/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.54641283]

>Oracle networks don't have the scalability issues because they're the smaller commitee, efficient version of decentralised consensus.

Is he saying that chainlink DONs are better and more efficient than blockchains?

https://youtu.be/w5PsVhtyXX8?t=2546

[Anonymous No.54641292]

>>54641283
>Is he saying that chainlink DONs are better and more efficient than blockchains?
Are you saying they aren't?

[Anonymous No.54641301]

>>54641283
more efficient but less decentralized

[Anonymous No.54641314]

>>54641292
Absolutely not, just struck me that he actually said it

[Anonymous No.54641331]

[Anonymous No.54641367]

>>54641331
Nice. Sergey looking extremely comfy in this interview, good times

[Anonymous No.54641382]

>>54641283
tokens not needed

[Anonymous No.54641509]

>>54641331
i've seen this posted 100 times and no one ever explains what it means. does it just mean that a chainlink DON can power an entire blockchain?

[Anonymous No.54641552]

>>54641283
>Is he saying that chainlink DONs are better and more efficient than blockchains?

yes, in fact, when you plug these systems into blockchains they make blockchains much better. that's the whole point

[Anonymous No.54641564]

>>54641509
I think so, a chainlink DON would still be easily more decentralised and secure than an alt l1 like fantom for example

[Anonymous No.54641594]

>>54641509
I think Eric Schmidt called it "explitic consensus" or something, like consensus to order. Just figure out how you think a chain should run and you can spin up a don for it

[Anonymous No.54641650]

>>54641509
He's saying that blockchains are state machines for ledgers and DONs are state machines for that too as well as everything else.

[Anonymous No.54641672]

>>54641283
Hey OP just want to say this exact part is also what made me raised an eyebrow during this whole podcast. Specifically Sergey using the term "sublayer". This is the first time he used that term, and looking into it, I couldn't find substantial discussion on it.

>>/biz/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=%22sublayer%22

This especially made me curious because they've recently hired Ted Yin, who's a L1 consensus expert, co-created the Avalance protocol with subnets and before that the HotStuff protocol with Dahlia Malkhi. Why do they keep hiring L1 specialists? Dahlia has been publishing a lot of research on consensus mechanisms which is odd for Chainlink not being a blockchain... Unless they are working on Chainlink's ability to eventually become this type of layer. Whitepaper v2 described Chainlink with CCIP as a "metalayer", or some of us used the term "layer 0" before LayerZero took its name.

[Anonymous No.54641690]

>>54641301
actually they are fully decentralized
chainlink solves literally every problem

[Anonymous No.54641709]

>>54641672
Christ he really is Satoshi isnt he? They're working on how to port the Bitcoin ledger once mining rewards run out aren't they

[Anonymous No.54641713]

>>54641283
>smart contracts use blockchain to work
>need oracles to work
>blockchains dont scale
>oracles dont need to scale
>cut out the blockchain
I mean talk about cutting the Gordian knot - but how do you run a smart contract without a blockchain?

[Anonymous No.54641718]

>>54641709
>Christ he really is Satoshi isnt he?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.54641732]

>>54641713
the blockchain will still exist, but all its computational requirements will be done by the DONs. L1s will be nothing more than settlement layers from now on, completely interchangeable with one another.

[Anonymous No.54641740]

>>54641709
>Satoshi Nakamoto == SN == Sergey Nazarov

[Anonymous No.54641873]

>>54641690
Nah, they're much smaller, Chainlink is a collection of a lot of smaller groups of nodes

[Anonymous No.54642013]

>>54641732
Woah, $81,000 is no joke.

[Anonymous No.54642087]

>>54641301
No.
A random Chainlink feed has about half a dozen or more nodes that all have an equal say.
In the case of Bitcoin, only two mining nodes are currently needed to attack the network.

So Chainlink is a LOT more decentralized than Bitcoin for instance.

>>54641283
Blockchains and oracles do two very different things.

Blockchain PoW consensus:
>obtaining the outcome is very hard (lots of heavy computation)
>verifying the outcome is very easy (as it's predetermined)

Oracle consensus:
>obtaining the outcome is relatively easy (simply call an API and combine outcomes while weeding out outliers)
>verifying the outcome is extremely tricky (since the outcome is not predeterimined)

[Anonymous No.54642120]

>>54642087
Nicely put, thank you

[Anonymous No.54642168]

If this was true then shouldn't LINK have a higher market cap than coins like TRON or SHIB?
Seems to me like the market has already decided what has value and what doesn't.

[Anonymous No.54642247]

>>54642168
true
the market has made its decision
its ogre, people

[Anonymous No.54642299]

>>54642168
There are many blockchains that are all roughly equal in terms of speed and security. You can fork one right now.
But there is only one oracle network that operates at scale AND has had literally zero systemic failures.

And considering that oracles are the key to raising 'blockchain' from its self-contained playground to the big leagues of legacy finance (i.e. trillions instead of billions), the market is in for a big surprise.

[Anonymous No.54642339]

>>54641732
Yeah so that works.

[Anonymous No.54643668]

>>54641283
yes because eth devs solve scalability issues for them, LINK is a scam, a shitcoin running on EVM, this is why it can only support evm based sidechains because it's just an ETH dao forprice feeds, hugely overvalued

[Anonymous No.54643684]

who gives a shit about oracle? SAP mogs them

[Anonymous No.54643728]

>>54641283
A good Link thread without derailing? Have a bump good anons

[Anonymous No.54643749]

>>54641283
>fatfuck subhuman says something