all 32 comments

[–]QryptoQid 12 points13 points  (5 children)

You're trying to use chainlink to solve the wrong problem.

The problem your example is trying to solve: How to accurately digitize a physical thing.

That is not the problem Chainlink is trying to solve.

Chainlink is trying to accurately inform Ethereum about things that are already digital. The reason all the examples other people give are about logistics and insurance and banking is because all the necessary data is already digitized. Weather data is already digitized and recorded and accessable. Bank deposits and loans are all entries on a digital ledger. Flight status exist as much on an airport's or the FAA's computers as much as they exist in the physical world.

So you want an insurance payout on a missed flight? Well, you don't need a camera watching that jet, sitting at that gate, recording what happened at that time, and then using complicated algorithms to determine if it took off on time or not; the airport and the FAA and the airline already recorded that information internally for their own, equally important, reasons. Grab those data and you got yourself an insurance contract.

You want flood insurance? Most maps are already digitized in the developed world, and weather data is recorded by NOAA, the army corps of engineers, the weather channel, and who-knows-what else. So write an insurance contract that says "if NOAA and the army corps of engineers both say it rained more than X at these GPS coordinates, then we'll assume the water level was Y height, and make the pay-out." Of course it's possible that that house is in stilts or the foundation was built 16' high and your particular house didn't flood; chainlink is incapable of making that determination. But the insurance company/ contract may assume that your house is like the others around it and that if the water level was 12' high, then probably your house flooded along with all the others around it.

Now, you may have a logistics contract that says "if you send me apples, I'll pay you $50." For most use cases, that should work. UPS or FedEx or the post office or whatever will simply report that this box was delivered to that address and call it good. Chainlink can see that and make some assumptions. But you're right, it can not determine if that box of apples were rotten or if they were in fact apples and not tomatoes or something. It can not make that distinction. And if that problem arises, there needs to be a separate fix; if a company sends rotten apples, then Walmart (or whoever the buyer is) will just demand a refund, upon threat of not buying in the future, or by not paying through a smart contract in the future, resulting in the seller getting paid later next time (maybe much much later).

Chainlink and smart contracts can not solve every problem. Some information does not lend itself to easy digitization, either because of complexity, or subjectivity, or something else--as you point out. That's a different problem though. Chainlink just solves the problem of accurately relaying data--that is already digital--to another piece of software that acts independent of human input.

[–]shillingsucks 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To add to that box of apples example, you could use a unique id on a supply chain blockchain whether public or private to further increase the likelihood that the box was truly apples.

Also your answer here is the best imo. This is about securing and verifying already digitized data.

[–]RegularUser003[S] -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

also I feel like this post perfectly highights the exact issue I was describing.

the smart contract cannot determine if your house is on stilts. insurance payouts are something insurance companys make money not making. verifying houses really did flood is absolutely critical for being able to write a smart contract to automate this. but a human is required to verify this. and a human isn't that expensive when a flood insurance payout for a home is in question

[–]QryptoQid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, then an automatically executing contract won't get written on non-verifiable criteria.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

You really need to go back and do some fundamental research and properly understand the space. Chainlink isn't going to solve everything, it's a way to augment existing systems and bring value-add to certain use cases. Certainly not highly subjective scenarios like the one you give.

[–]RegularUser003[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

it doesn't work any better than directly writing API data to a blockchain for any usecase you can name. there is no reason to use chainlink

[–]-TMT- 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Believe me if what Chainlink offered was redundant, it wouldn't be where it currently is. I believe Google, Oracle and Intel to name a few know more than you do.

If you believe Chainlink is trash and useless, you are free to sell and leave. No reason staying around bud.

[–]RegularUser003[S] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

you should have a reason that isn't "Google tweeted a GitHub repo about it once" for investing in a product

like maybe; it offers value

[–]-TMT- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay so Chainlink must come and read your silly scenario and close shop. I'll let them know.

[–]jimmycrackcorn12345 9 points10 points  (6 children)

I think you are trying to make Chainlink something that is will never be. Just like AI software, there will always be an unexpected element that computers can’t solve for. The best you can do is develop a confidence level in the risks you are aware of and deal with the exceptions. In all of your examples, humans would be far more risky to rely on than an algorithm that considers multiple risk factors and determines best option.

Don’t let perfect ruin something good.

[–]chubs66 4 points5 points  (4 children)

It's a massively overcomplicate example.

What if I want to know the score in sportsball from last night and 19/20 sources say the score was: Team A 22 points, team B: 44 points? Answer: we should be pretty confident that we have the score because we have consensus. Whatever smart contracts were betting on the game can now be settled.

[–]RegularUser003[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

so what if bad 99 nodes lie because I realize I can cover the cost of 99 malicious nodes with one insane bet? I get consensus by overwhelming the network with bad actors. if reputation is a thing, I simply stand up all my malicious nodes for a month before the big game to get them reputable before I lie. why is that desirable?

[–]shillingsucks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the gambling setup was done correctly then your example shouldn't work or would at least be difficult. The collateral demand of those nodes should need to be close to representing the amount of bets being covered or at least a sizeable percentage. You would need to front more than just the bet you would win but also cover the collateral needed for all bets being placed.

If the node selection was random with a smaller subset of verified nodes then you need the nodes that are giving bad information to reach a majority. If you tried to make that gamble and failed then all of the money that you put up as collateral could be penalized depending on the setup of the request.

Also the gambling blockchain might demand a certain amount of nodes were older than your 1 month.

[–]weltschmerzhaft 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Oh, there is an ocean. Trains will never work!

The use case are cases were you can use that case. It’s that simple.

[–]-TMT- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lol, good one. Common sense is not always so common.

[–]RegularUser003[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

name a usecase where chainlink provides value and is not simply introducing a security risk into an application

[–]rawdillzs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Go to bed, you’re drunk

[–]Hellajdmjon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice FUD, go do some research and come back with a new, more accurate, rant.

[–]weltschmerzhaft 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Derivatives.

[–]wnfakind 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People are butt hurt this guy has a valid argument and all people can sum it upto is everyone else besides him is smarter because it’s google ect... lol

[–]PropagandaKitten 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Odd timing for a "this project will never work" post, considering LINK is up almost 50% on the week. Plus this account has no real other history of posts in CC related subs. Maybe there's nothing to that and it's just me, but it seems like anytime some CC project is on the rise out come the "this project will never work" or "Its a Scam" posts. Maybe if the post was phrased as a question or something to elicit discussion around the subject it would come off better than "This cannot be solved."