/biz/ - Business & Finance

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7520746
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7466584
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7464410
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Pic related

>>7463814
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7460569
LINK for brainlets:

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be falsely triggered via the attack vector I described above.

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7459865
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be falsely triggered via the attack vector I described above.

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>6303224

>>6244681
>implying the common /biz/ pajeet scum are anywhere near the same level as ascended tranquility /biz/ link marines

>>6225984

figures are a bit old now but you get the idea

>>6152628

Chainlink - middlewear that will be used by all people of all walks of life and will deliver a lambo and many virginal women to me.

>>5666001
You're going to hurt his feelings you faggot

>>4727799
Checked

>>4682139
>>4682277

We're potentially talking about billion dollar deals (eventually) so the threat of contracts being triggered by compromised oracles is very real. I used to work in cyber security and penetration testing and I've seen companies dealing with much lower value deals than are potentially at stake here shell out a lot of money for security that is nowhere near as robust as chainlink will provide.

If they can pull this off and establish a track record of reliability, pretty much every major financial institution will be tripping over themselves to implement smart contracts using chainlink. It will save them a ton in legal fees and infastructure.

Check out this video:
http://www.fintech.finance/fintech-tv/sibos-2017-sergey-nazarov-smartcontract/

>"Categories of digital agreements that have few participants and already use digital state - things like derivatives. [...] In a period like 5 years you're going to see the high value contracts in spaces like derivatives, spaces like the bond market, all kinds of different securities, even equities, they're going to be the standard. So smart contracts are going to be the standard."

And then take a look at pic related to get a scale of the size of this market.

>>4630647
SAVE AWAY MARINE!! We are fighting the good fight! Also Sergey MEntions use of Data for streaming derivatives positions on the on the blockchain with API and using Chainlink to verify them! Not sure if you all understand how huge that can be PIC RELATED


mentioned in this video

https://youtu.be/AfJiRsYpgyc?t=6m54s

>>4583779
Ya boi