/tech/ - technology

>>1918
you could've given us a tldr or at least post links to info you think explain it well…

>>1919
I really don't have much substantial information which I would be comfortable sharing that I did not hear 3rd hand. I can only say that I have talked to a coworker with a background in banking IT it and he was not familiar with SWIFTnet so I was not able to glean further insight. Alot of FUD going around reddit and 4/biz/ on these topics so I was interested if anyone, independent from this post, was familiar with the subject.

Smart contracts are neat but IMO unnecessary. If you want a minimal currency(I'm not suggesting that they are trying to be minimal, I just like simple stuff)then smartcontracts shouldn't be built in. Just have a separate program that does the contract. It would be easy enough to make a broker bot that would hold and pay tokens based on contract completion and user input.

Otherwise not many coins impress me. Not because they aren't cool, but because there are just so many of them. Everyone has their coin that they like, but only the top ten really matter. In addition, until sites like netflix and amazon start accepting coins, they will stay niche. But thats probably for the better. It would be a shame if Amazon decided you could only use $ and Ripple or some proprietary coin they own.

On a separate note, Monero is best coin and anyone who has a body pillow that doesn't have Monero-chan on it is dumb. Seriously though, it's the only private/secure coin last I checked. The only step up would be if Monero used a proof-of-stake algorithm instead of the proof-of-work one they use now. Proof of stake is much more efficient, but I don't think it's possible for a proof of stake system to have the same level or security and privacy Monero has. The best part though is that it has no gimmick. It's just a good coin that won't open you to cia whiten'ts that want your data.

>>1921

How could you have a separate decentralized peer to peer program that does the contracts without an incentive structure. I guess I don't understand how that would work. The code is being run on every single persons machine… I guess I don't get how you could have it running all over the entire world in that way without some sort of blockchain software.

>>1922
It doesn't have to be decentralized or peer to peer. In my head a lawyer bot or accountant bot would have its own wallet. You would buy a service or something like netflix for a year and give some e-shekels to the bot. The bot would send monthly payments and if you run out it would cancel or something. Its the same kind of thing we use today with regular money on computers.

As for and incentive structure, the owner of the bot might take a transaction fee. Or you could run your own bot that you wouldn't have to pay transaction fee for, just the cost of maintenance. You could make it peer to peer or blockchain based if you want, but it doesn't have to be. This gives people a choice of the type of service they want. If you want to use lawyer-blockchain thats cool, but if you want to use server-based-lawyerbot, that's good too. the server based bot would probably be more like a federated service where there is lots of servers, but all using the same protocols.

I think this system is better because it eases the load on the coin's network by not add additional features. This adheres better to the unix philosophy which I like. Have everything to one thing and do it well. In addition it means that people who don't use contracts don't get slowed down by a service they don't use. This way people only pay for what they want.

>>1923
I get where you're coming from, but bank transfers for example feature a bunch of independent systems that need to be networked somehow, that's where things like "ChainLink" come in. Also, you might not like this example, but it's the biggest I'm expecting from linking blockchains, true decentralized exchanges. What are they good for? Absolute minimal fees, full transparency, more secure than current exchanges. The point of this tech in the end of the day is security and efficiency.

I guess the easiest way to describe what ChainLink is supposed to do, is handle RPC calls (in a figurative sense) between blockchains. And a lot of anons get excited about it because corporations are already using HyperLedger (open source private blockchain software) with major success.

The chainlink website being labeled as smart contracts is a bit misleading, in the technical sense smart contracts are an ethereum thing and already works fine, although not in great capacity of operations (they're working on it), but chainlink are taking it in a business sense. It's their philosophy from early days to avoid advertising their projects in a wide manner so finding useful information about the capabilities of the network is a bit tough.

Disclaimer: I own some ChainLink tokens.

>>1924
Ok that clarified things a bit. I though it was just a smart contract one-trick-pony coin. I can see the value in inter-chain transactions. Although I've not really paid any attention to crypto for the past few months I remember another coin that was marketed as an inter-coin. So Chainlink isn't the first to play at the inter-coin market, but I can't say weather either of them have any merit or how well they function. I'm just going to be playing devils advocate now because I don't have a good enough understanding of how this works.

Why is chainlink necessary? For example if you want to buy something with bitcoin but the seller only accepts ethereum, why cant you just go to an exchange and get what you need. In addition I would think that sellers would be eager to take your money, no matter the form. They would probably have a few criteria for coins they would accept to prevent scams. Sellers would use a calculator to make sure they get the same value for the price in USD. and just exchange it for the coin of their choice.

From what I understand Chainlink would make these transactions more efficient and thats pretty good.

>>1925
Thats going on the bedroom ceiling

>>1926
Compared to other coins Monero is pretty stable. Thats good for people using it as actual money because its value is pretty constant. Its used as money more than it's used as stocks.

>>1927
>For example if you want to buy something with bitcoin but the seller only accepts ethereum, why cant you just go to an exchange and get what you need
That's not really the point, but you could make a contract that checks the current rates of things in a trustless manner and perform the exchange for you.

In the example of a decentralized exchange, the smart contract(s) responsible for the exchange could manage bitcoin addresses in a trustless manner, allowing people to trade bitcoin for litecoin through an ethereum smart contract, without anyone being able to stop you, no KYC, no limits on your "account", nothing. Although most people are more excited about "smart contracts", allowing a traditional ethereum contract to check things about the real world, without points of failure like a companies proprietary oracle. For example right now you've got oraclize.it, if it dies, as it's a regular web server, a bunch of contracts become useless, so it's completely out of line from blockchain tech. Chainlink is supposed to be a separate blockchain on its own that houses oracles. I guess there's room for goofier examples, with how package tracking today works, you could make a contract that only pays the vendor when you've received your package. This can expand to shipments beyond stuff from ebay, companies like walmart already use blockchain (Hyperledger specifically) to secure shipments. Yeah it could easily be done today with some 3rd party web server holding the cash, but that's not really in the spirit of trustless decentralization now is it?

This is all theory, Chainlink isn't done yet, and if it's on the ethereum network (technically Chainlink can work with any blockchain there's just an issue of writing the endpoints which isn't rocket science) it's gonna work like dogsoykaf as any ICO or new cryptokitties clone crashes the network with no survivors. Perhaps after POS & Sharding it won't be that bad.

Also following things like when smartcontracts.com was registered, it's very hard to argue that chainlink wasn't the first, even if their ICO perhaps wasn't. This isn't saying you should buy CL, I hold some as suicide insurance because of memes. Not even joking.

Disclaimer: I still own some ChainLink tokens.

>>1928
>a contract that checks the current rates of things in a trustless manner and perform the exchange for you.
That's a good idea, but a bot could…
>Yeah it could easily be done today with some 3rd party web server holding the cash, but that's not really in the spirit of trustless decentralization now is it?

Mmmph yea. Once again decentralization is the best solution.

As for you having Chainlink tokens, if it achieves its goals it sounds like a good investment. Especially since the crypto bubble hasn't popped yet. What type of security/privacy does chainlink offer. How will chainlink protect it's users from attackers and prying eyes. Once again I will shill my beloved Monero-chan and her impeccable privacy. Monero's privacy is secure and it is mandatory for everyone, so no one can be threatened to reveal their transactions. Do you know if chainlink will have voluntary or enforced privacy, and what type of security features will it have upon completion.

since you disclosed your crypto investments, I don't own any Monero or any cryptocoins.

>>1929
>I don't own any Monero or any cryptocoins.
Shouldn't you start then? Also I hold way more than a bit of Link, but it's unrelated to the discussion.
We're already -70% from ATH (enture marketcap) so by historic trends this would be a great time to "invest".

>privacy
honestly I don't know, contrary to what I'm writing, shilling Link isn't something I often do. I'm not even the OP.

>security
it's a mix of having multiple nodes transferring the same data, nodes having reputations, and bad behavior gets penalized financially. You can only run a node if you have X (allegedly 10k but not yet decided) tokens, and they'll be locked in case you fuck things up. And running a successful node is financially rewarded. The reputation system is something they haven't actually released yet publicly.

>sounds like a good investment
that's a phrase that's only gonna lose you money, you better be well educated in what you invest in. And you're still gonna lose money faster than you can pronounce Moon when, so go in slow, only way to learn that fire is hot is to get burned.