to sell you my bike, I mail it through UPS or FedEx. You receive it, you lie say "I didn't get no bike" - Smart Contract not triggered. I don't get paid.

I'm still relying on UPS or FedEx having a API that plugs into the blockchain and TRUSTING them to report the delivery of my bike to you. How does the Oracle fix that? How is that any more trustworthy than what is going on now?

actually thank you, interesting. makes sense.

so data is fed through e.g. API calls into chainlink that immediately decentralizes the fed data and feeds into the decentralized platform and dApps do whatever with it?

I guess that makes sense (and also explains the name).

You are not the only one, OP. I don't know how all the crypto works in detail. How is blockchain data structured, how is it supported etc etc.

>Answer my question, how does that ensure that the data coming in is trustworthy?
By decentralizing it.
The more different sources corroborate the findings, the more trustworthy it is.

>That it can be retroactively revoked by a centralized external API?
The oracles are positioned in between the APIs and the blockchain.

>But as far as the Airlines API is concerned it'll say "ticket wasn't revoked" even though in their actual booking system it'll say it wasn't there so there is no contract clause to be triggered
You probably phrased that wrong.
But the whole point of decentralization is to combat scams like this. Ideally you would have various independent sources for everything. And considering the "free market" principle applied to Chainlink's node network, chances are that's what we're going to get, since nodes will be motivated to fill in areas of need.
Also, there are large parts of the whitepaper devoted to weighting nodes by their history of trustworthiness etc.

The thing I'm wondering is if ethereum won't just do their own Oracle fix, making chainlink basically obsolete

You'd ideally have multiple sources feeding the same data.

that would only be logical.

They could rip off Chainlink, sure.
It would also have to be middleware consisting of a decentralized network, just like Chainlink.

Because you simply cannot do this natively. External data will need to be translated by oracles for use in blockchains.

And considering Vitalik himself has said oracle solutions would be built "on top of" the base layer that is ETH, I really don't see why ETH would want to copy what Chainlink did and try to compete with them.

This should clear things up. LINK is a project designed to utilize the block-chain to provide for decentralized oracle services. The development team behind LINK is working on an application that can utilize the block-chain to allow for oracle solutions. LINK is more than just a token and the oracle service that the developer team is working on. LINK also stands to be a platform for developers to utilize so that they can build applications which stand to benefit from privacy.

You don't need centralized oracles messing up everything you buy, or police listening to & reading everything you say and share. If you want to spend your money on women and wine or arrange shitposting, you can get things done. With decentralized oracles.

Imagine being able to purchase things off of craigslist without giving up your phone number or message vendors on the DarkMarket without using annoying Oracle Problem methods. Oracle solutions on your phone for anything: prostitutes, drugs, nudes, and anything else your heart would desire. If this project succeeds, all the underworld will have a new playground for oracles, information transfer and all sorts of other grey market enterprises activities completely anonymous (literally billions of dollars in oracle solutions and business outside of the power of the government can become movable overnight when this project succeeds).

Now let's do some comparisons.

XRP Market Cap = $8,612,256,950
LINK Market Cap = $134,347,150

Is LINK better? Take a look.

Sibos conference in a week. This is a 1/10000 type of opportunity and these don't come around often on Veeky Forums. Get on the rocket ship before it's too late.

It really wouldn't.

See

yes. Which means that you can't game/cheat Smart Contracts because you would literally need to manipulate every single party which is taking part in the Oracle program.

>Ideally you would have various independent sources for everything
That's my point. Ideally - my question is without this ideal system around it: what benefit are Oracles.

I understand the idea of nodes themselves being trustworthy, probably by voting in "consensus" more often. I get that. I don't have a problem with that... but they are only as good as their inputs.

My question is, does having Oracles substantially, if at all, make transactions more trustworthy compared to extant methods? Considering what you'd need is the APIs to be trustworthy, in another post I refereed to UPS or FedEx - okay already you have a problem, because they are centralized entities - if there is a transaction you might have three entities: Buyer - Courier - Seller.

Now if all three of them give non-corroborative information, what use is the Oracle?

So I sell you something, let's say a mining rig. But it's actually broken, but you don't know this. So I send it off, as far as the Oracle is concerned I sent it. I use FedEx - FedEx deliver it to you, you sign for it. FedEx corroborates me - they delivered SOMETHING to you.
You receive your mining rig, find out it doesn't work... you tell the Oracle: nope... but I lie and innocent FedEx still thing I sent it... so do you end up out of pocket?

Someone ends up out of pocket in this scam... this is why I don't understand the use of Oracles.

I know how they work - but practically I don't understand their utility. Now don't get caught up on scams, I mean even a faulty or poorly written API could cause havoc.

>That's my point. Ideally
Like I said, the incentives for creating the ideal situation are there.
The "free market of nodes" principle will create a healthy competition for desirable spaces, such as areas with node shortages.

>what benefit are Oracles
They translate external data into data the blockchain can use.

>but they are only as good as their inputs
That's why you have as many of them as possible.

>does having Oracles substantially, if at all, make transactions more trustworthy compared to extant methods?
Of course not. There are several oracle-based solutions that kind of do the same thing as Chainlink. BUTTTTTT they are centralized.

The trustworthiness doesn't come from the "oracles" as such, it comes from the fact that the oracles are DECENTRALIZED.

You know what. If the ETHEREUM NETWORK connects to the main data source directly, there is simply no use case for LINK.

delete this now
FUD! FUD!

>The trustworthiness doesn't come from the "oracles" as such, it comes from the fact that the oracles are DECENTRALIZED.
So in other words it just removes one layer of untrustworthiness but is not a total solution?

I dunno, I can see benefits, but at the same time, I can see how it'll never catch on with consumers who will probably prefer to have a brand name and a customer service support that secures their transactions.

See You are completely uninformed about the very basics of this project.

You CANNOT directly feed external data into the blockchain, you NEED middleware; e.g. oracles.

In order for these oracles to be worth a damn, they NEED to be decentralized. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of using a blockchain (which is only valuable BECAUSE it is decentralized).

The best Ethereum could do, is copy what Chainlink did and directly compete with them. But Vitalik himself considers Ethereum the "base layer" onto which solutions like oracles would be built.
Ethereum doing decentralized Oracles makes as much sense as road construction companies making cars.

Here's Vitalik himself on oracles btw:
blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/

On the use case for oracles:
>oracles do make sense. The most common case that will appear in reality is the case of external data

On the fact that ETH is the base layer for oracle solutions:
>the most exciting end-user-centric innovation is likely what will be built on top [of ETH].

>So in other words it just removes one layer of untrustworthiness but is not a total solution?
Until a network of sensors is built into every single component, screw, metal plate, brick, toe, finger, hair, blade of grass, ... in existence; external data will always be tricky.

>but at the same time, I can see how it'll never catch on with consumers who will probably prefer to have a brand name and a customer service support that secures their transactions.
You underestimate people's desire for impartiality.

These iron hands are slowly turning into steel
along with my penis.

I feel like it's going to be difficult to marry single data entry with decentralization.

single data entry works with centralized solutions.

but marrying centralization with decentralization is not something that will be achieved very soon.

no FUD guys, thank you for the discussion. I wish ChainLink all the best, but I feel like it's going to be a while this thing gets any adoption on the horizon.

This thread has actually convinced me that Walton does smth similar on a smaller niche scale (well smaller than the entire banking industry etc) by marrying the single point entry with decentralization through their own RFID chips. This eliminates the oracle problem. It's supply chain management only, I know, not as global as chainlink envisions it I guess. But it's something that'll work.

>it's going to be difficult to marry single data entry with decentralization.
Not at all.
Single data entries can exist right alongside multiple data entries. They're just going to be less inherently trustworthy, which is where Chainlink's other systems for evaluating "trustworthiness" come in.

Ethereum wasn't niche, look where it's at now

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

>LINK/GAS
Just give up retard.
You've been posting the same shit for weeks and nobody cares.

Ethereum is a platform to build smart contracts on, it isn't a smart contract for a specific niche. Chainlink is a platform to connect smart contracts to oracles, it isn't a smart contract connected to oracles for a specific niche.

You're saying it'll be a long time before Chainlink gets any adoption, I'm saying it didn't took long for Ethereum to get a lot of adoption.

If you still don't get what I'm saying you're a brainlet sorry.

This coin is going up again and y'all busy debating philosophical questions...

Fucking idiots.

SWIFT works with 11000+ banks internationally = massive adoption and actual use = Lambo's

But goy it'll take yearsss before it gets adopted.
See what happened to Ethereum, still not adopted!

if chainlink is decentralized, it means they themselves should have no connection or influence or "partnerships" with any companies or sources themselves, therefore chainlink itself has nothing that another contract or service can't copy and use themselves.

oracles are only useful in conjunction with a blockchain, so i expect to see many chainlink clones and people will quickly wise up that multiple oracle sources (not just chainlink) need to be used if any legitimacy in the oracles are to be expected.

not to mention a large number of these clones / improved projects won't waste time with a token to make things even cheaper and more gas efficient to use, and you can bet most contracts that need lots of oracle data won't bother with the services that require wasteful token interaction, given that all the data sources will be the same.

That girl is Asian but you are a dumb fuck.

Anyone who has ever had to wire money overseas has used swift. An international transfer takes 1-2 days. Adopting a blockchain solution brings that down to minutes. Link has had their foot in the door with swift for at least a year. If you cannot connect those dots then you do not deserve any of the gains that will cone from this collaboration.

this was a comfy discussion with some knowledgeable anons that actually awared me of chainlink in a good way.

but then you had to come along and pour your retardation without even reading what I wrote.

okay then I'm off.

best of luck with chainlink to the knowledgeable anons that awared me, wish prosperity on them. and not on you.

I'll buy some WTC now at discount, because this thread has awared me big time.

English motherfucker. Go away and be poor.

Yea you're definitely a brainlet, you believe you understand what others have told you but actually you don't. Good luck with your WTC.

>what is intellectual property
Go look at the whitepaper, brainlet. There's more going on than you think.
Also, good luck catching up to 4 years of development and partnerships with the likes of SWIFT.

Btw, Bitcoin is also decentralized, and doesn't even have the creator defending its interests, and guess who's still numero uno?

Kek

Listen to this guy everyone, I bet next week some chink will make a much better solution than what these guys have been doing for the past 3 years.
Therefore investing in this token which has been in talks with banks for quite some time is just a waste of money.

You have the right idea but have have it backwards. ChainLink makes Walton obsolete because ChainLink can represent anything on the blockchain

>oracles are only useful in conjunction with a blockchain, so i expect to see many chainlink clones and people will quickly wise up that multiple oracle sources (not just chainlink) need to be used if any legitimacy in the oracles are to be expected.

Oh god that guy doesn't understand shit either.

Chainlink's partnership with a company means that company will be using Chainlink not the other way around.

You pick the "sources" you want, Chainlink isn't the one that constrains you to what "sources" you use.

Regarding clones, why don't you make a Facebook clone? Why don't you make a Bitcoin clone? Why don't you make an Ethereum clone? Cause once one takes hold of the market it's pretty hard to dislodge it.

partnerships aren't decentralized, and therefore are useless are oracles. the only way to trust oracle data is if multiple completely separate entities can collect and feed that data into a blockchain. you know that's the only way oracles are useful, right?

no, the chinks have nothing, and no real country is going to get involved and use a chink blockchain like neo or qtum or whatever chinkcoins are hot today.

the point is, chainlink will need to become just one of hundreds of oracle providers if oracles are to be useful in any way. otherwise its just a centralized service with "partnerships", "intellectual property" protected by centralized laws and regulations, not a decentralized oracle service.

>the only way to trust oracle data is if multiple completely separate entities can collect and feed that data into a blockchain
Oh, you mean just like Chainlink?

again, your misuderstand the level of decentrwlization you need for oracles to be valuable.

if chainlink is the only way a company will send data into the blockchain, the data becomes significantly less valuable. oracles only work with multiple completely switchable decentralized data sources. the more % of the oracle market chainlink has, the smaller the value the oracle market as a whole has.

Any ChainLink whale here? Pls dump 300 btc so we can get cheap Link again. I sold at 89k and its going up.

no, because chainlink has a token, which means it isn't completely interchangeable with another data provider or protocol.

this is like somebody creating tokens on ethereum with their own standard, instead of using erc-20, and then getting left behind when everyone else realized how powerful tokens are, and all started using the same erc-20 format.

Right.
I forgot about how people are so willing to run nodes out of the kindness of their hearts.

i'll buy some after the post conference sub-ico crash

You misunderstand what the fuck Chainlink is about.

You have a company. You want your company to use smart contracts. You have developed a smart contract on a given blockchain. You want your smart contract to interact with the outside world, 'sources', 'oracles'. Do you spend years developing your own solution or do you use an already existing plug and play solution? Chainlink is that plug and play solution. Chainlink has no say in what oracles you use, you connect it to the oracles that you fucking want.

Chainlink's partnership with SWIFT means that SWIFT will be using Chainlink, that's all it fucking means.

How do so many people not understand Chainlink still...

It gets real world data into blockchains and does so in a decentralized way. A much needed tool for the future of smart contracts and crypto in general. Smart contracts are pretty useless without real world data, wouldn't you say?

>if chainlink is the only way a company will send data into the blockchain, the data becomes significantly less valuable

Chainlink represents a decentralized network, what you're describing applies to centralized solutions.

no, the fees will just be paid natively, instead of with another token causing higher fees and more blockchain bloat.

right now its the dot com bubble, everyone is creating their own website expecting people to go to sign up to their own site to buy pet food, or toothpaste or books.

eventually people will clue in and realize that instead if you could go to one website and pay for everything there, you wouldn't need hundreds of accounts, or hundreds or different companies asking for your payment info.

and in the case of blockchains you can do that without losing any decentralization, in fact, you improve decentralization by paying for services in the native currency of the blockchain, because right now most of these tokens live or die by the centralized teams and companies that created them.

these tokens are valuable because speculators like gambling with them, nothing more.

but switft won't only be using chainlink, if oracles turn out to be useful, thats the point.

and unless another smart contract platform comes along and dethrones ethereum, which i see as likely as litecoin taking over bitcoin, an oracle solution natively integrated into ethereum via plasma or some other secondary layer becomes a lot cheaper and easier to use.

its like raiden with their shitty ico token for fees, increasing barriers to entry and wasting block space on token transfers is something that will get optimized out of these systems as they mature.

Some people seem to believe that Chainlink's partnership with SWIFT means that SWIFT will provide real world data to Chainlink and that other people using Chainlink will then connect their own smart contracts to the real world data provided by SWIFT, and that they couldn't use any other real world data unless Chainlink makes other partnerships, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole thing. Again, whatever partnerships between a company and Chainlink are announced, they mean that the company is using Chainlink, not the other way around. Chainlink doesn't need data from companies, Chainlink IS a solution for companies.

Then how will the hyperledger bros use it huh? The big money uses hyperledger.

LINK is for ETH and Hyperledger smart contracts.

>instead of with another token
lol wat?

>but switft won't only be using chainlink
Source?

>an oracle solution natively integrated into ethereum via plasma or some other secondary layer
Sounds like you got yourself a million-dollar idea there.
Hop to it!

Your mama will take years before she gets adopted. SWIFT has been around forever. LNK just ads an extra layer on top of that. This means that banks don't need to invest a shit ton of money into new protocols, systems changes, etc.. It can literally be "adopted" in 6-12 months.

Balls deep in both. LNK makes Ripple jump off a bridge, but has little to do with WTC. LNK wil be to focused on banks and shit to waste time developing rfid tech. Then the RFID/blockchain is an insanely huge market. There is more than enough room for WTC, Venchain, Wibo and many others. Stop being a narrow-minded cunt

>but switft won't only be using chainlink, if oracles turn out to be useful, thats the point.
If Chainlink works, why not?

>and unless another smart contract platform comes along and dethrones ethereum, which i see as likely as litecoin taking over bitcoin, an oracle solution natively integrated into ethereum via plasma or some other secondary layer becomes a lot cheaper and easier to use.
The same exact point was made about Ethereum last year still, people were saying Bitcoin would get updated to allow for smart contracts to be developed on top of it so Ethereum would become useless, one year later Ethereum has 27 billion market cap.

>right now its the dot com bubble, everyone is creating their own website expecting people to go to sign up to their own site to buy pet food, or toothpaste or books.

>eventually people will clue in and realize that instead if you could go to one website and pay for everything there, you wouldn't need hundreds of accounts, or hundreds or different companies asking for your payment info.

You do realize this argument is exactly in favor of Chainlink, don't you?

>LNK

LINK bro, there's an I in there.
LNK is something else.

You realize Chainlink works with ETH,BTC and Hyperledger? They are literally showing Hyperledger integrated activities at Sibos.

...

what makes "decentralized" inherently better?

Means there's no single point of failure.
It's basically what makes bitcoin what it is. Hundreds of thousands of nodes hold a full copy of all proofs ever generated, meaning it's basically unfalsifiable.
It's "trustless" because you don't really have to "trust" a single party/small number of parties.
This kind of security is unprecedented, and it's why the banks are tripping over themselves to adopt blockchain tech.