Can someone refute this LINK FUD?

or is he right?

Attached: Screenshot 2018-03-15 at 6.07.02 PM.png (1332x515, 104K)

Other urls found in this thread:

The problem can be fixed by simply making a new Eth blockchain? And you consider this actual FUD?

Yes, of course I can, because I am an autistic genius who understands computer jibber jabber. I won't give you an actual answer, however, because I'm just such a smug nerd that I'd rather simply assert my mental superiority and make you feel inferior and then move along. Ha! Ha! Small brain much, idiot?

he's just a stupid eth fanboy, and not a very rich one at that

He is absolutely right, the oracle "problem" hasn't been solved because there isn't an actual need for it at the moment (extremely few real world case use with no need for cross operation)

If a real need would arise it could probably be solved by any competent team in a few days

ETH is more than enough to perform Chainlink tasks. The Link token is useless.


omg op please don't say you fell for the link meme? we are here just having fun memeing with the bros, laughing at sergij and there are newfags who actually buy this garbage?

Haha god I love linkies
>Muh it will solve the oracle problem

lol. sounds like a smart comment for anyone who has no idea how link works.

Link is a meme. Shills claim decentralising the oracle process will make smart contracts trustless, but they'll never address the fact that the API process remains centralised thus rendering the whole operation superfluous.

lol, chainlink

feel sorry for u niggers

Because shit like this doesn't happen with a decentralized oracle service:
What an ass clown.

Linkies are seriously fucking retarded. If you really think this tech is "revolutionary" then why the fuck is it still dropping? Fuckin delusional. The entire market is imploding including ChainLink.

Attached: 0C0C8918D09045089AB2683FD3D0714C.jpg (744x836, 417K)

>listen guise lets just make a new blockchain and and hear me out, LETS PUT ORACLES IN IT

>Another one of the 40 threads+ a day with this exact same fud.

Yes retard. Decentralized censorship-resistance tech doesn't need decentralized-censorship resistant ways of obtaining reliable data onto smart contracts and dapps. Now sell your link and buy deep brain chain

Attached: 4554456778.jpg (163x186, 21K)

Can you unironically delete this?

Please unironically delete this

SXSW talk is out! Fuck this FUD, The solution is LINK, as far as DOCUSIGN IS CONCERNED

You still have the advantage of adding external data to your trustless contract, which can't be added to ethereum. The ethereum blockchain, like all blockchains, was meant to be deterministic. There is no way it can include external data that may change over time without ruining the key design concept behind it.

So all blockchains require oracles to get off-chain data. Now you can have a centralized oracle that will be subject to downtime and constitute a central point of failure or you can have chainlink.

The API remains centralized, but that does not mean the whole operation is superfluous. If you want the benefits of using automated, trustless smart contracts (and there are many benefits to it), you have no other options but to rely on oracles (centralized or decentralized).

Furthermore that the API is a central point of failure can be bypassed. Either by adding a temporal clause in your contract (check API result at time t1, t2, ..., tn over n days for instance) with the assumption that no data source remains compromised or unavailable for long nowadays. Or by making the data provider legally liable in case false data is provided.

The fuck was that ?

Yes, Ethereum is in the process of implementing decentralised oracles, but it goes deeper than that. Bitcoin is now integrating smart contracts, and will pull all of Ethereum into it. But it goes even deeper. USD is integrating Bitcoin, so will automatically integrate Ethereum and oracles. Oh you think it ends there? Gold ingots are integrating USD which which give you all the power of Bitcoin, Ethereum, oracles, and USD.

It would take gold ingot developers like 15 minutes to put a decentralised oracle on their platform.

yeah wtf

cheese pizza

LINK will be useless because ETH will have oracles is similar to saying somethingcoin is useless because Bitcoin could just make a fork. Without that the point about SSL notaries can't move forward. It's correct that the oracle problem is not solvable and that's acknowledged in the whitepaper.

dont actually debunk the fud fag, we want the price to go down ?!? unironically delete this one too.

Attached: file.png (627x450, 267K)

iExec solved the oracle problem and it was just a side project for them, bagholding Linkies BTFO

Something about the r9k guy

Not even a good shill job. I’ll buy some so you can make your commission but do better

Not even shilling. iExec encompasses everything that ChainLink sets out to do and more. People will easily be able to just use iExec service providers as oracles. Why will anyone want to use ChainLink when such a competitor exists?

i hold rlc but you're a fucking moron.
anyone can build oracles. not LINK oracles though.

isnt the whole blockchain just a majority vote of some sort?
if a new block is mined they compare the transactions made and the majority will be considered true

for the ssl part the transaction via chainlink will be encrypted as well just read the whitepaper if you want to now more how this will be done

for the but then the apis need to be decentralized as well
there are multiple sources for certain data and sergey said that sources are mostly considerd secure already

There's nothing special about LINK oracles that won't be encompassed by iExec service nodes. An oracle is just a server that fetches data from an API and hands it to a smart contract. This is something that's easily covered by what iExec provides. ChainLink has no niche if this is the case

Reddit is full of eth cucks that believe tokens are useless and just a way to steal your eth

Link is partnered with swift tho

potently bullish facts

no one is going to stake $1 million smart contracts on any "just plain old oracle".

They want a guarantee of their money back if the data is wrong.
They want security to know they can trust that the data is correct.
RLC doesn't offer either of those solutions. LINK is the only oracle provider that does.

There's several dozen projects that can provide oracles. Only LINK does it in a trustless manner

isn't this fud old anyway? basically "decentralized oracles can simply be built on top of ethereum", "anyone can make oracles", "muh decentralization is not important", "muh competitors", etc etc. this shit is getting stale. i guess not everyone is an autistic nolife neet that reads link posts everyday, huh

Also heard Boring say in the talk that every smart contract will need to be audited. That's what QSP does.

Attached: ayy_lels.jpg (422x768, 98K)

You got your commission now shoo

johnny is taking a swing at him

Attached: Screenshot 2018-03-15 at 9.15.08 PM.png (1194x642, 201K)


that cuck got BTFO

Rekt. My linky stays super stinky

fucking reddit, both these fags are probably just making shit up as they go

he isn't taking a swing so much as he is reading off a piece of paper Sergey gave him.

The general rule that has yet to fail me:
When a crypto has a few daily Veeky Forums threads maximum, each with a couple dozen replies and a fair amount of FUD...stay away
When a crypto has dozens of daily Veeky Forums threads, and three or four of those daily threads have hundreds of replies and a shit ton of FUD...BUY IMMEDIATELY

not a bad set up

..and getting BTFO'd

worthless shitcoin

> hard on

But really though... No one thinks about the external adapters.

Attached: jim.jpg (660x410, 49K)

Anti-FUD. Niggers be 'ccumulatin

Attached: 1509272665637.jpg (1700x348, 123K)



Looks like ol' Jonny lost the debate

Worthless Shitcoin

>TFW you spent $4300 on 1000 LINKs and it'll probably be worthless

Fuck this shit I should have went with stocks. I'm going full index funds from now on

>Not doing this in the first place
Wew lad

Wow. I got 1000 LINK for $500

How does that make you feel?

Sorry I left out a 0, I paid ~$4300 for 10,000 LINKs

SSL notary = centralized, trustful
Link / Blockchain = decentralized, trustless

Makes you feel pretty dumb trying to flaunt lol

I considered myself pretty informed on LINK.

After reading his comment and acknowledging, I have no idea what those words even mean or if they're even actual words. I'm gonna have to do a deep dive.



you dumb fuck, Chainlink going to use a certification service, that by definition is giving trust to certain nodes.

Huh? You mean reputation?

>another linkie that hasnt read the whitepaper
holy fucking shit you guys are dumb.

So wait you weren’t talking about the reputation system?

ITT: not a single refutation
Will stinky linkies ever learn?

Good point. Must be why sergey isn't spending any of the 32m ico cash on building a team. He's just sitting on that cash for when he exits.

Holy shit.. Linkies are getting BTFO right now...

I guess it makes sense, it was always a meme and a shitcoin. All it takes is one step outside of the echo chamber to see just how worthless it actually is. And you guys thought it would ever actually reach $1000... Goddamn that's just sad.

Attached: stinkyfuckinglinkiesbtfo.jpg (1257x903, 284K)

Just sold 100k. Sad.

if link really was the golden ticket and muh whales were accumulating they'd be done by now and it would've mooned. smart money knows chainlink is a bad investment
>but muh top wallets
EVERY coin has top wallets

top kek

It's always been a bit odd that after all this time only Veeky Forums shits all over their dicks for LINK

It's amazing how quickly the post turned post SXSW, you would think that someone was paying people to spam threads on this board and other sites where people discuss altcoins. The SEC should look into this place.

>If by a 'single oracle' you mean asking a random guy on the internet, sure. If you mean an actual company with a contractual obligation to only notarize real data, absolutely not, because I can sue them for breach of contract and demand compensation.

>Anyway, if smart contracts take off, oracle services are going to be obsolete because primary data sources will start signing results. Probably demanding a small payment for it. No need for middlemen.

>Imagine if you're providing an api for some data in demand. You notice that several oracle nodes call it every second and resell it. What do you do? Start signing results with your private key and demand a small payment for every call. I bet there are going to be data markets for that.

>Even ignoring trust issues, there's no reason for chainlink to exist in this scenario.



Attached: 1432847736231.png (1070x601, 463K)

It's surprising Reddit is sometimes visited by intelligent people. This is canonical BTFO.

Same guy also wrecked eos, interesting


Very valid arguments from an old-school point of view. Actually made me think.

It's comforting seeing these copy and pasted.

chainlink is going straight to zero.

Attached: 1512285452104.png (640x621, 609K)

are we panic selling now?

...Jesus Christ.
This is actually a solid argument.
Welp....that's it. LINK is kill. I'm selling to break even as soon as the price goes back up
Last time I ever fall for a Veeky Forums meme crypto

Attached: itsover.gif (480x270, 2.68M)

Just sold all my LINK

Fuck off back to rebit, cuck

LINK $1000 EOY

Found more info

>If the data coming from a single source is corrupted, or a straight up lie, then no oracle system in the world can help you.

What ChainLink Nodes will do, is collect data across all available sources of your weather data, then analyse that data for accuracy, and then send you what it conceives as being accurate.

Ultimately, high quality data in will equal high quality data out.

Premium data services will be desired, but their premium data can also be checked against data provided from free projects, Hobbyists, etc... for accuracy.

I've been doing a lot of reading on ChainLink and it sounds like a really fascinating project. It definitely aims to tackle some of the biggest issues with smart contracts. I have some concerns, however, and I'm hoping someone can ease them. Sorry for being a Devil's Advocate.

I have a specific use case in mind: A fantasy sports contract. You buy-in, pick players, compete against a pool of people, and the winner gets a payout. The data here would have to be entered by someone watching the game. For example, if it's fantasy football (American Football), someone would have to watch every play, every yard gained, every touchdown, etc.

As I understand, ChainLink is simply bringing a number of "data enterers" (or Oracles) together to help ensure that the statistics are correct. There is no 100% guarantee, but ChainLink aims to have a very high probability that the returned statistics are correct?

I'm also having difficulty understanding the value of the LINK token. I understand it's used to pay for usage of the LINK platform. But ChainLink seems to be a middleman - couldn't smart contracts figure out a way to program in the Oracles directly and a consensus mechanism for choosing Oracle data? Furthermore, couldn't another project simply copy ChainLink code and release a cheaper token with the same functionality?

I've heard that you shouldn't invest in a protocol because protocols don't make money. Or is that statement misguided?

reply to this:

ChainLink is a distributed/decentralized network. So for what you are proposing, there will be a multitude of Nodes each connected to one or more "sports data" providers.

You would code your smartcontract to create a kind of synthetic consensus, accessing nodes based on various metrics of trust.

You can tell the smart contract to pull data from 100 nodes: 50 free nodes that offer free sports data 40 mid tier nodes that have 2 or more sports data feeds at reduced price, and 10 premium nodes that each have 10 or more sports data feeds + a LINK Bond + SGX Security etc (whatever metrics will be available) and then process that data for accuracy, and from that you can create a consensus of data truth/trust. Some reasonable sense of trust.

IE 100 of 100 queries report x is true then x is true

It's really left up to the smart contract coder to decide, this is what Sergey means by ChainLink is designed to be flexible.

Missing the point that these agreements require contract managers, admin and if it goes badly then lawyers.
One provider will not present all information. Having multiple providers increases cost, maintenance and overhead.

The aim of chain link is to reduce the need for contract managers, lawyers, business folk and tech staff.

Link won't explode overnight, but if it can provide a marketplace of reliable information (reputation of nodes etc) it will be the Amazon of information.

If link becomes a massive data provider, then mainstream data providers will start to provide highly reliable information by establishing reputable nodes

Not really, this was already known. Link has short term potential, but no one thought that if smart contracts became a thing people would use a dongle forever. Link could still get to a few dollars before being made obsolete, that's why we buy.

yes you have to pay for APIs
did you think everything was free on the internet ?
node owner will buy API auth and serve that data, that was always the plan.
you didn't seriously think somebody running a node would serve the free data from Yahoo! Finance did you ?

That's why its a race against time. If ChainLink is not out and adapted massively, then it's game over for CL. CL is a middleware, companies will pay to use it... IF it's cheaper to use CL then to develop their own oricles for accurate off blockchain info. People can copy CL's codes, but without reputable node operators, it's meaningless. This is (hopefully), why Sergey is so silent on marketing. Without a working product, along with first mover advantage, it's game over for CL.

I haven't read the whitepaper so this might be 100% incorrect but my understanding is once you own enough Link you can control a node and generate passive income but via what? Are you doing something similar to mining to move data around? Are you going to need 100tb of storage for your node to generate any fucking thing like storj?

originally data providers were going to be give a reputation rating based on many factors, one of which was the amount of link held which was supposed to drive up the demand for link because data providers were going to hoard it. more recently, they said reputation would be provided by third parties, throwing that whole thing up in the air.

>Fuck off back to rebit, cuck
>LINK $1000 EOY

The guy has valid arguments, you can't just go like this.

Source please, did not know about this. Amount of token owned still play a role in reputation i assume?

honestly I cant remember the source it might have been a tweet from chainlink or a screencaped rory post. hopefully someone can dig it up

desu I dont know how third party reputation providers would know how much link a node is storing so idk. plus each reputation provider would have a different algorithm for calculating rep.