Why would Oracles want to be paid with a ChainLink token?

Linkies why would Oracles choose to be paid with a ChainLink token when they nominate to be paid with any crypto according to the ChainLink specification?

Other urls found in this thread:

chainlink-docs.smartcontract.com/#payment
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Link:
chainlink-docs.smartcontract.com/#payment

Thodges has clarified that is old documentation from before the ICO on the Slack and it will be updated.

So they are locked in to only accepting ChainLink Tokens as payment as a condition of using the ChainLink Oracle Dev Kit?

Chainlink is network that reads JSON files and sends the data to smart contracts. (That's called an "oracle".)
Useful, but not a good investment since the idea can easily be copied and 66% of the tokens available are not in circulation.

Also, although they claim that it solves the "oracle problem" (The oracle problem being that oracles are centralized, not decentralized.), it doesn't, since the data being fed through the ChainLink network still comes from a centralized API feeding data to ChainLink through a JSON file.

For some reason link holders think this gives it a future valuation of at least $100,000,000,000, which is absolutely delusional.

t. 200k LINK holder

I know but trying to reason with linkies is impossible. Every time i post this they change the subject or post memes. Guess it's on par with their intellect.

What I don't get is the value/role of the ChainLink token. You could pay an Oracle with any currency. Also why couldn't Ethereum (or any of the smart contract platforms) add an oracle service to their base product and bypass the need for a 3rd party ChainLink oracle network?

>it doesn't, since the data being fed through the ChainLink network still comes from a centralized API feeding data to ChainLink through a JSON file
Isn't the idea that rather than depending on one "centralised" oracle to read the data (and be susceptible to attack) you have 100+ decentralised oracles reading the same data and confirming it by consensus. e.g. what did the DJI close at?
>look up the website
>trust one oracle to do it
>or trust a hundred+ to do it and confirm with eachother they haven't been duped

They don't confirm with each other. Nodes are prevented from seeing what other nodes are doing, to prevent "me too"ism in results.

Yes. And not only that, if they don't have any tokens, they can't operate, because tokens are reputation. The more tokens are staked, the more trusted you node/oracle is.

What you're saying is basically impossible.

Chainlink is a network of decentralized oracle middleware(that feeds off a centralized trusted data source) that make it unable to intercept and modify malicious data into a smart contract.

How would you make those data sources truly decentralized?
How would a company like SWIFT have decentralized data sources?

The data sources don't have to be decentralized and if the sources are faulty, it's their fault.
You don't blame Comcast when you get bullied on Veeky Forums, your brainlet cunt. I hope your dumb face will get raped by a pack of rabid niggers for your stupidity.

Because you'd need an entirely new application and network to do that.


AKA: Chainlink

Token is an easy one. They need the token reserves to distribute to large enterprises so they can use the network quickly. Thats what that 350mil is for.

What about the platform problem of Ethereum (or others) developing an oracle solution into the base platform?

The ChainLink Token sounds like a meta-gas that could be incoperated into the base gas cost in an in-house Eth oracle solution.

The data sources from SWIFT would be all of the banks, I'm guessing.

If you developed something in ETH to get data it'd be locked to only ETH.

To support every blockchain you need to run your own application and your own network.

Chainlink holdings increase node reputation which means you actually get contracts to settle. There will be diminishing returns on how much your reputation can increase based on link amount. Therefore it should be a happy medium between holding enough link to run nodes without hoarding ridiculous amounts. That is why the token will have value, because people will be holding it to run nodes. When the demand to run a node increases due to people who want passive income, demand for link will increase.

That's my entire point you fucking triggered subhuman.

If bank sends a faulty SWIFT message, it's not Chainlink's fault that they're using a single faulty source of data.
But still, the Chainlink oracles are meant to aggregate data from multiple sources before executing a smart contract.
Data source centralization is something that's been discussed in-depth in the whitepaper.

And this is false. Technically they could run without any LINK, but they probably couldn't accept all jobs as some will require a certain amount of LINK as a collateral.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please read the white paper specifically section four.

There will be bith on AND off chain aggregation of oracles in order to come to a trusted and accurate consensus result.

Also keep in mind that oracles can overlap in their API sources. So it's not going to be just a single oracle for a single source. The more oracles there are reporting for a particular source strengthens the aggregate consensus value for the smart contract. That's the whole point of chainlink, it will be decentralised across multiple levels.

>Chainlink holdings increase node reputation which means you actually get contracts to settle.
So an oracle has to pay key money to get preferred access to the ChainLink network?

Or are the accumulated ChainLink tokens supposed to be a signal of reputation and past performance?

It literally says in Section 4 that the commit/reveal function is used to do exactly what I said.

Staking link is as a penalty for providing incorrect data.
If you give the wrong data, you don't get your link back.

Yes there's a reputation system based on past oracle performance, user feedback and link holdings etc. You don't actually have to pay it's just like staking. Like the other guy said, and last I heard, you don't actually need link to operate a node, but obviously if link increases reputation it's a good idea. Not really clear how important it will be at this point.

Thanks anons

This is from years ago, before they were even thinking about doing a token.

Getting paid in another crypto would not make sense because there is a lot of staking involved in Chainlink.
And within a specific network, it makes very little sense to stake an asset whose price is influenced by a million factors that have nothing to do with the network.

>the data being fed through the ChainLink network still comes from a centralized API
The data source was never supposed to be decentralized (although it can be in many cases).
The oracle network was.

Do more than 5 minutes worth of research, trenchbrain.

>Chainlink oracles are meant to aggregate data from multiple sources before executing a smart contract.
No. This is only one of the many different setups that are possible.
Tons of smart contracts will run on single data sources. The point of Chainlink in this case is to eliminate as much as possible any faults in the oracle processing.

>why would OPEC choose to be paid only with USD?

>So an oracle has to pay key money to get preferred access to the ChainLink network?
An oracle/node will only "pay" when they are penalized.
Staking is more like putting your money in escrow as a security measure for your client against things like willful wrongdoing.

>And within a specific network, it makes very little sense to stake an asset whose price is influenced by a million factors that have nothing to do with the network.
Absolutely this.

>
>Yes there's a reputation system based on past oracle performance, user feedback and link holdings etc. You don't actually have to pay it's just like staking. Like the other guy said, and last I heard, you don't actually need link to operate a node, but obviously if link increases reputation it's a good idea. Not really clear how important it will be at this point.
How much link for a small node? 1k 10k?

There will be bottom-feeding nodes with 0 Link, and there will be superwhale nodes with tons of Link fighting over juicy Swift contracts and such.
And everything in between.

Think of it like an RPG, you can start from scratch and grind your way up.

Also depends on what you can offer them or rather towards what APIs you have access to and how desirable the transmitted data is for your potential client(s).

...

This is a good question and I don't know who can give us the answer. What's a big ass node? What will be the average?

It'll largely depend on what Link is worth in fiat.
Just like with any crypto or non-fiat asset; the value is always rendered in fiat until something replaces fiat.

>Also, although they claim that it solves the "oracle problem" (The oracle problem being that oracles are centralized, not decentralized.), it doesn't, since the data being fed through the ChainLink network still comes from a centralized API feeding data to ChainLink through a JSON file.
>"All it does is force a potential attacker to not just imitate an API but actually hijack and take full control of an API."
Darn, all those hackers breaking into banks and exchanges daily will make chainlink useless!

>That is why the token will have value, because people will be holding it to run nodes.
How many oracles do you really need to tell you the sky is blue though?

Etherum has 24047 nodes. How many Oracles does ChainLink envisage having? Is it enough to drive ChainLink token appreciation? Is ChainLink token even intended to appreciate or is a utility token?

What is the minimum number of oracles that you think a business would be comfortable using to aggregate market data from multiple sources?

I'm honestly not convinced of the superiority of decentralised oracles compared to trusted centralised oracles, so I'd be inclined to answer 1.

If I had to go decentralised, IDK, 3? How many trusted rating agencies are there? If you contracted with someone to look up a figure on a website you'd trust them wouldn't you? Say if you didn't, then maybe 12?

you're retarded

>If you contracted with someone to look up a figure on a website you'd trust them wouldn't you?
Depends on what those figures are for.

Since we're talking about smart contracts here, I'd say I wouldn't trust a single dude to look up a figure on a website.

A lot of systems don't even need a double sign off to proceed. Do you think businesses employ multiple people to confirm the same thing? At most they get one or two collegues to review before signing off most things.

How many oracles are practically needed? More than the number of eth nodes?

Ok, then say 3, or 12. Or what number of oracles is being suggested that you need to reach a consensus confirmation that the sky is blue, or that the Dow Jones closed at X today?

Depends on what the user wants.
If one is enough, then it's enough.

That's part of the beauty of it; you can have multiple oracle confirmations, or you can have just the one if you want.
With a centralized solution, you can only have the one.

Do you understand that the chainlink network is being used in conjunction with smart contracts so they can automate the process in order to save money? They aren't just replacing clearninghouses with a decentralized network of nodes; if they were doing that yes it would be retarded but that's not at all what the idea is.

Also, you are obviously confusing the actual data source with the nodes.
Even if there is only a single source, ideally you still want the transfer of that data to the blockchain to be faultless if it's going to serve as a trigger for a smart contract.

Ok so that's the concept. But the fundamentals of the token depend on a large amount of oracles chasing a limited of ChainLink tokens. Is there really going to be a large amount of oracles?

Any estimates for oracle numbers? Eth nodes would be a starting point wouldn't it?

No idea, Rory said the network is meant to support up to 10k nodes i believe. Presumably the number of nodes will be a reflection of the ROI you can get running a node as people spin up more until it no longer becomes worthwhile, so really it depends on how much money is at play via smart contracts using the network. Unilke full eth or btc nodes there is a financial incentive to have one so I wouldn't say there'd ever be more than either of those but if there's money to be made people will join.

>the fundamentals of the token depend on a large amount of oracles chasing a limited of ChainLink tokens
There are going to be four major uses for the token:
1) node payment
2) node staking
3) contract staking
4) market use (investment, trading, speculation, ...)

Only one of those is currently in effect, and the price is already what it is.

Is 10k-25k oracles really enough to drive ChainLink token value? It seems more like it'd settle at a stable utility price.

>guaranteed replies

It depends on how much link tokens affect the oracle reputation and at what point you hit diminishing returns. Fwiw people only started talking +$100 link once it started going parabolic in december and all the bagholders got in at 60c+ in december and january. pre-ish nufag biz always imagined this topping out $10-$20ish especially once you begin to think about the numbers rationally.

Yes, a publicly traded token for a network that might be used by Swift will settle on a stable utility price. Sure thing.

Also, do you have any idea what the purely utilitarian price would have to be?
Banks collectively process billions upon billions of API calls, and smart contracts could be attached to all of them.
Calculate how much Link would actually be used every day for node payment alone (knowing about the 3 other token uses), and then try to figure out what fraction of Link you would need to be using to pay an oracle something like 20 cents for instance for a single computation.

>Banks collectively process billions upon billions of API calls
*every day.

In the best case scenario there 10,000 nodes (this is years down the line too and assuming huge adoption, even btc only has 6k nodes). In the best case scenario diminishing returns is hit around 10,000 link staked (looking at other tokens with similar total token amounts and a staking aspect).

That's only 100,000,000 of 1 billion link taken out of circulation. Look up the token velocity problem. In order for significant appreciation to take place you either have to have 1. a burning mechanism, or 2. a significant amount taken out of circulation. It's unlikely 10% is enough. The price will go up but anyone thinking it could go over $20 is retarded.

>even btc only has 6k nodes
Because you don't need to run a full node.

>That's only 100,000,000 of 1 billion link taken out of circulation.
And what about contract staking?
And what about Link used in the markets instead of in the network? The number of Link used in the markets is currently 350,000,000.

> Look up the token velocity problem.
Lol no.

And you didn't do a basic calculation for the number of computations required per day.
Remember: banks collectively make many billions of API calls every day.

>The price will go up but anyone thinking it could go over $20 is retarded.
Only one retard here, buddy.
Protip: this entire scenario revolves around the PURELY UTILITARIAN VALUE (whereby you're still missing the mark btw).
You are completely forgetting about the speculative value.

>Remember: banks collectively make many billions of API calls every day.
And virtually all of them could have smart contract applications.
AND the very emergence of smart contracts could make the number of API calls made per day grow far larger.

>You are completely forgetting about the speculative value.
Should price that after the utilitarian value if we're out of the mania phase of crypto. At the least it's a baseline.

if you don't understand the token velocity problem there's no helping you. Contract staking isn't really staking anyways, it's just bidding, i.e., the tokens being used as a currency, which is bad for velocity because it isn't really staking in the sense of the tokens being taken off the market for a significant period of time. As for speculation, the bull has passed. Even if SWIFT came out tomorrow and said We love chainlink, there are just too many scam ICOs and new tokens (Neo, stellar, eos, cardano, etc. are all launching all the exact same number of tokens that have been launched on eth) that have diluted the market to see any big moons. You may see the price go up 20% but the days of the price singularity being possible are over. It's impossible for new money to enter the market now and nobody is even watching anymore. The main net will launch and it will be just like the december blog post, put out into a turbulent market that doesn't care because it's too complicated and theres too many other easy to grasp projects out there.

Chainlink had it's time, around sibos and the ico, but the market has gotten too dumb. Ripple is fundamentally easy to understand which is why it mooned, chainlink no so much, nor the relation of the tokens to the value of the network.

>Should price that after the utilitarian value if we're out of the mania phase of crypto.
Doesn't matter.
The point is you shouldn't forget about it.

Friendly reminder SWIFT won't even be using Chainlink even when it does finally start using distributed ledger technology (which is in at least 4-5 more years by the way).

Here's what it says on smartcontract.com:

"We're proud to be working with SWIFT on their own SWIFT Smart Oracle."
>their own SWIFT Smart Oracle
>NOT the chainlink oracle

Never forget that banks are interested in the blockchain technology, NOT some fucking ERC20 shittoken made by some journeyman who walked away from NXT. All you autists who are constantly harping on about "the SWIFT announcement" are absolutely deluded. It's like you just conveniently ignore what it actually says on smartcontract.com itself simply because it doesn't make you feel good.

If it jumps to 2 digits maybe there's a shot at FOMOing making it rise a bit above that but yeah, your numbers tentatively make sense.

>if you don't understand the token velocity problem there's no helping you
Assumptions assumptions.

>Contract staking isn't really staking anyways, it's just bidding, i.e., the tokens being used as a currency
Tokens are being locked up until a decision is made, and then the winning node's tokens remain locked up for a set amount of time.
It's a form of staking.

>which is bad for velocity because it isn't really staking in the sense of the tokens being taken off the market for a significant period of time
Muh velocity.
And you don't know what period of time we're talking about. Sony and AXA still have a smart contract active with smartcontract.com, probably going on two years now.
And even if it's only a day; a day is a day is a day.

>As for speculation, the bull has passed.
Ok. Bye then.

> You may see the price go up 20% if Swift is confirmed
Lel.

>Ripple is fundamentally easy to understand which is why it mooned, chainlink no so much
So that's why.

>their own SWIFT Smart Oracle
Protip: the network will consist of thousands or oracles.

Are decentralised oracles of utility/secure in the majority of those bank api calls? Do I need/want dozens of oracles checking if my bank account has enough money to transfer funds to Miss Chaos rub and tug?

smart oracle was just the name of the product before they rebranded to chainlink.

>Are decentralised oracles of utility/secure in the majority of those bank api calls?
Virtually no API calls use oracles of any kind right now.

>Do I need/want dozens of oracles checking if my bank account has enough money to transfer funds to Miss Chaos rub and tug?
Do you?
Tell me, how many times do you personally double check the information you entered for a bank transfer before clicking confirm?
How about if you were transferring 200k as a down payment to set up your own rub and tug salon? How many times would you double check then?

I sold all my links for mobius, atleast they have fixed the oracle problem and communicate their partnerships with their investors, ugh for stinky linkies

Honestly I only do a cursory check once before clicking send. I might do a second check in my transaction list afterwards. Add in one or two checks as I'm typing it out. So max x4.

How many times does a bank need to poll its own database before it's satisfied it's not lying to itself?

>t. people who either have no brain or have done zero actual research into ChainLink

Jesus christ you people are retarded. I genuinely hope you're not holding any significant amount of LINK, and I can't wait for the day that it moons and you're all pink wojacking.

You have no idea how similar you all sound to the ETH doubters a year ago.

>So max x4.
Right. And that's only for your average bank transfer.

>How many times does a bank need to poll its own database before it's satisfied it's not lying to itself?
If once is enough, once is enough.
With a decentralized solution, you get to choose between once or many times.
Not so with a centralized system.

And we're talking about smart contracts though. You cannot be trustless enough.

I have 35k since 17c and I'm excited for the day it hits $5 but that's all you can reasonably expect from it. Please don't be disappointed when it tops out at half of that though. The people who came in december/january are genuinely mentally ill.

>but that's all you can reasonably expect from it
I'd love to hear you tear apart 90% of the top 100 then.

If you truly understand links fundamentals then you would see how it will go over $5 you brainlet

Intel SGX is a central point of attack. LINK ISN’T DECENTRALIZED.

Critical exploits have already been found in Intel SGX: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Guard_Extensions

What the FUCK do you think would happen if banks and fortune 500s employed LINK? Spoiler: hackers would undoubtedly exploit the LINK network, intercept and alter data, profit and/or destroy.

They haven’t “solved the oracle problem” they’ve probably just created new problems.

Veeky Forums holds and shills LINK to feel like elite hackers, but you guys are actually fucking retarded. Wasn’t their whitepaper plagiarized too?

Stay poor if you hodl this long term. It’s a piece of garbage with an ERC20 token associated with Ethereum which can’t scale to meet enterprise needs and maybe never will.

Linkies are *actually* retarded. Your bags are Pajeet-tier and going nowhere. No important project will ever use LINK because it’s WAY too easy to program *MORE SECURE* internal oracles / oracle nodes.

Oracles are not difficult to program like blockchains. You’ve all been sold techie buzz words and think you’re smart/hackers/etc.

Unfortunately, you gentlemen are shilled bag holding retards trying to swim in waters you don’t understand.

Sell now because LINK isn’t secure, nor will it be adopted by actually important projects.

>muh whataboutism
go back to pol you neonazi faggot

>muh double standard
Go be butthurt somewhere else.

Intel SGX is an optional feature of Link.

this... link is pajeet vaporwave and the high number of attack vectors is incredible... i am seriously concerned for linkies and their mental health, this is not healthy... they actually think their shitcoin will go above $5 lmao

I know this is copypasta, but this is the dumbest fucking argument.

"The rear heated seats in that BMW might not work, so the whole thing is fucking useless"

I sold all my links for mobius, atleast they have fixed the oracle problem and communicate their partnerships with their investors, ugh for stinky linkies

Do you people really see $20 as too little? If you bought at 50 cents that's basically 40X. You can wait for a 1000X if you want but a lot of people bought lots at 15 cents.

What incentive do you have to run a full BTC node? None in an economic sense. Also the BTC blockchain requires two or more weeks time to be synched on your pc