/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>20185821

>>17444742
newfag swingies get the rope.
Only oldfag swinglinkers make money.
If you didn't swinglink on etherdelta before the binance listing, yngmi

>when link is worth over $1.45 and thus reaching a new usd ath.
yeah but it didn't even moon to begin with, so it's still shit, get fucked deluded linkies.

4chan is relatively small compared to the wider world...how early are we? Why can't more people catch on to this project already? I'm tired of waiting.

>>11239787
Depends how strong your nerves are. Don't sell and sure. But you'll sell at $20 thinking you're a big boy and then never make it.

>>11226927
>So where are these other projects?
Not an aeternity shill by any means but when it comes down to it stuff like:
>>11226987
>isn’t blockchain agnostic
is not a huge deal breaker. Let's say Ethereum had its own decentralized oracle network - would businesses really care about a solution being blockchain agnostic when Ethereum is the de facto smart contract platform?

Even decentralization may turn out to be unimportant. Let's say a centralized competitor has a record of 100% uptime with 100% correct information, will companies really care about the decentralization aspect of chainlink? Or how many use cases will be willing to pay a premium for the security provided by decentralization?

And what if chainlink itself can't achieve all it set out to do? They can't sort out aggregation, or reputation, or any number of obstacles to a bug-free finished product?

I'm not saying any one of these concerns is a huge problem for chainlink but there are a lot of potential sticking points that could, down the line, prevent chainlink from mooning. Everyone on here acts insanely confident like $1000 is a done deal when there are so many things that need to happen or that could go wrong

>>11219595
LINK was around rank ~50 in January as I recall then dropped down to a low of about 120 before returning to the position it's in now

the reason I know this is because I've been obsessively refreshing coinmarketcap EVERY FUCKING DAY FOR THE LAST FUCKING YEAR

>>10882571
you're telling me. I made pic related back in 2017

>>10650492
>>10652124
>a can of cherry Coke or twelve
that is Warren Buffet you swine

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>8945265
It's obvious that you wrote that FUD because it's average at best and no one would bother to repost it

I bet you put a lot of time writing that out and when no one took the bait you screenshotted it and are now posting it in the hopes that your time wasn't wasted

Let me tell you that time WAS wasted

>>8808896
notice how she mirrors him

the true alpha of crypto

>>8718000
>$1k LINK
nice trips but surely no one seriously thinks this?

even $100 is ridiculous to my mind and would make me a millionaire a good few times over

it's a great project that obviously has big partnerships under wraps but does anyone seriously and unironically think $1000 is possible? If so, why?

>>8688190
they were saying the same thing 3 months ago

I hold this shit and am not selling but fucking hell it's been a monumental let down so far - even by the standards of this bear market

Vitalik i dumping ETH to buy the LINK dip

If biz is only place that know about link ,why the fuck are you selling ?

>>7735663
What are you on about?

I would say a realistic price per link token would be whatever the annual profit per token would be times 10

Because 10% per year is a reasonable rate of return if you compare to other assets like stocks or rental properties or whatever

The question now is how much could you make per LINK per year once the mainnet is up and running

>>7561761
Beautiful, underrated post

This is a ChainLink meme thread now.