One way to resolve the issue would be to use a consensus-based oracle that takes in information from numerous reliable sources and instead of projecting the mean of all, it projects a result that is matched by a majority of the reliable sources.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
...and how do you judge which are the reliable sources...and if you rrust them so much, why bother, why not use only them? Does the description 'reliable' not depend on many other factors? For instance, that you have the same political beliefs? But then, surely that is a terrible way to judge what is true and what is not really factual?
Thanks for the valuable input @arthur.grafo.
I used the word "reliable" in an objective sense meaning a source which is known to be reliable objectively but still could be corrupted by bad actors once in a while. Reliable but not guaranteed.
For instance Binance is an objectively reliable exchange but they certainly cannot guarantee that they are hack proof.
Hello @devann and @arthur.grafo
As pointed out by @arthur.grafo, reliable, as a word, is widely subjective and can mean different things to different. In my personal opinion, instead of trying to give subjective meaning to well-meaning arguments, using consensus as a base can help solve the debate.
A consensus based protocol that gives a weighted average consideration to all inputs and propagates outputs accordingly can certainly do the trick.
Thanks for the comments.