/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>56218491
Only way to shut them up is for the price to go up. Other than that we are stuck here with VITRIOL until then.

>>56218491
Is the oracle problem solvable without walled gardens in a permissionless manner? Nope. Sergey with his army of Cornell Mafia tried and failed. No shame in it, shit happens. It's just not solvable, like the trillema is not solvable. But trying to keep pushing a failure that's either retarded or fraud

Wow, 5 whole minutes without ESL hysterics. He must be on his smoke break or something.

>>56218526
>>56218527
Like clockwork, kek

>>56218526
oh shit there we go. about 7 minutes in this case. I would consider that quite slow.

>>56218506
Is that when your contract ends? How much do you guys get paid anyway? I hope it's more than jannies (They do it for free)

>>56218538
I hold link I just don't see a value proposition for the token within the next 3 years.

>>56218533
>>56218534
So is it solvable and still secure removing the whitelist or isn't it.

>>56218553
What do you mean?

>>56218491

>English is a second language for Sergey

>>56218555
If there wouldn't be a whitelist for dons, would it still be secure enough to be sure that the respective dons deliver accurate data, we all know it wouldn't. Oracle problem only solvable in a walled garden, that's not permissionless crypto, but a gimmick.

>>56218526
Humans that create a system in return in controlled by humans in one way or another.
The most powerful win and ic3 won the oracle battle and the people n Bitcoin won the currency battle

>>56218579
It's not crypto. It's a gimmick. The promise of staking as a security model was the removal of the wall, it didn't happen for obvious reasons. Therefore the token is actually really not needed

>>56218526
>like the trillema is not solvable
he doesn't know

>>56218610
Layers are no solution, they inherit the problem

>>56218506
>Only way to shut them up is for the price to go up. Other than that we are stuck here with VITRIOL until then.
Buddy, the vitriol was always here, even when Link was unstoppable for two years straight.

>>56218526
>like the trillema is not solvable
Avalanche solved the trilemma years ago tho

>>56218824
No it didn't. C-chains are also just a band aid

>>56218599
Staking was always only part of the token's needfulness, read the white paper.

I hold Link but I don't see it going much above $250 by Xmas. Maybe by Q2.
Everyone should sell their Link.

>>56218555
you can't verify the validity of any data that enters, and chainlink doesn't even try. they stack retarded incentive structures that all boil down to a single authority having the final say about what is correct (chainlink, of course). that's not decentralized, but who cares, the goal here is to sell tokens to retail

>>56218848
Chainlink was never about verifying the actual validity of the data you retard.
Chainlink was always about securely delivering the data as presented by the source.

>>56218853
You wouldn't need dons if that was the case

>>56218872
It's been six years of Chainlink and you still have no idea what the absolute most basic premise of an oracle is.

>>56218832
>No it didn't.
yes it did, read the whitepaper

>>56218882
Securely delivering implies "validating" through various middle men that the data is accurately delivered. The question remains why, if the middle men are all white listed and have no incentive to deviate.

>>56218908
The argument was about "validating any data that enters", i.e. checking the correctness and veracity of what the source is saying.

>>56218914
Yes. In a closed environment a simple api call and one node is good enough, the incentive is to not lose the privilege of being on the white list and getting welfare in form of token not needed

>>56218928
>one node is good enough
Here's your one node, bro

Six years of Chainlink working flawlessly while every other oracle absolutely shits itself multiple times, and you STILL have no idea what's going on.
Seriously kill yourself at this point.

>>56218937
Because other Oracles don't apply white lists and deal with market forces in a permissionless manner, while chainlink is middle man that actually wouldn't need dons, ot rather a don of 1 would be good enough

>>56218955
>a don of 1 would be good enough
If you only have 1 single oracle node, then if that one node goes offline for some reason or gets otherwise compromised, your whole contract is in the toilet.

>>56218960
And the node operator risking his privilege at welfare? Possible, but unlikely. The core issue remains, the walled garden is never going to be without wall, therefore showing that the oracle problem is not really solvable in an open environment, as demonstrated by all those that tried it in an open environment and failed

>>56218971
>the node cannot fail if it tries hard enough!

>>56218981
Unlikely, at the very least the node operator has no incentive to report falsely as it would be at risk to lose privileged access. Evolutionary game theory keeps nodes honest, not the risk for financial costs getting slashed (which of course doesn't happen in 0.0.0.1)

>>56218955
>all oracles other than Chainlink fail miserably because they aren’t whitelisted
Wrong.
Coinbase’s “open oracle” was literally Coinbase, Maker’s oracles are all whitelisted (including the “secret” ones), Pyth nodes are all named, etc. and they all shit the bed spectacularly.

>>56218928
>one node is good enough
Someone spun their 2018 fudbot back up, fucking lol

>>56218853
exactly, chainlink doesn't even try to solve the oracle problem, all they do is copy data around. we are agreeing anon, you don't have to defend your losses on this point