re: Official CryptoTalk Thread

did some reading I get what they are doing. definitely useful and more efficient than the methods I've used.


I dont understand the the need for their token though. seems to be what they give companies in exchange for their data. how does the value of link itself increase? I dont understand the use of the token itself does it represent stake in the company or something?

It’s open source. Join the telegram and ask Thomas hodge he answers all kind of questions related to the nodes

Someone bought 1.5 million Link today on binance and the fricking price corrects instantly.

Some Sunday evening reading

LINK on Link

October gonna be a good month. Sergey presenting all month long starting with Eth Sam franciso. Other speaker events at Webb3 , MarketWaves 18, and D1Conference . These are big industry events. May be some pump the hype and sell the news type days but Link is in a good position this month.

quote:

---

ETH San Francisco-- October 5th or 6th - Tech Talk by Sergey at ETH San Francisco --SFBlockchain Week-- October 8th - Securely connecting Smart Contracts to off-chain data and events (First talk on Titans of Tech stage) October 9th - Chainlink: Using Off-chain Data Sources to Trigger Smart Contracts (2 hour hands-on Session) --Web3-- October 22nd - Decentralized Oracles: Providing Access to Key Off-chain Data Sources --D1Conference-- October 29th - Panel Discussion: How to insure the quality of oracles in decentralized insurance --FreightWaves MarketWaves -- November 12-14th - In attendance. Could possibly demo.

---

quote:

---

This token is infested with "clues" and "breadcrumbs" which uncovers some sort of massive conspiracy how a lot of Fortune 500 companies and big industrial tech companies are involved with Chainlink/Smartcontract (the company). The conspiracy implies that one day all if not a vast amount of partnerships will see the light of day and the result will be a massive price increase dubbed as "the singularity".

---

So we’re to believe that a large number of Fortune 500 companies are secretly working with some company that has 10 employees (and only 4 engineers) because of some technology that a guy with a Philosophy and Management conceives? And instead of either working with a more well-known company, with more technical experience and an established reputation, and/or if it’s such a valuable and lucrative idea, using their own far more unlimited resources, they choose this company?

And reading about its ICO last year, it’s odd that a company that sets out to revolutionize “smart contracts,” it’s offering was quite the opposite of that, and investors in the US, China, and Singapore weren’t “contractually” allowed to participate but were easily able to.

While a lot of people seem to think it’s a scam, I think that’s a little presumptuous. And while it’s at least nice that they aren’t hyping up every little “possible” partnership, it seems that the lack of anything really is a bit troubling. It just seems to be something that seems far too frequent in the crypto world: a good idea that probably fails to be executed and is oversold in its value as an idea as well; it's just lacking the constant unnecessary hype.

On a related note: one aspect of the blockchain technology that makes the most sense to me is "smart contracts." That being said, I'm struggling to see the value to the level that the hype implies, especially beyond something that companies utilize themselves and beyond certain types of contracts and/or as a mechanism of storage/record.

For example, we just bought a house and it makes sense to me for something that is unnecessarily archaic and complicated like a title search. On the other hand, it doesn't make as much sense when discussing something that is much more (and necessary) legally complex that requires data that is not easily or even realistically based solely on technological inputs and enforcement with government regulations, like actually buying a home and the exchange of a tangible asset--at least beyond using it as a storage and record of the contract. And I don't see how major things like that, can be handled without centralization and the human (e.g., lawyers, regulators, arbitrators) involvement that comes with it.

quote:

---

any sort of cryptocurrency for micropayments doesn’t make sense

---

Can you explain the rationale behind this statement? Serious question.

quote:

---

SWIFT thought enough about his philosophy degree to have him present his POC on bond settlements to Sibos last year.

---

Well I noted that the idea is good. But there is a big difference between conceiving an idea, and being able to present it well, and actually develop and execute that idea, let alone do those things well. It's one of the major problems I have with crypto and the mechanism to invest in it. People are stuck in a precarious situation where the role of a consumer in the products and services and investor in the company that provides them overlap. It makes it difficult to rationally separate and evaluate the products/services, the ideas behind the product, and the value of the company providing them.

quote:

---

This unknown philosopher presented at SXSW I’m Austin last year along side Perianne Boring and Tom Gosner of Docusign on eliminating lawyers through smart contracts.

---

And this seems to be the overselling piece. I'm sure there are plenty of instances where lawyers, and especially things like notaries, can be eliminated; however, it's a leap to go from increasing efficiencies and minimizing unnecessary redundancies in simple contractually agreements via automation to being able to automatize complex contracts, with highly specific, unique, detailed, and important/high stakes contractual points that currently require teams of highly trained and specialized lawyers poring over every character with each side trying to gain an advantage over the other. We are a long ways from being able to automatize the intellectual rigor, let alone for that to be accepted given the stakes.

quote:

---

This guy has been in blockchain technology before the BTC white paper was even written.

---

His BIO on the chainlink website, says he "joined the cryptocurrency revolution in 2011, two years after bitcoin was initially implemented.

quote:

---

They hire a marketing manager who specializes in AI. Guess what AI needs to be worth a shite. lots and lots of data.

---

It also needs to be more than just someone who specializes in a buzzword (or phrase), since a lot of AI ends up being rather rudimentary techniques that are often less appropriate and more flawed than advancements in the multivariate modeling since computing power increased and software adapted (like R).

quote:

---

Garbage in destroys any concept of using Artifical Inteligence therefore the data needs to be trustworthy and trust less with no centralized point of manipulation.

---

Of course garbage data minimizes the value of the analysis of said data; however, besides ensuring that a single centralized point does not compromise the whole system, how does decentralization overcome the other causes of garbage, especially since the data is often naturally messy and the sources themselves may make it messier even with the best possible system to ensure the reliability of the data once received? Furthermost, unless the decentralized points "share and communicate" data with one another then wouldn't the decentralization have a major disadvantage by decreasing the sample size at each point and create potential sampling biases since they are not randomly assigned? So if its merely safeguarding against the centralized risks, but it ignores the benefits of centralization then it seems to be a necessary solution to a problem that create unnecessary problems of its own.

quote:

---

Decentralization is the key. You get the nodes in the hands of 3rd parties. That’s the whole point of blockchain technology.

---

Decentralization is always "the key" in these discussions, regardless of the technological use. But it seems to me that the explanations for decentralization is largely pointing out the flaws with centralization. And instead of providing the benefits and drawbacks of both, and how to maximize the benefits and minimizing the drawbacks of both, it seems to be more of a "this is bad; the alternative must be better, and its an either or proposition." It's a lot like the "small government" proponents, who rightfully point out the problems with a centralized government that has to few LIMITS, but then ignore the same problems with too few limits in the decentralized governments and pretend those governments are automatically the solution. But they ignore the problem (limits) and ignore the benefits of both when those limits are kept in check.

quote:

---

I think btc is overvalued and any sort of cryptocurrency for micropayments doesn’t make sense.

---

They don't make sense when the currency and mode of transactions are treated as a lucrative investment, which incentives people to NOT use them as they were intended.

quote:

---

But Chainlink is needed to make smart contracts into what they need to be to be used in big industry.

---

But again, we're back to the same problem with all crytpo's and my very first criticism: they're too difficult, if not impossible, to separate the product/services and the investment. So people have to essentially consume the thing to invest in it. So instead of being able to separately analyze the product/services as a consumer and investor, and also separate and analyze the company itself, they're all conflated, and IMO, diminishes the value of both.

I just don't understand why these companies keep conflating these, and choose to function as an ICO, especially when they aren't even intended to be used as "coins." It makes me question either the capabilities of the companies and/or their actual intentions.

quote:

---

CE Tiger

---

And just to add. I do agree with you in that things like smart contracts seem more promising than a pure currency. Even though both are inherently flawed by their approach that conflates the product/services with the investment, I think that flaw is fare more severe with currencies. That being said, even if its less flawed, I still think it raises questions as to the direction of a company like chainlink to solve some complex problem, when they take such an unnecessarily flawed approach instead of treating it like a company (private or public) with products/services that are valuable for the average consumer while also allowing people to invest in the company whether they are a consumer or not.

Even though I have a lot of Apple products, I don't buy them because Apple is a good investment nor do I invest in Apple because I like they're products. I buy their products because I like them, and I invest in Apple because it a well-run company and a solid investment. Of course, their products/services are not independent of the company itself and its viability as an investment, but they are also not completely dependent on one another, especially since one's preferences as a consumer may not always align with one's preferences as an investor.

quote:

---

There will be a need for decentralized data inputted into smart contracts.

---

Again. Why is this a NEED, at least in its absolute rather than just an added safeguard mechanism? And even if its necessary, what use is that if people fail to see this and are reluctant to use it.

I mean there is a reason Google, Apple, Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc. are such strong companies and continue to grow their consumer base. They've created products, services, experiences, that allow people to integrate things into centralized locations (Mint, Personal Capital, Smart Homes, etc. too).

So if they consumer trends are towards these centralized and integrated products/services, then it seems like an uphill battle anyways, especially when few explain why decentralization is necessary.

quote:

---

Chainlink is the only one with a solution to this.

---

If the demand and need is as great as you're saying, then doesn't that make you question whether they truly are the only one with the solution or that their solution is going to be the solution that is accepted?

And if the are the only one with the solution, then doesn't that make you question whether the demand and need is as great as you're arguing in the first place?

I've had trouble understanding all of the hype of decentralization in the first place. And I often read the cryptocurrency subreddit hoping for a light bulb moment since many are all in on it. Yet, when I searched chainlink, I was surprised how many people on that subreddit were not only skeptical of it, they believed it is an outright scam.

And even putting that all aside, why should someone have faith in these random people that they somehow have discovered the right solution and they will actually make it happen, especially since they had to push back the ICO because they had an unusually late whitepaper describing the solution, and then the ICO was basically handled in a manner completely the opposite of that solution?

Like I said, I see the value of the smart contracts moreso than many other aspects of the craze. Yet, I don't see anything besides what seems like a pretty good idea on its face to sell me on this at all. And a good idea without much if any product/service to evaluate it, being instituted by some just a few random people without some unique (and uniquely high) expertise, and with no major history of successes to establish some goodwill, this just seems like something that is far more likely to fail than succeed.