• Post comments:0 Comments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Chainlink is a decentralized oracle service. It’s similar to smart contracts, but a lot simpler, and it doesn’t have nearly as much hype.

It’s a decentralised, distributed network of nodes that allow you to query and update data in a trustless way which can be used as a backend for applications. It also has the ability to come up with its own data and act on it, via the oracles it controls.

There are several issues with chainlink:

(1) no one seems to know what it is supposed to do. There are people who think it’s a kind of sidechain; there are other people who think it’s just a frontend for smart contracts; there are still other people who think it’s a competitor to Ethereum, etc.

(2) Because of (1), no one knows how hardchainlink should be made in order to achieve its goals. And because of (2), no one knows whether its goals are even possible. This is not surprising: “If you want to do X, then you need this technology Z.” is a recipe for disappointment.

“Chainlink is a blockchain protocol that allows data to be linked to the Bitcoin blockchain with no one party acting as an intermediary.”

“Along the lines of Bitcoin, which has been attacked for its lack of privacy, Chainlink wants to build a system where data can be secured without compromising on transparency. The system works by linking data from other blockchains that have been proven to be secure (such as Ethereum).”

This sounds really promising for the future of crypto, but is this really necessary? What’s wrong with using some decentralized applications currently in use today? Anyone remember Ethereum?”

Chainlink is a protocol for aggregating diverse data feeds into a single stream that is cryptographically verifiable. It relies on the same cryptographic assumptions as bitcoin, but it is a different system, with different technical requirements and security assumptions.

Chainlinks are like chains; they link the streams in the same way. But the relationship isn’t symmetric: that’s not what makes them distinct from each other. The difference between chainlink and bitcoin is that chainlinks can be designed to be non-interactive: a bunch of them together provide more information than any individual one can contain.

With a well-designed chainlink system, you could have something like an interactive version of Wikipedia, where all information flows through an agreed-upon central source which aggregates it according to some rules. In this sense chainlinks combine both bitcoin’s decentralized nature and Wikipedia’s centralized nature.

Chainlink is a decentralized network for the trade of digital assets. It is designed so that each node in the network can be trusted to only transfer the funds it holds in its balance sheet, and can be trusted not to make fraudulent claims about who it knows (such as saying they know someone when they don’t) or to cheat by trying to hide information (such as saying they know something when they don’t). The network is resistant to sybil attacks and allows any two nodes to transact directly, meaning that if one node becomes untrusted, its reputation can spread through the network.

Chainlink is an Ethereum based smart contract forking protocol.

It facilitates trustless smart contract forking without the need of a trusted third party.

In the context of cryptocurrency, a trusted third party can be any entity such as a central authority, mining pool, exchange, or even an individual wallet owner.

By adding trustless smart contract forking to the Ethereum network, it allows existing tokens to be upgraded using proof of stake consensus mechanism.

Cryptocurrencies are a fairly new thing. They are, in the grand scheme of history, a historical blip. In the middle of the 20th century, we had all kinds of things that can be considered as pseudo-cryptocurrencies: gold certificates, bearer bonds, and so on. But all these things were based on something that was universally acknowledged to be real: gold. Once people figured out how to create pieces of paper (or pieces of metal) that appeared to represent gold, it became possible to create other pieces that appeared to represent the same thing: bearer bonds.

Right now we think of cryptocurrencies as a kind of digital bearer bond, but they are far more interesting than that. For one thing, they aren’t just digital certificates. They are also tokens. Like bearer bonds, they cost something to make but have no intrinsic value; like bearer bonds and gold certificates, their value depends on what you think about them or what someone else thinks about them; for example (I hope I am not being too obvious here), a token might be worth more if it is being transacted by a large number of users.

Cryptography is a very old idea. One of the first things people did when they wanted to keep messages secret was to write them on papyrus, which decayed over time. But papyrus is clumsy, and because people wanted to send messages quickly, they devised codes that describe a string of symbols, like this:

So the message is “I am the king and we are meeting in the forest at dusk.” You get the message by unscrambling it and looking for a sequence of letters that looks like the alphabet. The code is easy to break, but if you want to send a coded message, you can’t just tell anyone; only someone who knows what your code looks like will be able to read it.

Leave a Reply