[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 544 KB, 602x800, 1555717044459.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16043063 No.16043063 [Reply] [Original]

Sybil attacks are possible since sybil resistance requires KYC or "trustworthy" node operators. Most people won't KYC because it's antithetical to the idea of crypto itself being decentralized and "anonymous". Therefore, since most operators won't want to KYC, LINK will not be sybil resistant.

Now why does RLC make LINK obsolete in this regard? It's simple. The PoCo algorithm is so well designed that iExec's dOracles can rely on it instead of KYC for sybil resistance.

Boom. I sold all of my LINK at 1.40 because I knew after RLC v3 dumped, that even LINK would dump.

I will not be buying back after learning this. I am all in RLC at the price of 0.43$, about 0.7x ICO price.

Sorry gentlemen, I thought LINK was going to save me just like all of us did, but this is the nail in the coffin.

>> No.16044183

could you explain why Poco prevents Sybil attacs?

>> No.16044229

>>16043063
Too bad Chainlink was created for enterprise adoption, the same enterprises who don’t give a fuck about your “decentralization” in crypto principle.

>> No.16044289

>>16043063
>Most people won't KYC because it's antithetical to the idea of crypto itself being decentralized and "anonymous"
KYC has nothing to do with decentralization retarded faggot

>> No.16044727

>>16043063
>Now why does RLC make LINK obsolete in this regard? It's simple. The PoCo algorithm is so well designed that iExec's dOracles can rely on it instead of KYC for sybil resistance.

>> No.16044741

>>16043063
this is actually true

>> No.16044761

>>16043063
>I sold all of my LINK at 1.40
Did you just "/" your own thread?

>> No.16044817

>>16043063
>>Now why does RLC make LINK obsolete in this regard? It's simple. The PoCo algorithm is so well designed that iExec's dOracles can rely on it instead of KYC for sybil resistance.
could you explain why iEXEC Poco prevents Sybil attacs?

>> No.16044846

>>16044817
https://medium.com/iex-ec/poco-series-2-on-the-use-of-staking-to-prevent-attacks-2a5c700558bd

>> No.16044869

>>16044846
but exscuse me sir (gentleman) but isn't this the same mechanism implemented by LINK?
(everyone verifies the result and over a stastical theresold the result passes trought)

>> No.16044964

>>16044869
If it is then why does LINK require KYC and RLC doesn't?

From what I understand RLC's oracles work differently than LINKS, so RLC can use their algo to prevent sybil attacks and LINK relies on another mechanism(KYC)

>> No.16045067

>>16043063
D...d...does this mean no 1000eoy? Is it too late to get into RLC?

>> No.16045089

You just sound like a salty faggot. I don't even hold any LINK (sadly)

>> No.16045237

>>16044964
>LINK relies on another mechanism
KYC is not mandatory nigger

>> No.16046168

KYC is not mandatory nigger

>> No.16046243

>>16044183
this

>> No.16046253

>>16043063
>Sybil attacks
you do realize the cost of even attempting sybil attacks in a node network where you would have to run multiple nodes for years until people would trust all of them.

>> No.16046288

>>16043063
if you want to avoid KYC all you have to do is operate a node with an enclave, a functionality Chainlink is already working on alongside Intel. Chainlink resists Sybil attacks because of its distributed trustless network, which affords users and operators endless customizability depending on need.

>> No.16047034

>>16046288
>Chainlink resists Sybil attacks because of its distributed trustless network, which affords users and operators endless customizability depending on need.
could you explain this part please?
>which affords users and operators endless customizability depending on need.