Chainlink, more like scam link

[Anonymous No.15011210]

I asked questions regarding the protocol, in the official discord and they don't seem to like what i'm asking, in fact they prefer to ignore my questions, but this is complete bullshit. sure chainlink is nice and all but I do in fact have a real concern that could literally mean that the network is not usable.

I don't give two shits about this being good FUD or not, i literally want answers, i'm not going to fall for a scam that easily.

here is what you should considere, basically chainlink allows purchasers to create smart contracts and whitelist the nodes they want to request to fufill their requests.
for example if a smart contract needs to know what temperature it is outside, he could choose 10 nodes and ask them what temperature it is. once the nodes answer, basically all answers will go into an aggregator,( go check part 2.1 of the whitepaper, it is said it's up to the purchaser to define his own aggregation rules.) and the aggregator will do for example an average of all results and decides for example that the average temperature is 15.8 degrees celcius, then comes the FUN part, the aggretaor then proceeds to strike all nodes that didn't answerr correctly and notify the reputation contract, the nodes that didn't answer correctly, wayy pay penalty and the purchaser (the requester) will retrieve those links, the node operator will basically pay a penalty to the requester.

HERE is my concern: What if a fucking asshole decides that he cannot accept a deviation of 0.01%.

now every fucking simple node operator will be fucked in the ass and lose all their staked links.

If it was me i'd setup a fucking smart contract that request weather and fucking do this to steal all the fucking links from all the node operators.

[Anonymous No.15011213]

FUCK YOU SERGEY FOR DUMPING 700K ON US. and stop acting like the almighty fuck you are.
seriously i'm a pissed stinker. and i literally don't give two shits if this fucks up chainlink i thought the whole point of having an open source project was to actually discuss and be constructive. now be constructive with this.

[Anonymous No.15011221]

>>15011210
Wow, you should probably sell then

[Anonymous No.15011251]

>>15011213
You too

[Anonymous No.15011268]

>>15011210
Sell

[Anonymous No.15011304]

>>15011210
>What if a fucking asshole decides that he cannot accept a deviation of 0.01%.
That would be a part of the service agreement and the node operators would have to agree to it ahead of time. Obviously no sane operator would accept those terms if they're delivering an answer that's going to be aggregated and averaged.

So your answer is: the contract owner would sit around with his dick in his hands until he fucking keeled over dead. Or until he made a contract with reasonable terms and conditions.

[Anonymous No.15011325]

>>15011210

HE BELONGS IN JAIL

>>hide all link threads
>>report all link threads
>>get the fucking jannies to do their job and keep it to a chainlink general
>>no more pajeeting, get in the sticky

Send out as many reports as you can to the SEC for Chainlink, exit scamming, fraud and operating an illegal ICO. Do not estimate the power of positive thought! Together, we are all in this together, we can finally clean this board of this crypto-russian-canadian scam

SIRGAY FOR PRISON 2020!

[Anonymous No.15011364]

>>15011210
Isn't that the reason for the kyc?

[Anonymous No.15011369]

>>15011213
B E A R I S H
E
A
R
I
S
H

[Anonymous No.15011415]

>>15011364
no, the kyc is to prevent malicious node operators, but no one ever mentions malicious smart contract creators...ffs, they have been focusing too much on the nodes, but forgot that the smart contract can also be malicious and ruin all node operators

>>15011304
where the fuck is this talked about? smart contracts can select nodes, but where have they ever mentioned that node operators can also decide on the rules of aggregation?

also how would this be handled

[Anonymous No.15011477]

>>15011415
I mean if it were the case that nodes have no say in the contracts they provide data for, then a contract writer could just write in a clause that says, "All participating nodes forfeit their LINK to the contract owner regardless of outcome." And then just ping all the nodes and steal every LINK in circulation. Sound retarded? Because that's basically what you're suggesting.

[Anonymous No.15011493]

>>15011477
exactly how are they gping to adress this? node operators dont whitelist smartcontracts, it's the smart contracts that selects them.
chainlink Is flawed

[Anonymous No.15011537]

He said that in every fukkin presentation pajeet

[Anonymous No.15011558]

>>15011537
he said what dumb fuck? the kyc is for node operators, i'm talking about malicious fucking over strict aggretion contracts

[Anonymous No.15011588]

>>15011210
Your question doesn’t even make sense. You’re saying someone would want to pay for decentralization but then also somehow want to put rules that would lead to a more centralized response.

[Anonymous No.15011634]

>>15011588
anyone could create a smartcontract that request the chainlink network, it's written in the whitepaper, it's up to the purchazser to define the rules of aggregation, the requester retrieves the penalty for faulty answers. so anyone could write a strict contract to fetch the penalties.

i know it's fucked but i could write a contract to ask for weather and consider anyone that is off by 0.01 degree a wrong answer.
the reputation of the nodes who were requested will get rekt and you fetch penalty

[Anonymous No.15011673]

>>15011210
STUPID!
sell already, retard.

[Anonymous No.15011703]

>>15011634
The fuck are you on about mate, the node operator would have to accept the terms. Why do you think node operators have no say in which contracts they will deliver data to.

[Anonymous No.15012010]

>>15011703
source? where are you pulling this info from? your ass?

once you setup your nodes and your jobid is listed on a listing service your node will start getting jobs

[Anonymous No.15012036]

>>15011210

no wonder no one is answering you. you sound retarded

[Anonymous No.15012069]

>>15012010
Have you ever written a line of Code?
You are assuming a node operator needs to take every job, that is simply not the case. If I set up a node with 2 Million LINK collateral I will sure as hell not take any anon smart contract request. There will be terms of services to use my service

[Anonymous No.15012078]

>>15011493
You're legitimately retarde-, oh nevermind you just want me to sell. Sorry my links staying put.

[Anonymous No.15012109]

>>15012069
what the fuck are you smoking, where are all this stuff written? we are node reputation but no fucking smart contract evaluation or some shit. now lets assure this shit exists, are you fucking implying that a node operator should read the code of every fucking aggregator and make sure its not designed to fuck it over, the example i took was simple, but some serious math could be implyed in aggregation it could be subtle

[Anonymous No.15012187]

>>15012109
>are you fucking implying that a node operator should read the code of every fucking aggregator
no, but the customer needs to go through kyc, if his code is malicious, he will be liable. Sure there will be services that don't require customer kyc, but those are services that will not have much collateral. A non malicious customer will have no issue agreeing to a tos and going through kyc and be hold liable as he has no intention to act malicious if he wants to use the service for legit jobs

[Anonymous No.15012252]

>>15012109
>where are all this stuff written?
>we are node reputation but no fucking smart contract evaluation or some shit
>now lets assure this shit exists
>some serious math could be implyed in aggregation it could be subtle
sir, i think we have found issue, it is due to you having pajeet. report to nearest designated street sir

[Anonymous No.15012299]

2.5/10 OP. Better than much else lately.

[Anonymous No.15012330]

>>15012187
the fuck do you smoke retard? customers dont do KYC, it's only the node operators that do KYC? are you dumb or something? also this sis all done on the blockchain, once you lose your links, you lose them for good.
this is fucking new really you just took out client KYC out of your ass. KYC doesnt prevent a customer from stealing it all, and this was never adressed, you're just making this up. what the fuck is xclient KYC anyway?

[Anonymous No.15012368]

>>15012299
care to explain instead of just shitposting mister i know it all, no one is giving an answer

[Anonymous No.15012493]

>>15012330
A node doesn't just jump towards any task a client suggests it to.
The node operator chooses their data sources and fulfills api calls on specific queries.
You think I could ask 10 nodes what colour underwear I am wearing and then collect all their links because i disagree with the answer?
Horses for courses and nodes for chodes.

[Anonymous No.15012510]

>>15011210
Set a Ropstein node up and you'll have a better idea

[Anonymous No.15012547]

How much would you LINKIES pay for a HQ link/sergey painting?

>actual painting, not a shitty jpeg print.

[Anonymous No.15012553]

>>15012330
Pajeet you are caught in that retarded lolbertarian bitcoin mindset. LINK isn't targeted at some paranoid pot smoking cypherpunks that fear being doxed and be put behind bars by da deep state. Do you think some unrelated nodes will individually compete for some random anon requests. Look at Linkpool. The future of LINK is services that will act as intermediates between node operators and customers. Customers register for free and do kyc and can chose from different node operators with different amount of collateral who are under contract with the service. To use the service the node operators will require some guarantees, and pay some of their LINK for security of not being scammed. as said, sure their will be wild nodes, but using your idea of contracts trying to steal LINK, those nodes will not survive for long.
>ib4 not decentralized
bullshit. The node operators are still required to keep their nodes running, pull data and deliver it. This could also be covered by that hypothetical service and would probably cost the node operator more, like offering some good conditions for vps and the services being liable if the vps goes down.

But in all honesty, best FUD I read since probably April

[Anonymous No.15012896]

>>15012553
what fucking pisses me off is that this is all speculation on how this shit will be handled, this is not addressed at all, also the argument stating that, ohh everybody will be known because everybody will do kyc, then ffs dude that's a complete bullshit answer, are you implying you won't be able to create smartcontracts that request chainlink from the blockchain unless you do kyc? i mean what authority will prevent me from doing this?
are you implying that there will be registered requesters, and an authority that will allow you to request the network, if so, it's the fucking first time i'm hearing this.

for a long time now people were focusing too much on node operators being malicious. what about the fucking clients, they could fuck everybody, and stating that they have kyc so they wont do shit, that's fucking bullshit argument.
kyx works with node operators because you would prevent a same entity from running 53% of the node hence the sybil attack, the customer kyc to prevent their aggregation from screwing you over makes no sense at all.

[Anonymous No.15012974]

>>15012896
>this is all speculation
>nobody has written it down
Welcome to crypto
>are you implying you won't be able to create smartcontracts that request chainlink from the blockchain unless you do kyc?
No, but the market acts rational and this is where it will most probably go to. If you don't like it, not my issue, but good luck finding some node operator providing you with data without you giving any security. This isn't bitcoin, this isn't some lolbertarian or communist feverdream. This is business and risk distribution. And it is the most rational to do if one is a non malicious node operator, non malicious customer and profitable for a pool operator.
>they could fuck everybody, and stating that they have kyc
I think it is the language barrier pajeet. No data from a certain pool if you are not a registered customer, as simple as that

[Anonymous No.15013058]

>>15011210
staking isnt live
would a philosopher really be so FUCKING STUPID as to enable someone to do this?
ultimately just throwing down token without any hardware or data to contribute is pretty worthless. if you actually had access to useful data for whatever purposes become popular, serg would probably just throw you 700k, nigger

[Anonymous No.15013133]

>>15011210
yes, it's complete trash, which is why it's either never going to happen, or the network is going to collapse.
Nobody wants to deal with this bullshit, people are just going to use other oracle services, like provable (no they're not using chainlink illiterate stinkies, they are selling overpriced hardware to idiots) or many other oracle providers that are slowly appearing.
Maker is planning to make a paid oracle service for crypto prices in particular, as they need it for dai anyway.

[Anonymous No.15013137]

>>15013058
the team doesn't answer this, they just ignore it.

>>15012974
dude, no, you can't just bullshit with oh thats how it is deal with it kind of answer.
you either provide a real solution to a problem or fuck off.
the registered customer bullshit it was never hinted at by the team, also, the customers are on multiple chains and multiple systems how is this shit supposed to work anyways?

[Anonymous No.15013142]

>>15011210
Your question has already been answered. Node operators choose wether they want to bid on the proposal or not. If the purchaser is defining too strict rules, the node operator can just decide to not bid on the proposal. Check the docs for the specifics how it's done.

[Anonymous No.15013195]

>>15013142
>>>>>>15012109
>the example i took was simple, but some serious math could be implyed in aggregation it could be subtle

[Anonymous No.15013208]

>>15013137
the team has nothing to do with this proposed solution. It is speculation on my part on how the market will solve the risk distribution issue.
>The customers are on multiple chains and systems
And?
>Spoonfeed me or gtfo
You gtfo. still good FUD

[Anonymous No.15013212]

>>15011210
Maybe
if you didn't
write like such
a fag
in discord
then you
would get some
proper
answers but
you're a retard
so kys
Brap

[Anonymous No.15013218]

>>15012109
>are you fucking implying that a node operator should read the code of every fucking aggregator and make sure its not designed to fuck it over
Yes. Maybe the node operator won’t personally sit around and read each contract, but a system will need to be devised that ensures a standard contract with standard terms. Maybe there will be a standardization of sorts for different types of contracts

[Anonymous No.15013235]

>people ITT talking about Chainlink like it’s an actual real and sincere thing
>not just a fake ball of technobabble with no intention of doing anything other than getting rich and exiting

Try and solve ‘the oracle problem’, or get $100,000,000 cash to walk away? Which one linkies?

[Anonymous No.15013257]

who cares lmao

All these crypto shit fundamentals are memes. Literally no use cases so far other than descentralized currency.

As long as charts are greens no one gives a shit. If you are legitimately curious about the technology, then fine but keep your money out.

[Anonymous No.15013285]

>>15013235
>>15013257
Two discord structured low quality fud post in a row. Get on OPs level at least, this is just tiresome tranny bullshit

[Anonymous No.15013330]

>>15013208
im not asking to be spoonfed, i'm challenginfg you and the only answers i got were: DEAL WITH IT.
that's not a fucking answer.
>>15013212
don't you understand where i'm coming from? or where i wanna go to?
I think the fucking penalty system right now sucks ass they didn't think this through. the requester or client, should never get those penalties in the first place, their fucking system is encouraging smart contract makers, or clients, to cheap the node operators by being overly strict.
if the fucking requesters dont get the penalty then they wouldn't be encouraged to do shit like that

WHAT IF instead of fucking giving it to the requester, why not fucking burn the penalties. everybody would profit from this. but they wouldn't do it, because these cock suckers are scammers and don't give a shit about you and me or the "linkies"

>>15013218
well that's the kind of answer I wanna hear, what are the team planning on doing? that's why i asked them, and they don't give a shit.

this is fucking weird coming from a team that promotes discussion and debate

[Anonymous No.15013348]

>>15013257
Yeah man who cares about the actual thing you’re invested in. It’s not like the future exists or something.

>>15013285
What is this ‘discord’ you linkies keep talking about? Is that some gamer shit? Why are you all obsessed with transsexuals? Dirty linkie, go back to where you came from, you’re not built for chan sites.

[Anonymous No.15013398]

IT IS PURGING !!!

[Anonymous No.15013523]

>>15013142
So.... 1) Smart Contract is "written up" and exchanged by 2 Parties. 2) Before it is authorized, the "Data" is verified by a Node. 3) Node gets "paid" by Link Tokens for providing this verification data. The Weather Temp in NYC as an example -> a) is there a separate node required for a single data point? b) Where does this node get the Temps from? 3) Does a secondary (or Multiple nodes) then have to verify the Original Nodes info? Considering there are BILLIONS of DATA POINTS... does that then require "Billions of Node Operators" to "Code/Program" their node to handles billions of different types of data points (or are you seriously implying there needs to be billion of nodes. PAYMENT SYSTEM is: SO.... the link token is NOT STABLE (It changes in price) so every fucking payment actually needs nodes to verify what the fucking token is even worth. Then.... since the world currently works mainly on FIAT, after that "Stable Token Price" (Which it's not) has been established, a whole other node system is required to EXCHANGE link tokens into FIAT. Am i understanding this correctly? Now... any large corp can Design & Implement their own NODES & BLOCKCHAIN if they wanted to .... so why the fuck would they use CHAINLINK? SERIOUSLY.... this fucking SCAM COIN can only work if the Entire World converts to LINK TOKENS, the Entire World has a billion of these Chain Link Nodes. Your FUCKING KIDDING ME... RIGHT? Jesus, the $1000 EOY meme is unbelievable. Bunch of Fucking LOSER NEETS calling this system the Fourth Industrial Revelation. Good Luck Marines .... any day now, you should be converting your $1000 investment to be worth more than 200+ years of Rothschild's monopoly on Central Banks. Can't wait to see all the new Lambo's in your Mom's Drive ways (Sarcasm). PS: Did'nt even get into how fucking Bizarre & Complicated it is to actually BUY & most importantly SELL (Re-Convert back to FIAT) ChainLink Tokens. Unreal.......

[Anonymous No.15013531]

>>15013330
Now you are losing it and are trying to just scream your way out. Sad
I proposed a solution. Solution is kind of easy and cheap. Have it in a greentext as the language barrier might be to high for you Germ.
>Pajeet (a) has a node (a) pulling flight data
>Pajeet (b) has a node (b) pulling flight data
>...
>Pajeet (z) has a node (z) pulling flight data
>Customer (A) needs provable flight data and is an honest customer
>Customer (B) needs provable flight data and is a dishonest customer
>Pool (I) is offering to act as intermediate to protect Pajeets from dishonest customers
>(A) registers for free with (I) and is providing his data and agrees to TOS to be an honest customer or else is liable for any damage
>(a) to (f) are registered with (I) having agreed to the TOS of (I) to provide data and pay a part of their pay if chosen as node operator
>(A) puts up a job for flight data choses (a) to (f) for their reputation and collateral and gets his flight data provable
>(a) to (g) get paid and give a part of their pay to (I)
>(f) fucked up, he is losing his collateral to (I)
>(g) to (z) are wild pajeets
>(B) is putting up a job with the intend to steal collateral
>(g), (h), (i), (j) take the job and deliver data provable but do to attack from (B) lose their collateral
>(k) to (z) hear about it and realize the risk involved and sign up with (I)
>(B) puts up a job again but finds no pajeet because of the heist

[Anonymous No.15013562]

>>15013531
This is absolute nonsense. There is no fucking need for this in the slightest

[Anonymous No.15013583]

>>15013562
How about you propose a solution instead of just screaming around like a triggered fudder
>ib4 no I don't hold LINK stupid bag holder
>700K lolololo dumped
>scam

[Anonymous No.15013614]

>>15012109
Ok read up until this point, you are trolling now and bad it, start again tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.15013701]

>>15011325
What can men do against such reckless seething?

[Anonymous No.15013723]

>>15012010
Seems like a common sense solution to the "problem"

[Anonymous No.15013806]

>>15013723
I think OP has put his tail between his legs and run away like the faggot he is. Still interesting thread.

[Anonymous No.15013818]

>>15011210
You have a good point OP. I don't think any one has thought about this way. another attack vector I can see is an API website owner that draws up a smart contract with some generic aggregation code that would get accepted by most nodes. the API website owner also launches multiple nodes that would be more than 51% of the nodes that are using that API. The API owner fires up the smart contract and sends wrong results to other nodes in purpose while his nodes send the correct data. now all those incorrect nodes would have their LINKs stolen.

this is legit. I don't know how I missed this huge flaw. good catch. not sure what to do at this point.

[Anonymous No.15013852]

>>15013562
The best thing about fud is that you have peace of mind when it's so firmly debunked

[Anonymous No.15013944]

>>15013531
dude like seriously you need to stop, i don't need a makeshift solution, i want something the team said or proposed, where do you get this shit from srsly? where is it written in the whitepaper, could you atleast cite a blogpost or whatever?

even a fucking quote from a dev from the chat...my god
>>Pool (I) is offering to act as intermediate to protect Pajeets from dishonest customers

how many people are living in your head seriously a fucking pool dedicated at checking whether cusztomers are honest or not? like seriously?

that's fucking over complicated and you are also hinting at reputation for customers, wich doesn't exist, there is node operator reputation, but they never talk about client reputation...

[Anonymous No.15013988]

>>15013806
what? no i have IRL stuff to do i'm not gonna sit here for hours refreshing the thread
there is no fucking aanswer to this, just speculation by literal whos, i'm asking for quotes from the whitetpaper or stuff sergey said...guess what? they never address this go check the official discord, i talked about this, and silence radio from the team

[Anonymous No.15014029]

>>15013944
You seem high iq and thus cause a shitstorm in the Link 4chan parrots board. I am an irl businessman and entrapr... wats happenin here is sergey and team knew from day 1 that crypto will never get mass adoption...neither will contracts. They are exit scamming softly and to an extent...not going 100% exit scamming - not selling all their link. If i were poor i too would go that route and exit scam softly my coin

[Anonymous No.15014105]

>>15013944
That angry reddit spacing kek
>Where is it written
We already were at this. It isn't written anywhere. It is just a very easy market solution for risk distribution
>I need papa sergay to hold my dick
All you need papa sergay to do is to finish his product and shake hands with big dogs.
>a fucking pool dedicated at checking whether cusztomers are honest or not?
Why not? Do you have a better solution? Interested in hearing it
>hinting at reputation for customers
>they never talk about client reputation
And? I don't see your point beside you being in need of papa sergay holding your dick
>>15013988
If you don't want to speculate on LINK solving the oracle problem not my problem, but why the fuck are you asking then. I couldn't care less for some pajeet being late, IF LINK takes off

[Anonymous No.15014117]

Follow the plan

[Anonymous No.15014154]

I Heard Sergey Will Give You 700,00 LINK If You Suck His Dick And Let Him Fuck Your Ass

[Anonymous No.15014207]

>>15014105
my solution if there was on is to fucking stop giving the fucking penalty to the fucking customer, but burn the fucking tokens and if a smartcontract provoques too much penalties then maybe its a shitty contract that should be terminated.

maybe contracts are not immutable, maybe they can get revoked.

i dunno i'm trying to be constructive im not fudding i'm just pissed stinker because im being ignored by the team when asked.

also yeah i'm also a linky, i didnt invest in any other shitcoin, im all in link but the way team treats us is complete bullshit. we also contribute to their growth they are using our money to grow so we deserve a little explanation instead of this cuck rory refererring to the blogpost whenever you ask him a question.

[Anonymous No.15014420]

>>15014207
>nagging the team on discord
Well you are more involved than I am then.
As anons said earlier, no node operator is forced to take a job and if a smart contract gets the "reputation" of "stealing" too much LINK, it will not be served and the smart contract writer needs to adapt it, if he wants to get his product, in this case the provable API data. Also the proposed solution I gave, and honestly it was pulled out of my ass ad hoc, is distributing the risk in a way, that smart contracts that don't have been audited in a certain way will not hit the market because the service operator also has a reputation an income and an investments to lose if his workers get fucked too often.
>we also contribute to their growth they are using our money to grow
It is a highly speculative market and tbf I don't see myself being in any need from the team to have such an issue addressed as the market will solve it imo, and I think the customer getting the collateral is kind of the sthick of LINK, as it is taking away the risk from the data requester, which is kind of the idea of LINK. Sure risk needs to be distributed, but this is where my idea comes into play, and that is nothing the team needs to care about.

[Anonymous No.15014673]

>>15014420
so you are kinda suggesting that some service agreements will be audited by trustworthy third parties and help node operators decide wich service agreements are safe and wich arn't.

it looks good, but i'm staryting to feel this is all so godamn complicated, first the reputation for nodes, node selection, kyc for nodes, now service agreement audits.
>as it is taking away the risk from the data requester
depends, node operators are also risking it all their links when they put collateral. I understand collateral makes the requester trust the network, but it's also a huge risk for node operators.

i'm not gonna use a pool, like linkpool whenn staking is ready, i'm gonna run my own nodes, but damn this is gonna be a fiull time job i feel

[Anonymous No.15014799]

>>15014673
>service agreements will be audited by trustworthy third parties and help node operators decide wich service agreements are safe and wich aren't
This would be the most logical thing to do, especially if it involves high collateral. And that is the beauty about LINK, no need for collateral. If the data requester has low reputation and can't find a node operator willing to take his job but needs the data badly he is the one who risks some stinkies receiving fucked up data without the node operator having any stake in the game.
>but damn this is gonna be a fiull time job i feel
If you chose to run your own independent node, it certainly will be and you better start to learn auditing smart contracts or how to automate it. But as said, there will certainly pop up services that do that for you IF LINK succeeds. It still is a highly speculative market and anybody who threw hundred thousands at LINK or invested hours upon hours into it is still taking a high risk. But the lower the risk becomes, the more certain it becomes LINK will succeed, the more expensive the Token becomes.

[Anonymous No.15014954]

>>15014673
Any high value smart contracts are going to need audits whether they use Chainlink or not. There are already companies that audit smart contracts and auditing should be streamlined with languages like DAML and templates for aggregation contracts.

[Anonymous No.15015057]

>>15014673
>i'm gonna run my own nodes, but damn this is gonna be a fiull time job i feel
yeah, no shit
reasonably one can expect there will be some level of standardization to simpler contracts, whereas complicated ones will be written and audited by teams of educated people.
Complicated contracts will obviously be beyond NEET nodes, and I don't see how NEET nodes will be able to compete with pools for the "simple" contracts, which likely aren't going to need greatly decentralized responses.