/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>58377717
>Why does LINK get so much hate?
If you’re wondering where the recent FUD is coming from it’s cause we’re only months away from the release of CyberCode 2.0 testnet. As an insider, you have no idea what/the importance of CbC 2.0 is gonna be for LINK when the alpha releases around the end of October this year (give or take a few months) so I will spoonfeed you out of kindness of heart:

CyberCode 2.0 secures the ledger cryptographically to encode transactions at 20x magnitude of legacy infrastructure. It achieves this by taking blockchain transactions to the BbC-2024 layer and parsing them through the node network incentivized by super linear sequencing which Sergey said is very close to finish line. This is all dynamically incentivized through semi-permeable staking allowing LINK token holders to benefit for verifying data both on the main chain and the Blockchain Byzantine Consensus 2022 layer. No other project is even close to doing this in the oracle space.

The obvious benefits of super fast transaction speeds also brings exponential economies of scale. What this means is if farmer has 50 Kg pig for sale, he can put the beast to market on the blockchain to verify the weight in a trust less system faster than global SWIFT system. Soon any business who wants to stay relevant will have to buy LINK to have access to CyberCode 2.0 feature. A unique truly proposition! Those who don’t use this system (powered by LINK) will get left behind.

Scammer motherfuckers want you to think that banks and other organizations are not currently fulling their bags with cheap LINK as we speak. DON’T NOT LET THEM WIN! If you hold 50 or more LINK right now, you already made it. Immediately when we breach the $18.50 resistance it’ll be too late for you. You have been warned. So go buy many LINK for you dream to come true.

>>57331578
If it's cheaper and more secure, what's the problem?

>>57331587
>>57331949

Still a thing, they had a demo for it back in 2022 at Smartcon. But the main focus is on CCIP right now. When Cybercode 2.0 comes out, I can imagine they would want to start promoting FSS to go along with it. BBcA chains still needs sequencer to order transactions, though I need to read over the article as last I checked it's just a faster more efficient chain.

Another carrot on a stick. Few years ago is was Arbitrum, then it was staking, after that CCIP now its CyberCode. 6 more months guys, this year is definitely the year.

If you’re wondering where the recent FUD is coming from it’s cause we’re only months away from the release of CyberCode 2.0 testnet. As an insider, you have no idea what/the importance of CbC 2.0 is gonna be for LINK when the alpha releases around the end of June this year (give or take a few months) so I will spoonfeed you out of kindness of heart:

CyberCode 2.0 secures the ledger cryptographically to encode transactions at 20x magnitude of legacy infrastructure. It achieves this by taking blockchain transactions to the BbC-2024 layer and parsing them through the node network incentivized by super linear sequencing which Sergey said is very close to finish line. This is all dynamically incentivized through semi-permeable staking allowing LINK token holders to benefit for verifying data both on the main chain and the Blockchain Byzantine Consensus 2022 layer. No other project is even close to doing this in the oracle space.

The obvious benefits of super fast transaction speeds also brings exponential economies of scale. What this means is if farmer has 50 Kg pig for sale, he can put the beast to market on the blockchain to verify the weight in a trust less system faster than global SWIFT system. Soon any business who wants to stay relevant will have to buy LINK to have access to CyberCode 2.0 feature. A unique proposition! Those who don’t use this system (powered by LINK) will get left behind.

Scammer motherfuckers want you to think that banks and other organizations are not currently fulling their bags with cheap LINK as we speak. DON’T LET THEM WIN. If you hold 50 or more LINK right now, you already made it. Immediately when we breach the $18.50 resistance it’ll be too late for you. You have been warned. So go buy many LINK for you dream to come true.

>>56850653
They, Golden record for DONs and Cybercode 2.0 (which this one is basically repeating) can both be true. An initial use case would be for DONs to have a ledger to record their actions, basically infrastructure for their reputation system. Then Chainlink provides ready made blockchain deployment for legacy businesses to get them a quick ready to go package to deploy their Web3 strategy.

Does it know about cybercode 2.0?

>>56269514
If you’re wondering where the FUD is coming from it’s cause we’re only months away from the release of CyberCode 2.0 testnet. As an insider, you have no idea what/the importance of CyberCode 2.0 is gonna be for LINK when the alpha releases around the end of June this year (give or take a few months) so I will spoonfeed you out of kindness of heart:

CyberCode 2.0 secures the ledger cryptographically to encode transactions at 20x magnitude of legacy infrastructure. It achieves this by taking blockchain transactions to the BbC-2022 layer and parsing them through the node network incentivized by super linear sequencing which Sergey said is very close to finish line. This activity is incentivized through semi-permeable staking allowing LINK token holders to benefit for verifying data both on main chain and Blockchain Byzantine Consensus 2022 layer.

The obvious benefits of super fast transaction speeds also brings exponential economies of scale! What this means sir is if farmer has 500 Kg cow for sale, he can put the beast to market on the blockchain to verify the weight in a trust less system faster than global SWIFT system. Soon any business who wants to stay relevant will have to buy LINK to have access to CyberCode 2.0 feature. A unique proposition. Those who don’t use this system (powered by LINK) will get left behind.

Scammer motherfuckers want you to think that banks and other organizations are not currently fulling their bags with cheap LINK as we speak. DON’T LET THEM WIN. If you hold more than 50 LINK right now, you already made it. Immediately when we breach the $8.50 resistance it’ll be too late for you. You have been warned, sir. So go buy many LINK for you dream to come true.

>>56268403
But what CyberCode version are the DeReMixicles going to be developed under? Is CyberCode 3.0 announced?

CYBERCODE 2.0

>>56206086
At the time the only place indexed was 4chan. The page indexed mentored cybercode 2.0 many times as well as link. Google is assuming that it is something link related. Imagine thinking that Google trying to connect dots means anything

>>56205486
>if you type cybercode 2.0 into google, chainlink's twitter is the first result
what the fuck

>>56205486
BBC cybercode was a larp you fucking morons.

>>56206015
This is extremely bullish. How bullish? If you’re wondering where all the FUD lately is coming from it’s cause we’re only months away from the release of CyberCode 2.0 testnet. As an insider, I know have no idea what/the importance of CyberCode 2.0 is gonna be for LINK when the alpha releases around the end of October next year (give or take a few months) so I will spoonfeed you out of kindness of heart:

CyberCode 2.0 secures the ledger cryptographically to encode transactions at 20x magnitude of legacy infrastructure. It achieves this by taking blockchain transactions to the BbC-2022 layer and parsing them through the node network incentivized by super linear sequencing which Sergey said is very close to finish line. This activity is incentivized through semi-permeable staking allowing LINK token holders to benefit for verifying data both on main chain and Blockchain Byzantine Consensus 2022 layer.

The obvious benefits of super fast transaction speeds also brings exponential economies of scale! What this means sir is if farmer has 500 Kg cow for sale, he can put the beast to market on the blockchain to verify the weight in a trust less system faster than global SWIFT system. Soon any business who wants to stay relevant will have to buy LINK to have access to CyberCode 2.0 feature. A unique proposition. Those who don’t use this system (powered by LINK) will get left behind.

Scammer motherfuckers want you to think that banks and other organizations are not currently fulling their bags with cheap LINK as we speak. DON’T LET THEM WIN. If you hold more than 50 LINK right now, you already made it. Immediately when we breach the $7 resistance it’ll be too late for you. You have been warned, sir. So go buy many LINK for you dream to come true.

>>56206015
The larper also mentioned bbc chain and that something big will happen during smartcon this year...I thought it was just spam/larp/copy pasta, but then Chainlink releases bbc-a, and the fact that cybercode 2.0 in the google search engine leads to link's twitter, something is really happening.

>>56206012
the Cybercode 2.0 whitepaper doesn't say anything about SEO, only fair indexing services, take your meds

>>56205486
To add to my post, the whole Cybercode 2.0 larp also mentioned bbc chain...

>>56205278
Any anons remember that whole cybercode 2.0 thing that was thought to be a larp, but turned out to be a real insider? For those of you in the dark, if you type cybercode 2.0 into google, chainlink's twitter is the first result.

Why did all of the Cybercode 2.0 discussion disappear literally the same day that people started talking about it?
Us schizos should look into this.
Who knows what and why is it Cybercode 2.0 being silenced??

So this is the new cybercode pasta

re ARM questions -- I forget what ARM does, and too tired to read up now. Gonna read up and try to answer tomorrow, if the thread is still alive.
re the BBC and CyberCode pasta -- forget what I said, it's just a coincidence. Some smartass just looked up the Byzantine Consensus and abbreviated it to make up bbc. Other than that, the pasta is a word salad. The whole chainlink community fell prey to survivorship bias, basically.
re other questions answered by the 9E8kjijR poster -- if I haven't answered explicitly, then it's because I agree with him, and don't have anything of value to add. Thank you, friend.
To the other posters who appreciated the insight -- I'm glad that you enjoyed it, and I'm glad that I got an opportunity to give back to the community. I wouldn't be able to find out about Chainlink without you. Thank you, friends.

>>55799825
>what I have yet to wrap my head around is the tokenomics of that barebones DLT, presumably BBCA according to OP's theory

if I remember correctly, some kind of version of the DAG algorithm is used in hbar, and hbar is a PoS. Furthermore, I don't think there's any reason for making the algorithm PoW.

>>55803493
>So basically the oracle network can be exploited once by certain nodes?
>So what if it gets recorded which nodes were bought off..

The fact that there is a record of nodes being malicious means that they will be punished. If the nodes know that they are going to get punished, and the money slashed by the punishment is going to exceed the money gained by being malicious, then they aren't going to act malicious, because they will lose money that way. So the hack won't happen even once.

>>55804783
not sure why i'm even responding to a fuddie, but man, wierd new shit just dropped. Dahlia's paper on how to increase the efficiency of a DAG caught us all off guard and we're trying to figure out how it fits into the larger puzzle. OPs theory makes sense for the reputation layer. Why else would CLL have one of their top researchers working on this?

As for the cybercode pasta, the only compelling piece in the whole thing is the name of the chain (which not only was abbreviated extremely similarly but also referred to Byzantine consensus), which is a weird and unlikely enough coincidence to warrant some discussion. but the rest of the post was so clearly buzzword salad that i fully discount any possibility that it's real.

>>55803505
The pic discusses why Chainlink is a permissioned network. This thread and the Cybercode 2.0 breadcrumb discusses how Chainlink is going to evolve into include a permissionless layer (the blockchain) to secure the permissioned network (the oracle network).

This shit isn't organic.
>Ive noticed that other search engines like qwant do not return Chainlink twitter when searching cybercode 2.0. Its worth noting that “Cybercode” and “Chainlink” have the same number of letters, are both made of two words with the same number of letters each, and both start with C. It might be a Google AI/autocorrect correction, but still weird.
Its google trying to work out what it is. Cybercode is all over pages with link stuff - 2.0 is in the chainlink whitepaper title. It is connecting the dots but getting it wrong.

>In a remarkable leap forward for the blockchain ecosystem, Chainlink has undergone a transformative evolution with the emergence of LinkChain, powered by the revolutionary CyberCode 2.0 upgrade. This evolutionary step represents a seamless fusion of Chainlink's legacy and cutting-edge advancements, propelling decentralized oracles and smart contracts into a new era of efficiency, scalability, and trust.

>With the unveiling of LinkChain, the blockchain community witnesses the culmination of years of research and innovation. The integration of Chainlink's proven oracle technology with the enhancements of CyberCode 2.0 ushers in a paradigm shift that redefines how blockchains interact with the outside world.

>At the core of LinkChain lies the "Byzantine Blockchain Consensus" (BBC) mechanism. This innovative hybrid consensus protocol marries Chainlink's oracles with Byzantine Consensus principles. The result is a secure, adaptable, and energy-efficient consensus approach that not only ensures the accuracy of off-chain data but also enables swift and reliable smart contract execution.

Really excited for you crazy kids