/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15641512
You buy BTC with it ya doof

>>15641512

>>15641512
Go back!

>>15641512
The link coin is just like toilet paper. You flush it instead of throwing on the street.

>>15641512
Every single aspect of Chainlink is modular (reputation, aggregation, KYC, mixicles, TEE, ...) EXCEPT the currency used to compensate nodes and indemnify users: the Link token.

The reason for a separate, fixed-supply token is because you need to shield this token as much as possible from outside influences because of its vital role as a staking unit.

>>15641557
>fixed-supply token is because you need to shield this token as much as possible from outside influences
This is such totalitarian economics bullshit, I don't even...

>>15641557
Ok so staking, thanks for a simple answer, Anon.

Is there a website where I can see the details about the staking/earnings?

>>15641582
Staking isn't live so there's no hard data on what the returns would be, only estimations.

>>15641573
If Chainlink used BTC for payment and staking, people would be crying for ETH, and vice versa.
So the solution would be to allow any and all assets (crypto AND fiat) to be staked.

How would you do that?
Through oracle-fed smart contracts (which eat fiat-to-crypto for breakfast).
But if you do that, you still need a "medium" that is actually held in escrow ("at stake") for the contracts.
Something that is trustlessly transactable, but whose price is influenced by as little as possible.

Solution: a native network token with a fixed supply whose price is almost exclusively impacted by the health and reputation of the network.

>>15641582
>>15641592
Listen here sunshine its steaking okay? Wait until sergers patients it to separate his scam from the other POS scams

>>15641582
It doesn't work that way, and you have a shit ton of research to do.

>>15641512

>>15641582
>Ok so staking
And compensating nodes.

you're a BUG! you eat TRASH!

>>15641592
>>15641606
Yeah I just found the chainlink docs site.... all a bunch of programming stuff I don't understand.

Will there be a minimum amount required to run a node or is that still undetermined?

>>15641622
Nodes will come in all shapes and sizes, from massive giganodes capable of staking millions, to bottom-of-the barrel nodes that stake absolutely nothing.

>>15641622
>divisible by 18 decimals

>>15641512
It solves the lambo problem

>>15641649
I'll be honest that's really why i'm here.

>>15641622
>>15641615
>USERS ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE FUNDED THE EXAMPLE CONTRACT WITH AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TOKENS

>>15641595
>staking
We are yet to see staking mechanics working effectively on any token. It's why ETH takes so much time, and constant delays to implementing it.
Still, tons of ERC tokens have staking on their roadmaps since 2017, but are going nowhere with it.
>fixed supply whose price is almost exclusively impacted
Fixed supply assets, the majority of which is held by one entity, are always most impacted by the whims of the largest stack.
All the touting of a trust-less, decentralized solution whose entire well being is in the hands of one person is ludicrous at best.

>>15641681
>We are yet to see staking mechanics working effectively on any token. It's why ETH takes so much time, and constant delays to implementing it.
>Still, tons of ERC tokens have staking on their roadmaps since 2017, but are going nowhere with it.
We're talking about staking for mainstream transactions.
Do not compare this to any previous crypto staking, if you please.

>Fixed supply assets, the majority of which is held by one entity, are always most impacted by the whims of the largest stack.
Which is why Sergey only sold 35% to the public two years ago, and is going to distribute another 35% to confirmed node operators.
This kept manipulative whales from accumulating too much Link during the development stage.

You're going to have to upgrade your cognitive level to even consider touching Chainlink.

>>15641701
>We're talking about staking for mainstream transactions.
"Staking" comes coated in all kinds elaborate, "highly-cognitive" fluff to it, but always reduces to the same principle, but more importantly, the same exploit: bribe attacks.
>Which is why Sergey only sold 35% to the public two years ago, and is going to distribute another 35% to confirmed node operators.
In what world do we live to even consider, let alone trust Sergey Nazarov not to remain the largest node operator, even if doing it, by a network of puppet players?

>>15641512
DYOR

>>15641741
>"Staking" comes coated in all kinds elaborate, "highly-cognitive" fluff to it, but always reduces to the same principle, but more importantly, the same exploit: bribe attacks.
The answer to bribes is to make things as trustless as possible.
Can't bribe a computer because it doesn't have desires.

>In what world do we live to even consider, let alone trust Sergey Nazarov not to remain the largest node operator
If you don't like that idea, don't use his node.
Pretty sure he has no interest in running nodes btw. He might leave this current Chainlink heartbeat node running for nostalgia's sake.

>>15641741
>"Staking" comes coated in all kinds elaborate, "highly-cognitive" fluff to it
Also, no it doesn't.
Staking is simply a node going "if I fuck up you get X amount of money".

>>15641757
Umm hello? That's exactly what i'm doing.

>>15641842
No, you are asking to be spoonfed. Go and read the whitepaper, then read the Crypto Oracles articles. Then search for Sergey Nazarov on CoinDesk. Then come back to talk.

>>15641893
> repeating the same 3 year old spoonfed meme

Bruh, scroll up. I'm looking at the websites.

>>15641512
I'm a developer and I looked over the Chainlink white paper and documentation, as well as the blog post by Google. Here's a few reasons I would not use Chainlink for my own apps:

The current "mainnet" is not decentralized. there's no way to decentrally assess if an oracle is any good or not.

It took them 2 years to basically build centralized oracles, which is extremely unimpressive (and already exists). I do not have much hope for the future or the competency of their engineers.

The white paper doesn't coherently describe how they plan on making their centralized design decentralized one day. They broadly go over their "decentralized" reputation strategies as if creating sybil resistant decentralized reputation is something of an afterthought, when it's actually an unsolved computer science problem. They've had 2-3 years and 30mil in funding to actually publish technical specifications for this and instead they decided to build trivial centralized oracles. Extremely worrying. It kind of reminds me of IOTA "we'll remove the coordinator later". No you won't. You don't know how.

News outlet and journalists keep reporting on "partnerships" with Google and Swift. But if you actually read the source for the "partnership", it's just a blog post by Google Cloud that promotes their own service (BigQuery) and shows an example about how Chainlink users can use Google Cloud if they want. In no way is Google partnered or planning on using Chainlink themselves. The Chainlink codebase is extremely trivial to rebuild if Google wanted to get into the blockchain oracle space.

While there's certainly profits to be made by trading Chainlink, I recommend you do not HODL it with the hope that one day developers will adopt it as their source for decentralized oracles. That certainly won't happen.

OP THERE IS NO USECASE.

>>15641983
Where have I seen this copy pasted before?

>>15641512
Read the whitepaper