Proof of Reserves Megathread

[Anonymous No.52467288]

I've been doing a deep dive on PoR and I was hoping we could start a discussion to go through everything from a high level down to the technicals. Here is a summary of what I've got so far:

1) The idea of PoR for exchanges goes back to the Mt Gox collapse around 2014 when Greg Maxwell devised a way to use Merkle Trees to compare and exchange's user liabilities to its actual holdings of BTC.

2) the Merkle Tree approach works something like this: scan over all accounts with a nonzero balance of an asset and attach a hash to that account ID. Build a merkle tree with all this data until you get the "root hash" which represents all accounts. Then users can "verify" that their balance has been included in this tally and compared to an exchange's holdings. Some exchanges currently use this approach like Kraken and Gate.io

TBC...

[Anonymous No.52467394]

No one will use Chainlink's PoR because it's too good and they don't want that. They still want some kind of weasel room. Full trust will never be adopted by big money.

[Anonymous No.52467417]

>didn’t mention FIS proof of reserve that they announced one month before ftx implosion

[Anonymous No.52467420]

I get digits every time I start one of these threads (including quint 5s last night, so I'll continue as I learn).

The Merkle tree approach doesn't seem ideal because it seems pretty possible that many accounts could be skipped over in the creation of the merkle tree and if no one specifically checks each hash, it wouldn't be revealed. The report for Gate.io, for example, only checks 10 account hashes and is like "yup we got them all!" and concludes that Gate.io is over-reserved by 5% or whatever.

3) Chainlink apparently allows for proof of reserves for offchain assets. But doesn't this just essentially mean that they can compare the offchain accounting report to the onchain liabilities? In other words, if FTX were using Chainlink Proof of Reserves, what stops Goldstein, Moscovitz, and Bloomenborg Inc from setting up the accounting in such a way that the oracle is fed data suggesting that they have the reserves, in highly liquid USD, to cover all liabilities? Didn't FTX essentially have a team of Jews do the accounting and say everything was all kosher?

4) Does chainlink use some different, unique approach, thereby making THEIR proof of reserves as a service more trustworthy? This is where I'm stuck...

[Anonymous No.52467441]

>>52467288
PoR is a meme. Just self custody your funds like a normal non-degenerate with above room temperature IQ.
>>52467417

[Anonymous No.52467444]

>>52467394
It's "too good" in what way? Doesn't it just rely on a "trusted accounting firm" like Armamino to give their seal of approval (and then chainlink just puts that data onchain)? It doesn't appear as though there is any innovation there...

[Anonymous No.52467477]

>>52467441
>knows more about industry direction than company processing $6t every year

[Anonymous No.52467510]

>>52467288
Wow this is certainly fascinating i will definitely read it

[Anonymous No.52467525]

>>52467477
>industry
FTX blowup is the best thing that has happened for Bitcoin since I can remember. No amount of the PoR LARP will stop you from losing all your funds being held by a third party. The real PoR is self-custody.

[Anonymous No.52467558]

>>52467441
>>52467477
You're appealing to authority. Clearly these "big companies" are built on top of shitty foundations and when things go awry, they quickly collapse.

I am truly wondering how PoR isn't a meme. It seems like, when you play the system out, it still relies on some form of trust that can be manipulated with shady accounting.

For example: the True USD stablecoin. They brag about a mint lock that prevents them from minting coins unless there is an account with the reserves for those tokens. That just means that we have to trust the accounting of whatever financial institution is holding that account. Let's say it was Lehman Brothers in 2008. See my point?

It really seems like none of this tech can work unless there is a...Great Reset of sorts...

[Anonymous No.52467581]

>>52467420
chainlink acts as a parasitic middleman when any whale can prove they own a fat wallet using a simple signature

[Anonymous No.52467644]

>>52467581
What?

[Anonymous No.52467668]

>>52467525
>PoR: $10 billion in assets
>You: Wow so reserve, much proof *sends funds to exchange*
>PoR: $0
>You: wtf why can't i withdraw?? where's my money??!!11

PoR does not tell you the liabilities of a trusted party and it does not guarantee that the third party will give you access to your funds when you require it, so it's pretty much useless. PoR LARP does not stop hacks and fraud from occuring at any time.

Ironically, the real part of the "industry" that will boom as a result of this is insurance firms selling credit default swaps against these crypto exchanges. The next Bitcoin boom will be far greater because a lot of the paper Bitcoin has been revealed. Self-custody chads win as always.

[Anonymous No.52467727]

>>52467644
This is the wrong board to ask these questions. Most people here are either pajeets or linkies who bought link purely because of screencaps they read.

[Anonymous No.52467751]

>Hey bro just dox all balances
fuck off. no serious exchange is going to be stupid enough to do this without privacy solution and as soon as the ftx shit is blowing over, which it already did, nobody is going to talk about it anymore.

[Anonymous No.52467778]

>>52467394
this
>>52467444
its to good as in they cant break the law and skim off the top

[Anonymous No.52467808]

>>52467558
>doesn’t know who fis is
>retorts anyways
Pottery

[Anonymous No.52467827]

>>52467668
This is what I am saying. So why is everyone pushing "Chainlink Proof of Reserves" as a solution to this FTX fiasco or anything similar? The only way I'm thinking that PoR could be very trustworthy is in a situation like this:

>Datafeeds are created for every variable in a companies balance sheet that is kept up to date in real time.
>This data is fed into an Oracle (likely one that uses DECO to obscure certain information so that the company's financials aren't made completely public)
>That DECO oracle spits out some information regarding the solvency of the company and some sort of semi-transparent report in real time.

I don't know if anyone is actually doing this and it seems like it would take a very long time before any major companies were to do this. And it still seems ripe for (((mistakes)))

[Anonymous No.52467882]

>>52467778
>off by 1
this discredits your argument.

[Anonymous No.52467901]

>>52467827
>And it still seems ripe for (((mistakes)))
Yup. Anything that can be cooked, will be cooked. There's no such thing as a trusted data source. That's why the Bitcoin network spends 17M per day trying to tell the time.

[Anonymous No.52467922]

>>52467727
Which board should I go to?

[Anonymous No.52467925]

>>52467827
>why is everyone pushing "Chainlink Proof of Reserves" as a solution to this FTX fiasco
Because the problem with FTX was they did not have the necessary reserves.
Proof of reserve would have fixed this.

[Anonymous No.52467940]

>>52467827
>So why is everyone pushing "Chainlink Proof of Reserves" as a solution
I think only terminally obese bag-holding Linkies are pushing it

[Anonymous No.52467943]

>>52467778
I mean, please explain how this works. Can you please explain how Chainlink PoR could have prevented the FTX fiasco? Because I'm sure it couldn't have...

[Anonymous No.52467951]

>>52467925
>Proof of reserve would have fixed this.
Reality makes you think. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.52467972]

>>52467951
Celsius would've been saved by PoR too, yes.

[Anonymous No.52467989]

>>52467943
>Can you please explain how Chainlink PoR could have prevented the FTX fiasco?
If everyone could've seen in advance the absolute state of FTX' reserves, everyone would've either stayed far away or withdrawn much earlier before FTX got so big.

[Anonymous No.52467992]

>>52467943
FTX was a criminal enterprise from the getgo. They would have faked PoR if they had to, any way they could. Sam had backdoors into the main accounts to siphon off money when it came to for the endgame, PoR would not have caught that

[Anonymous No.52468028]

>>52467288
Bump for autism. Whichever autist ITT implements this will be a billionaire.

[Anonymous No.52468031]

>>52467951
Chainlinks proof of reserve and also the emrkel tree way can only account for "reserves" on chain vs "liabilities" on chain. Nobody has an inside into a companies private balance sheets and it would not make any sense to do so.
There simply would need to be regulations to prevent digital asset custodians from putting their customers assets on their sheets, as it is done in many states already, why some of the lenders and earn programs dont exist in certain states

[Anonymous No.52468051]

>>52467943
are you farming bumps or just retarded?

[Anonymous No.52468064]

>>52468031
Even if without the liabilities, seeing the reserves alone would've prevented so much damage.

[Anonymous No.52468086]

>>52467992
>They would have faked PoR if they had to
Not if they used Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.52468092]

>>52468064
it would have made it much more difficult at the very least.

[Anonymous No.52468113]

>>52468064
no it wouldnt. You would need to prevent digital asset custodians from being able to engage in borrowing in loaning, which is idiotic and makes no sense at all. Everyone misunderstand what por is, its great for derivative ON CHAIN, nothing else

[Anonymous No.52468132]

>>52468113
The second everyone saw FTX' reserves, it was IMMEDIATELY obvious just how fucked its shit was.
If the balance sheet had been public all along, the FTX disaster would've never happened because they would've gotten called out on it instantly.

[Anonymous No.52468158]

>>52467288
>Proof of Reserves Megathread Anonymous (ID: aC8Zm6/z) 11/16/22(Wed)11:23:31 No.52467288▶>>52467441 >>52467510 >>52468028
>I've been doing a deep dive on PoR and I was hoping we could start a discussion to go through everything from a high level down to the technicals. Here is a summary of what I've got so far:
>1) The idea of PoR for exchanges goes back to the Mt Gox collapse around 2014 when Greg Maxwell devised a way to use Merkle Trees to compare and exchange's user liabilities to its actual holdings of BTC.
>2) the Merkle Tree approach works something like this: scan over all accounts with a nonzero balance of an asset and attach a hash to that account ID. Build a merkle tree with all this data until you get the "root hash" which represents all accounts. Then users can "verify" that their balance has been included in this tally and compared to an exchange's holdings. Some exchanges currently use this approach like Kraken and Gate.io
>TBC...

[Anonymous No.52468162]

>>52467808
Can you elaborate on what you're trying to say? In what context will FIS use a DLT proof of reserve system, how does it employ chainlink? If you can do this, I will try to suggest how it doesn't accomplish true "proof." Otherwise, why are you even posting? I'm not making this thread to FUD or shill, it is simply to learn because I have to put together a report on PoR. I don't care about token price or Link mooning, I'm just trying to learn about this system from a technical perspective and the pros and cons.

[Anonymous No.52468213]

>>52467992
This is what I think also. So it seems like PoR is vaporware for anything this isn't explicitly onchain for like assets (i.e. people hold 1000 bitcoins on our exchange, we have 1000 bitcoins in this wallet).

[Anonymous No.52468236]

>>52468213
>So it seems like PoR is vaporware for anything this isn't explicitly onchain
Chainlink's PoR has been live for things like gold for a long time now.

[Anonymous No.52468257]

>>52468132
no, because you wouldnt have seen their liabilities off chain, everyone was able all the time to be a wallet autist and try to make out ftx/alameda wallets, same as celsius, voyagers and others and wouldnt know anything more, only outflows and inflows, no information on offchain balance sheets filled with undercollaterized loans.
>Make the balance sheet of private companies public
>all of it
retarded, if it is so important for you, that your custodian isnt able to engage in any undercollaterized borrowing and loaning, get on chain, simple solution, defi exist and derivatives are tracked with por solutions

[Anonymous No.52468298]

>>52468257
>you wouldnt have seen their liabilities off chain
We didn't need to see their liabilities to know just how absolutely fucked they were.
They held no Bitcoin whatsoever, just to give a single example.

[Anonymous No.52468308]

>>52468298
that anon is arguing for the sake of arguing

[Anonymous No.52468420]

>>52468298
And how would you have known how many loans ftx and alameda had among them and how they were collaterized? You wouldnt
>they held no btc
so? they held btc derivatives, that were accounted for real btc.
You shills/misinfo faggots are completely miscontructing the reality, from conspiracy retardation with the most stereotypical astro turfing of "right winger" narratives from 10 years ago to this bullshit about
>Just open your booooks

The issue at ftx was the same as celsius
Customer assets on their own sheets used as collateral for off chain borrow and lending activity with customer assets, which isnt even illegal in the Bahamas. The only faggots at fault were those doing buisness with a bucket shop operating from the Bahamas assuming its a save bank and forgot to read up on legislation and the tos

[Anonymous No.52468453]

>>52467394
Blackpill but true. Same reason we will never have blockchain voting. Chainlink solves the trust problem but bullets solve the Jew problem

[Anonymous No.52468472]

>>52468236
>>52468086
But how does the PoR count up all the gold bars? Chainlink nodes enter the vault and count the bars?
No. They have an auditor that performs the counting and gives that information to nodes. You still have to trust the auditor.
Sam would simply fake the auditor report and chainlink nodes would report that as truth.

[Anonymous No.52468473]

>>52468236
Yes, but all it does is feed an accountant's audit onchain. If that accountant is Maury Goldwitz, I'm not sure what is preventing him from saying "Yes, we have 2 tons of gold here, I counted it myself, but I also had Allen Bloomstein count it, it's all there." Then that data gets fed onchain, meanwhile 1 ton of gold has been sold to a chinese agent and Allen Bloomstein's son is slapping amphetamine patches on a wood nymph's ass in Freeport.

[Anonymous No.52468530]

>>52468473
This is like saying the internet is useless because people can just tell lies on it. The point is to set up systems with multiple independent sources of data to prevent cheating. Obviously you can use just one source but it completely defeats the point.

[Anonymous No.52468539]

>>52468420
>>they held no btc
>so? they held btc derivatives
You're fucking retarded.
They're supposed to be holding people's assets, not derivatives of those assets. That's the whole point of proving your reserves.

>>52468472
>But how does the PoR count up all the gold bars?
Look it up.

>>52468473
>Yes, but all it does is feed an accountant's audit onchain
That's better than putting out a press release saying "we did an audit and everything is fine lol".

[Anonymous No.52468541]

>>52468530
How exactly will you have multiple sources that look inside a physical vault housing gold bars?

[Anonymous No.52468561]

>>52468541
By having multiple sources look inside a physical vault housing gold bars.
And even if there's only one source, their audit still has to reach the blockchain unaltered and without downtime.

[Anonymous No.52468565]

>>52468541
just invite them to take a look, wow so hard

[Anonymous No.52468600]

>>52468561
>>52468565
>Hello mr. Goldstein, you are scheduled for a visit tomorrow at 5pm, afterwards we have mr. Sheckelstein coming for a visit at 6pm, so make sure you count everything quickly.
>Will be taking you both to snort coke off of a strippers ass at 8pm, so make sure you make your counts count.

[Anonymous No.52468628]

>>52468600
This might come as a huge shock to you, but as it turns out they like to jew each other as well, not just goyim

[Anonymous No.52468637]

>>52468600
If you don't trust the auditors, just walk away.
That's part of the point.

[Anonymous No.52468658]

>>52468539
you completely ignore the point. even if you had the information on how much btc were send to ftx btc wallets and how many flowed out, how would you have known how many btc liablilities would have been on their sheet prior to the revelation, you simply couldnt. And por wouldnt do anything to change that

If you want change, get your ass of cexes and stop using companies registered in countries known to be favorable for scammers and being able to mix their assets with customer assets

[Anonymous No.52468676]

>>52468658
>even if you had the information on how much btc were send to ftx btc wallets and how many flowed out, how would you have known how many btc liablilities
Seeing literally ZERO bitcoin in the reserves would've raised some eyebrows. Maybe not yours, but that's a you problem.

[Anonymous No.52468700]

>>52468676
That information was known before the revelation, if you kept an eye on their btc wallets. did anybody do that? apparently not. would some merkel faggotery or chainlinks por change that, nope

[Anonymous No.52468761]

>>52468628
>>52468637
Help me with something: wasn't what SBF did already illegal according to his own TOS? So he already broke the law. What's stopping him from simply lying to the auditor. They had a whole backdoor system for sending the assets untracked, apparently a shitload of assets sent to Alameda went through Tornado.cash.

>>52468676
>>52468700
>Seeing literally ZERO bitcoin in the reserves
This is the part that confuses me. They did the btc wrapping for solana-wrapped btc. People used that freely and no one checked the chain to make sure they have that btc?

[Anonymous No.52468805]

>>52468761
that would have been something a por solution would have been benefitial, tracking the solbtc derivative, which I think wasnt done like it is done with wbtc and renbtc. But I am not so familiar with the ftx details, alameda was since they entered the space a red flag for me

[Anonymous No.52468820]

>>52468761
Anyone with a functioning brain stayed far away from the obviously centralized scam known as solana.

[Anonymous No.52468871]

>>52468820
Still, solana had its competitors. No one realized that the wrapped btc on there was not held 1:1 and said anything? This part really confuses me. How is it possible that no one realized that.

[Anonymous No.52468883]

>>52468700
>>52468761
>>52468871
There's no way of knowing all the wallets an exchange uses without their confirmation.

>>52468761
>What's stopping him from simply lying to the auditor.
lol, the job of an auditor is to verify for himself.

[Anonymous No.52468898]

>>52468871
They had no way to verify it and were content to simply trust, the dumb fucks.

[Anonymous No.52468907]

>>52467288
>>52467394
https://twitter.com/kevinmurcko/status/1591739255453544450

Exchange CEO who has raised the exact same points as you, knows Sergey and his work well, and will happily adopt Chainlink PoR if it works.

[Anonymous No.52468955]

>>52468871
I think the part that's confusing you is you assume that because there were developers who could code, debug, and parse technical information that they would have enough critical thinking skill to see through the charade. Even supposedly smart people can be easily fooled if they stray away from rigidly following fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.52468999]

>>52468883
one can guess, but true, and por wont change that either, you would just be able to trace better, same as with chainlinks por. exchanges would need to implement it and even then, no guarantuees that there arent some cold wallets somewhere that belong to the exchange or a subsidiary that isnt included in the por

[Anonymous No.52469016]

>>52468999
>por wont change that either
Of course it will, por basically entails exchanges confirming every single wallet they own.

[Anonymous No.52469069]

>>52469016
if the cex doesnt confirms that a wallet is theirs the por solution wouldnt know either.
>confirming every single wallet they own.
and who is going to force them to do so? Kleros court

[Anonymous No.52469093]

>>52469069
>if the cex doesnt confirms that a wallet is theirs the por solution wouldnt know either.
They'd be confirming all the contents of the wallets.

>and who is going to force them to do so?
Their users.

[Anonymous No.52469164]

>>52469093
We just established that if they dont confirm it, there is no way to know if a wallet is part of a cex or one of its subsidiaries
>their users
come on now. You are trying to apply a solution to the wrong problem. Por great to keep track of derivatives on chain, as soon as a private entity with no rational interest to put all its cards on the table its worthless

[Anonymous No.52469188]

>>52469164
>We just established that if they dont confirm it, there is no way to know if a wallet is part of a cex or one of its subsidiaries
Proof of reserve means confirming the contents of all your wallts.

>come on now.
Any exchange without por just gets ignored more and more.

[Anonymous No.52469283]

>>52467420
Your analysis of Chainlink is correct. I've been saying this since its ICO.
Chainlink literally just takes data from centralized parties, uploads that data to a blockchain, and calls it 'decentralized'.

[Anonymous No.52469315]

>>52469188
Confirm to who? A third party that has no way to know, if the cex was truthful while having an rational interest not to be truthful.
And people looking for a custodian that cant play with their assets and therefore gives less interests, are going to go with a custodian in a state that prevents them to do it.

[Anonymous No.52469372]

>>52469315
>Confirm to who?
To everyone using por

[Anonymous No.52469396]

>>52467420
PoR works better onchain for something like wrapped tokens or synthetics. Like you said, the cex balance sheet can be manipulated and the oracle would have no way of knowing unless third party audits on the balance sheet.

[Anonymous No.52469517]

>>52469372
por like you see it, is ironically based on interpersonal trust. por has nothing to do with cexes, you cant trust them to reveal all assets and liablilities because it goes against their survival interest.
The end would be reserves of binance.com revealed while subsidiary xy is not involved in the por program. Bam your solution is worthless

[Anonymous No.52469576]

So in conclusion, no one will use Chainlink POR and even if they do, this does nothing for the token price, which isn't needed.

[Anonymous No.52469616]

>>52469576
its being used for onchain derivatives and works

[Anonymous No.52469654]

>>52468628
They like to rip goyim off about 6 million times more than other tribesmen. Maybe even a gorillian times more.

[Anonymous No.52469678]

>>52469616
>-5%

who cares

[Anonymous No.52469754]

>>52469678
what is your point. I am a dev, and chainlink does everything it should do, best product suit in the industry

[Anonymous No.52469810]

>>52469517
Por will result in a ground up redesign in all CEXes, where reserves are traced the moment they even enter the balance sheet until the moment they leave. It will not be up to the company whether or not they choose to implement POR, the customer base wants it to happen and there are trillions of dollars waiting to be inducted into this new system. It will become standard practice to no longer allow private companies to run exchanges without a beginning-to-end track record of all customer assets and even claimed private company holdings. Poor poor multi billion dollar companies, having to shift to complete transparency despite all their gnashing of teeth and “expertise”, they will be forced to bend the knee or face total economic extermination because there’s way more money to be gained for the people from reducing hedge fund and exchange privacy, and instead making these institutions a transparent public good for the people, instead of for greedy thieves and habitual liars and drug addicts. You may continue seething now.

[Anonymous No.52469838]

>>52468473

PoR also does not have to be vaporwave for assets not onchain. It can connect to a bank account and notify if the balance has changed. Yes, you need to trust the specific bank to be honest about the account, this is true. But you dont have to trust sam bankman, you have to trust the bank sam uses.

Yes its still based on trust, but that doesnt mean its worthless. When people can see sam still has 10 billion in cash spread out over multiple bank accounts they will trust the exchange. It will give a sense of ease.

[Anonymous No.52469839]

>>52469810
jus use a dex. only instant of an exchange were por makes sense, unless you want to overregulate cexes and then, dexes become the logicla next step one or another way

[Anonymous No.52469886]

>>52469517
>por like you see it, is ironically based on interpersonal trust.
No it's not.
It's on-chain proof and for real-life assets it's third-party verification.

[Anonymous No.52470037]

>>52469839
I believe decentralized exchanges are the end game no matter what centralized companies try to do. Financial services and products will become a public good instead of a means for private interests to leech off the world via lying and misrepresentation. Exchanges are a basic human creation/behavior since the beginning of civilization, and almost all of the problems with that stem from singular private entities having total control over what is ultimately NOT THEIR MONEY. The new age of innovation and democracy is within monetary power, so it is only reasonable to say that all scholars in the field want transparency, none of them want financial crises to arise from the actions of a singular group of executives, everyone wants the market to be fairly sequenced and documented step by step with the most accurate data possible. Everyone who does not want more accurate, up to date information is a shill and/or a retard who doesn’t understand that forcing transparency on these exchanges is good for all of the people, it is only bad for the liars, thieves, and conmen hoping for a streak of good luck while they live a life of pure luxury on other peoples’ cash.

[Anonymous No.52470110]

>>52468539
If all Chainlink does is feed accountant data on-chain, couldn't you just put the data on a website and have accountants sign it with a PGP signature?

In either case you need to trust that the accountants did their job properly. But in my example you avoid all of the unnecessary costs associated with keeping a blockchain online.

[Anonymous No.52470147]

>>52467394
Implying the watchdog system incorruptible, baka linkies

[Anonymous No.52470178]

>>52470110
chainlink por would be used as an on-chain proof of accountant, so your smart contract can use that data as well. I agree, for a simple purpose of showing the reserves, you could simply have the accountant sign the data on your website.

The hope here is that once chainlink has the system for on-chain data, it will be easier to use them since they will have integrations to banks and shit already available, so that it's more work to update your signed audits then to simply use por

[Anonymous No.52470258]

>>52470110
>>52470178
>hurrr they can sign their own data
The whole point is to have this data on-chain to trigger or support automated transactions triggered by external events. You know, smart contracts.

>In either case you need to trust that the accountants did their job properly.
If they don't do their job properly you have on-chain proof thereof.

[Anonymous No.52470286]

>>52470037
I cant tell if you are a bot or just off your meds

[Anonymous No.52470319]

i hope this is fud and you're not all this retarded. did you all forget about staking? reputation? penalties, slashing, and alerts? the entire system is designed to INCENTIVIZE truth and good actors. all the shit you're thinking of "hurr just have the accountants lie" doesn't work in this system. and when people do lie, they are found out and penalized along the way and are stopped BEFORE they get to the point where they can overleverage billions and billions of client funds that don't belong to them. seriously, its amazing to skim through this thread and see no one mentioning things like staking and reputation.

[Anonymous No.52470331]

>>52470037
>I believe decentralized exchanges are the end game no matter what centralized companies try to do
I just now realized this industry is infested with anarcho libertarian utopian teenage morons
I'm out

[Anonymous No.52470336]

>>52470319
>ALL CAPS
get off this board NOW

[Anonymous No.52470439]

The amount of pilpul in this thread is astounding

[Anonymous No.52470443]

>>52470319
>be shekelstein
>have sam deposit money in your bank
>rub hands with sam
>fat sergey connects his nodes to your banks API
>give false info to sergey's nodes
>???
>profit
You dumb fuck, the whole point of the thread is that nodes have to trust off-chain data provided to them. They can guarantee that other nodes did not fraudulently report said data, but they have to trust the data obtained. Slashing them will only hurt them, and how will you even prove they did something wrong, since they all got the same data and reported it correctly.

[Anonymous No.52470444]

eww like OMG this thread it filled with gross incels!

[Anonymous No.52470562]

>Sorry stinkers! PoR cannot work with CeFi! Now these bankrupt entities will NEVER use Chainlink!
If PoR couldn't have prevented what happened with CeFi then the correct takeaway is that we need to move to decentralized systems which can effectively utilize PoR. All of this just proves that the CeFi guys were the weakest link and that they're so fundamentally fucked that not even blockchain can prevent them from being held accountable to their counterparties. Turns out you have to use DeFi to get the security guarantees that a decentralized system offers. Huh.

[Anonymous No.52470596]

>>52470336
>18 pbtid
lol. lmao
>>52470443
>sergey's nodes
>fat sergey
try putting some effort into your fud please, its so boring

[Anonymous No.52470654]

>frog poster
lmao, get off this board faggot

[Anonymous No.52470714]

>>52470286
>>52470331
Both of you are shills
Suck my massive uncut unvaxxed cock

[Anonymous No.52470741]

>>52470654
fuck off paid demoralizer tourist, so transparent

[Anonymous No.52470742]

>only thread on /biz/ that isnt eceleb shit or twitter cap shilling
>hurdur you must be shill
Nigger read the thread before making any assumption brain dead mouth breathing normal faggot

[Anonymous No.52470823]

>>52470596
>I don't have anything to rebuff your stated points, but I don't like you saying Sergey's name in vain, so I will focus on that
ffs

[Anonymous No.52470847]

>>52470823
you didn't respond to anything in my good faith post, so why wouldn't i treat your bad faith fudpost the same?

[Anonymous No.52470864]

>>52470654

[Anonymous No.52470974]

>>52470847
holy fuck
ok, here is a series of statements, tell me with which you disagree:
1. PoR can and should be used to prove the amount of an asset off-chain and bring it on-chain
2. If that asset is USD in a bank account, CL nodes have to connect to that bank's API to check the status of the bank account
3. If that asset is the gold in the vault, an accredited auditor will have to perform the audit, and CL nodes will bring that data on-chain
4. Once that data is on-chain, CL network makes sure that all the nodes report the data faithfully and slashes the ones that try to lie
5. CL network has no more insight into the real state of the assets, other then the accredited auditors statement or the reported value of a bank account through the bank's API
6. Bank account API can be faulty or provide false data to CL nodes (error or malicious action)
7. Auditor can be bought/treathened to lie in the audit
8. CL network cannot prove that nodes lied if they correctly reported the provided data, but the auditor/api are the ones that lied

[Anonymous No.52471288]

>>52470974
you just described a system that incentivizes nodes to only report truthful data. that's the whole point. you keep describing the way the world works now while ignoring the actual systems cl is putting in place to change taht. when your node has 10s or 100s of millions of dollars in staked link collateral, gee, maybe you hire a second auditing firm? maybe the auditors have to put up collateral of their own? i'm not sure if you're fudding or just dont understand what CL is doing and the incentives in play

[Anonymous No.52471340]

>>52467394
Normies can't understand the thrill of pinning the weasel. Night spent chasing an over amphetamined Caroline around the bean bag forts. Her squealing and gibbering, pouring sweat and on the verge of seizing. Your friends build up an intoxicating, delerious state with Talmudic chantings at the sidelines, hitting the Caroline-toy with brooms if she tries to escape. Sam would be giggling and laughing as the waves of methamphetamine pleasure seem to harmonize with the droning herbrew verses. He runs through the bean bag maze fat and portly, with his viagra powered penis a divining rod for the weasel. Sweat gushing down his face around his unfocused eyes he laughs and chortles until he gasps "Found you!". The Mathsweasel screeches defensively but Wankman Bankman is upon her in seconds. His penis thrusting blindly into her flank, leg, stomach and ribs unconcerned about anything but the motion. Eventually serendepity finds her mouth and the Cocktube Rodent is placated, suckling contently on Bankman's dehydrated dick.

[Anonymous No.52471459]

>>52471288
I understand the incentives in play, but crypto project have a hard time finding banks to custody their funds as it is. Finding a bank that will let nodes independently audit their systems will be 10x harder. Finding a vault that will constantly entertain external auditors will be even harder. You have to trust the statement of bank (if you can even find a bank that has such an API and will let you query it), or a statement of the vault's audit. And that's the weak point where trust is still necessary.

With the fuckery such as one sam pulled, he could have easily corrupted the bank he was using as well.

Of course, PoR is great, I hope exchanges will use it at least for on-chain assets, and even trusting offchain audits is better than no audits at all. All were saying in this whole thread is that it's not a silver bullet, there are still points of failure, where conventional trust is required.

[Anonymous No.52471461]

>>52470974
Fudders are Sisyphus and stinkers are Hades.
While you're still here I'd like at least 500 more words of you demonstrating that you do not understand how Chainlink works.

[Anonymous No.52471500]

>>52468162
Give the report to a smarter colleague, you're too dumb to responsibly do the job.

[Anonymous No.52471579]

>>52467420
Maybe because the Proof of Reserve service will know that Sam uses Serum as a 2 billion collateral and will compare it with a 95% locked supply on low trading volume and decide it's garbage collateral?

They will have to disclose the assets and not just accept the numbers Sam throws out.

Proof of Reserve means that the asset is checked too and compared to the pretended value.
It's the same principle as DeFi.
Would you get a billion dollar loan using Serum as collateral from Aave?
No.

The value of a reserve is not dependent on its $ price alone but on multiple metrics like volume and available supply.

[Anonymous No.52471820]

>>52471579
>Would you get a billion dollar loan using Serum as collateral from Aave?
if somebody provides the liquidity and the borrower pays the interests and the collateral is big enough. sure. But likely getting liquidated on such a play

[Anonymous No.52471916]

>>52467288 >>52467420 >>52467444 >>52467558
Proof of Reserves is a false idol. Pic Related. Nothing stops exchanges from passing around money between each other to meet PoR requirements. Proof of Reserve means nothing without Proof of Liabilities.

[Anonymous No.52473256]

>>52470319
the problem here is that the staking works for the node operator and its this money in linkies form thats at risk, this creates a heavy incentive for the node to be honest
in this very specific example the node operator would be say a giant auditor company where the value is held by its partners or shareholders, this company then would send a wagie on shit tier wages to go and verify whatever is needed to be verified, this grosly underpaid wagie has no assets at risk and is a giant target for corruption
one needs to move to a stable of equilibrium of multiple entities reporting in near unison to spot any outliers
unsure if it can be done, however all assets on chain can be verified and like others have said that alone would have stopped the massive fraud at ftx

[Anonymous No.52473378]

>>52471916
well for any onchain asset this would be quite ridiculous now wouldnt it
for any bank assets moving 400 mil between a dozen entities every day or hour the api queries is also going to raise some questions with the banks
and if all cexes use the same bahamian scam bank people would ask questions too

also the bad play equilibrium only works if every actor conspires to hide their own bad BS, if only 1 large good actor exists then over time assets will flow to them and enforce the standard anyways
and i am pretty sure coinbase is solvent given it is now an actual stonk onshore, coinmetro might not be big enough to matter yet