Thread 60797560

This is not a troll/fud thread. I'm a newfag and there's a thing I genuinely don't undertand. I see that with Ethereum/EVM intitutions tend to just fork it (e.g. Hyperledger Besu) so that they can use a DLT but without having to use ETH. Ok. Then I see private DLTs like Canton which seem to actually hace the most RWA volume. My question is, what don't institutions just do with Chainlink what they do with Ethereum? i.e. forking it (it's open source...) and run the code amongst themselves (they could trust each other because they are banks/institutions, they already trust each other on a daily basis) but without having to use the LINK token? It's weird because even when they fork Eth they still use Chainlink, and the Canton network seems to be using it too. I am aware that this topic seems to have been discussed some years ago (hence the "shadowfork" meme) but I wasn't around back then and I really don't get why they can't just fork Chainlink. Sorry if I got anything wrong as I said I'm new.

>>60797560 (OP)
Wont you still need to create your own oracle/node network, which will be cost prohibitive.

>>60797637
Idk. Why would be forking Chainlink's code cost prohibitive but not Ethereum code?

>>60797560 (OP)
Institutions created Chainlink

Its been SWIFT project since day 0

>>60797560 (OP)
>I'm a newfag and there's a thing I genuinely don't undertand.
Just read up on decentralization. And then read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_finance

>I see that with Ethereum/EVM intitutions tend to just fork it (e.g. Hyperledger Besu) so that they can use a DLT but without having to use ETH.
Because ETH is already yuge so of course there will be copycats. Look at how well all the ETH forks that were released before 2020 are doing. Hint: not well.

>>60797678
none of those institutions actually trust each other, they all have a veritable army of lawyers aimed at each other specifically to induce pain in case of malfeasance.

>>60797560 (OP)
chainlink is the institutional product

>>60797560 (OP)
>Why does a corporation hire a construction company to build them a new office building? Why don’t they just start their own construction company?

>>60797560 (OP)
Redstone did this, they took chainlinks code but couldnt take their network.

For the same reason they don't fork the Bitcoin code and make their own Bitcoin. As Ryan Rugg from Citi said, within the four walls of the bank you don't need a token. It's when you want to transact with disparate parties that the token becomes necessary.

>>60797888
Checked. But then how can permissioned or private chains like Canton seem to be so successful? If they can trust each other nodes without the need of a coin to incentivice behaviour what's stopping them from doing the same with oracles.
>>60797962
But they make their own DLTs. I don't get that.
>>60797977
Ok intetesting. But those are just indians right? Ofc no one would trust them. It's not the same as if some banks did it.

Chainlink isn't actually decentralized. It's a set of permissioned oracles.

>>60797984
So why not use private oracles between banks and then Chainlink when interacting with public DLTs?

>>60798074
The users of Canton aren't trusting each other, they're trusting the network. And they only trust the network because blockchains provide reliable, mutually verifiable transaction records. Canton can allow its users to transact with each other in a trustless manner, but without data feeds there's nothing these users want to transact in. Without data, the tokens are just placeholders for the financial instruments being traded, and the banks would be in the same place they started in: using backend data on both ends to make trades and using the legal system to induce compliance. They NEED data feeds from a third party that they can both agree on, hence Chainlink.

>>60798156
I thought that the users of Canton were institutions, and that those same institutions collectively run thr Canton nodes, thus trusting each other... Because Canton works WITHOUT a coin/token, because there's no need to incentivice behaviour (because they already trust each other and because of "implicit" stacking i.e. skin in the game, if they fuck up their firm will end).
>but without data feeds there's nothing these users want to transact in. Without data, the tokens are just placeholders for the financial instruments
So I was under the impression that Canton was already getting trillions in volume.

>>60798074
banks are using CCIP. wtf are you talking about?

>>60798194
I guess most are because Swift seems to be going with Chainlink, yeah. I'm trying to understand why does it have to be this way. Why do banks fork Ethereum like it's nothing but they cannot just fork Chainlink to use it without the token.

>>60797678
Eth's brand name isn't trust. I can't go to eth foundation and get trustless price feeds. Its costed 100s of millions, maybe even billions at this point, for those that try alternatives.

>>60797560 (OP)
>He doesn't know about the shadowfork

>>60798210
Not sure if youre being a midwit on purpose but a fork would be practically useless without replicating the network effects and off-chain infrastructure that make Chainlink valuable.

>>60797560 (OP)
You still need nodes. If everybody else feeds data into link nodes, why would you make your own "ghost" oracle with no data providers and no users? You cant just run a lot of nodes yourself, why would other big players trust you? Powerful institutions or people dont trust each other, they need decentralisation.

>>60798221
I don't think I'm a midwit I'm just really new to blockchain stuff.
>network effects and off-chain infrastructure
I understand that yeah if you want to connect with anything public (eth etc) you will need Chainlink, so that's a nice network effect. BUT if tradfi starts tokenizing assets like crazy, most volume will be on private chains anyway... ran by the banks.. so you wouldn't need to connect to the public side/defi.
>>60798223
>You cant just run a lot of nodes yourself, why would other big players trust you?
Imagine the 30 biggest banks in the world make their own nodes and just trust each other. That's basically like the Canton thing. Why couldn't they do the same but for oracles? Or even better, imagine the DTCC does it.... Everyone in tradfi already trusts the DTCC to hold and settle all their stocks.

>>60798244
>Imagine the 30 biggest banks
>imagine the DTCC does it
These are what if statements and completely detached from reality. DTCC is using CCIP

>>60798244
>BUT if tradfi starts tokenizing assets like crazy, most volume will be on private chains anyway... ran by the banks.. so you wouldn't need to connect to the public side/defi.
Why? All activity into and out of the banks needs to be on a neutral public platform and/or cross chain via l*Nk. The assumption that all banks trust each other and can therefore have their own shared network or chain is why you aren't getting it.

>>60798265
>The assumption that all banks trust each other and can therefore have their own shared network
But they do. Doesn't canton work like that? Or other private DLTs that banks use? Besu?
>>60798257
>These are what if statements and completely detached from reality. DTCC is using CCIP
I'm not saying banks aren't using Chainlink, I'm trying to get why they must do so, instead of just forking it.

>>60797560 (OP)
they are shadowforking the entire planet.
we will NEVER make it.

>>60798221
So chainlink has achieved trustable decentralization by making everyone trust them with whatever they’ve done off-chain?

>>60797560 (OP)
To use the marketing metaphors of both entities:

>ETH is the world computer
>Chainlink is the internet

So a bank etc would launch a private evm for their internal context in the same way that they’d order 100 MacBooks and run a private network w/permissions for these computers. Any number of corporates could spin up these private networks/blockchains for internal use, and these are private, permissioned and centralized networks. Private networks serve a purpose, and you obviously want to be able to set the rules for your private networks (who can use, what can come in/out, what kinds of operations can be executed, etc)

There is, however, only one internet (I.e. one suite of protocols) that these networks can use to send information/value between each other. Sure, create your own internetworking protocols — but you have to get all your counterparties (external networks) on board. Like another anon said in this thread, none of these entities trust each other. There needs to be a neutral third party facilitating, maintaining and developing this suite of protocols, and that’s Chainlink here

So yeah it’s all open source and anyone can fork it, but we’re talking about network effects. You fork it, and you’re connecting to a chainlink fork…that no one else is using. Pretty lonely network.

Also think about your question in the context of bitcoin (which is not Turing complete, like Ethereum is. It’s fundamentally different in terms of why it’s valuable). Bitcoin is open source — so go ahead, fork it. You’ll be the only one using your network/mining your coins, and no one else cares. It’s the network effect that matters

Typing fast, phone posting, etc. would love to hear other anons thoughts

>>60798283
>instead of just forking it.
because you cant, chainlink is not just code. Ive already stated, the example youre looking for is Redstone, you can fork the tech, but you can’t fork the trust, integrations, and reputation.

>>60797560 (OP)
They already did. The IPO is next while you're stuck with worthless tokens

>>60798363
So correct me if I'm wrong but what you are saying is that Chainlink is like the internet of blockchains, as if each blockchain was just a node of a larger network. Thus, you can replace any individual "node" (blockchain) but you cannot replace the thing that connects all the nodes? That kinda makes sense though I still wonder about why couldn't they make a "intranet" so to speak i.e. private oracles running without a chain but trusted between banks. I guess they probably though about all this like 10 years ago and settled on making Chainlink as it is now for a reason, just trying to understand.
>>60798376
So in your opinion is not about the tech, it's network effect + brand.

>>60798194
>$1k in daily ccip fees
wow sure sounds like 11000 banks are using it.
Theres McDonald's franchises that get like 200 customers per day and make $5k per day

>>60798462
Basically, yeah

No ceiling on the number of nodes (blockchains and legacy and future networks) that can connect, but the network they connect to is inherently winner take all/a standard.

I know it permeates the CLL marketing material, but TCP/IP is the best comparison. This is basically a set of communication standards (I.e. protocols) by which computers/networks/devices etc handle addressing and formatting. It’s a language everyone agrees to speak. Feel free to create your own language/communication standard, but then your protocol competes with TCP/IP, which the rest of the world is using. No one is going to re-format their systems just to use your network. You should read about the history of TCP/IP, and really try to internalize why it’s the standard/how it became the standard. It was entirely top-down

For your “intranet” idea, consider that this kind of already exists in a few contexts. Think Canada’s “interac” network, and Brazil’s “Pix” system. Both of these are permissioned, centralized inter-bank networks which allow end-users to transfer value from one bank to another, within the same country. So if we’re thinking in terms of crypto, the ledgers/blockchains (so banks) are connected to each other by interac/pix (essentially permissioned, centralized oracle networks). Not-coincidentally, both interac and pix are central bank projects.

BUT I still need swift to transfer between countries. These two networks of banks (pix and interac) cannot “talk to” each other. Because although these two central banks control their own internal banking networks, they sure don’t trust each other with read/write privileges.

Again, it’s about network effects — I can’t stress this enough. Think languages — They’re standards because they’re used, and they’re used because they’re standards

>>60797560 (OP)
all roads lead back to time cube

>>60798518
>wow sure sounds like 11000 banks are using it.
No one said that. Thats the end goal when every bank has a blockchain.

>>60798623
Really interesting anon thanks for effortposting.

the bootstrapping of trust from the real world into the network is a one time event that only the true first mover can accomplish - hence why oracles are inherently monopolistic. The game was over before the competition knew it even existed

>>60798074
Distributed ledger tech does not provide the same services that chainlink provides. Corporations use tons of 3rd parties for software and other services. Only a retarded corporation would try and delegate everything themselves. It’s easier and more efficient to outsource to other corporations than try and do everything in house.

>>60798731
Yes but if you to into methheads' community they will make the exact same argument about their L1 "the world computer", it's infraestructure, banks don't build their own buildings, etc. We're kinda in a LINK bubble here, gotta stay unbiased.

>>60798623
Good post

>>60798628
deep schizo lore.
how did we all find that page?

Brand recognition and first mover is a thing. There was a chainlink competitor that got caught copying chainlink code. Not a good look.

>>60797984
>As Ryan Rugg from Citi said, within the four walls of the bank you don't need a token.
for some reason people think that each bank department can trust each other and that no fraud happens on trust me bro books

>>60798623
all true. and DARPA's Jan. 1, 1983 "flag day" is equivalent to SWIFT's (eventual) selection of CCIP as their sole chosen interoperability standard

>>60800101
>for some reason people think that each bank department can trust each other
Maybe not each other but they all trust the DTCC which is a centralized entity, at the end of the day today's world is based on reputation + law (based on thread of violence), not blockchain and stuff, we'll see what happens.

>>60800624
threat*
>>60800592
Care to expand?

>>60797560 (OP)
This is a troll/fud thread and I am replying to the bait

>>60800630
TCP/IP emerged as the leading neutral, open standard among a field of other contenders. it was attractive because it was decentralized, vendor-neutral, scalable, and public (essentially open-source).

when DARPA mandated that all its systems must adopt TCP/IP on January 1, 1983 (Flag Day) it was a major boost in credibility for the standard, which until then had been vying for position with other protocols (X.25, SNA, DECnet, XNS, AppleTalk, etc.).

there are a bunch of competing interoperability/bridge solutions that all fail to be as reliable as CCIP. while CCIP hasn't really reached anywhere near its full potential yet, it will - and SWIFT choosing it as its preferred interoperability layer will send as much of a signal as DARPA did in the 80s with TCP/IP.

as the other anon said, the comparison between TCP/IP and CCIP permeates Chainlink's marketing materials, and for good reason. it shows they're thinking on the same order of magnitude (or greater)

think of that Sergey reply to Sam Altman from 2017 about being able to invest in a token that incentivizes the development of Linux or TCP/IP. this has been on their minds for a while

>>60800815
>think of that Sergey reply to Sam Altman from 2017 about being able to invest in a token that incentivizes the development of Linux or TCP/IP. this has been on their minds for a while
Now that I think about this, relating this topic back to AI, Kemal left to do something related to blockchain x AI, does anyone know what he's up to these days?