/biz/ - Business & Finance

It wasn't thrown out the window. TEEs have had numerous vulnerabilities shown so far, and using them as the core private computation layer when they have potential risks is not up to standard for high value contracts.
SC.com have said before that they're open to various TEE solutions, not just Intel SGX, and have made particular reference to open source TEEs, a number of which are under development. So if/when there is a watertight TEE solution it will be an important feature of the Chainlink network. But in the meantime being able to develop smart contracts with (partially) obfuscated inputs and outputs, and private oracle powered execution, is an amazing asset that takes the immediate pressure off the development of a perfect TEE approach.
But that's not even my take away as the most exciting part of mixicles. I'm more impressed that a third party can be sent the "terms, executions and payouts" of a mixicle without actually exposing the parties or the content of the smart contract. This sort of third party auditability is absolutely necessary for being able to show regulators which terms were agreed upon and executed.

But if you want the real "breadcrumb" from the mixicles paper I think it's at the end where they mention that ISDA is already in the process of framing guidelines about how derivatives smart contracts should be structured. Given their complete isolation as pioneers in this space, that would suggest to me that SC.com are literally conferring with ISDA about how to develop these products moving forwards. No great surprise given we were expecting some sort of derivatives settlement this year, but pretty fucking awesome nonetheless.

>>15493704
Based answer. Based Thread.

1k eoy

>>15493704
all the end of the wp says is that guidance is emerging how ISDA regs may work with smart contracts. the two citations are speculative papers regarding theory. Where is the evidence that "the ISDA is already in the process of framing guidelines about how derivatives smart contracts should be structured"

>>15493819
>>15493704
Yeah that seems more to say "we'll make sure this mixicles are compliant with it."

>>15493819
>>15493865
"Exploring" is Businessese for "we're working on it"

TC was an academic project ffs. Most often you create a production system out of POCs.

>>15493704
>Muh testicles !!

>>15493704
Whats u talking bout nigger?

The fud becomes worse and more boring by the day. Go fud on twitter losers

>>15493646
tees were always shit tech. Chainlink was always a scam to fool tech illiterate neets. 0.6 EOY

>>15493646
Kys or learn to read idc

>>15493819
that's some pedantic shit, anon. Read "guidance is beginning to emerge" how you like, but for me that means they are at least providing some sort of preliminary feedback about the future regulatory requirements of this sort of project.

>>15493819
Ahahahahahahahha!!!! Really???? Watch Governing body hearings. It's already started. There is literally video of ISDA asking for... Never mind. DYOR or stay poor.

>>15493979
the way its written just sounds like one-sided theory to me rather than isda intervention. "may fit", links to two papers about how X and Y believe the isda will view it