What do you mean by that? I thought ChainLink solved that pretty well
What do you mean by that? I thought ChainLink solved that pretty well
If the "source of truth" is distributed, what stops somebody from running a worldwide botnet which pretends to be "anonymous chainlink nodes/contributors" and feed false information to the blockchain? Even if there is a price for each node to participate in the consensus mechanism, then you just set up a price which is required before you are allowed to defraud the oracle. How much are you willing to bet on this possibly defraudable oracle?
Secondly, this is an informal discussion on a mainstream forum - one which is pretty strongly against crypto. So forgive me for not being super keen on writing PhD-level responses
The current white paper mentions that for a briber with at most `$d*(n^2 + n)/2`, where n is the number of oracle nodes, there exists a subgame perfect equilibrium for bribers to not issue the bribe and nodes to behave honestly. I can't seem to find a formal proof though.
If you bother to check the listed examples in the white paper, my hand-wavey "trillions of dollars" estimate wouldn't be even that far off, assuming wider adoption of Chainlink.
Aren't they precisely solving the issue?
I’m not sure they ever even outright state that this particular network resolves the oracle problem. Are you sure that’s the article you wanted to share?