/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12017569
Its not FUD cunt you guys have just been spreading misinformation

>>12017558
CHAINLINK IS FUCKED

Because people are realizing link does not have as much use case as they thought

Rhombus >> Chainlink

>>12017587

This kind of shit. You have to be legitimately insane to hold link. No normie is ever gonna touch this shit.

Why the fuck is it the most polarized coin in all of crypto

>>12017569

BUY BUY BUY BUY

THE GREATER THE FUD, THE GREATER SIGNAL TO GO ALL IN

THE JEWS ARE AFRAID OF US

It’s almost as bad as req, welp.. at least I know who’s going to be the winner coins of 2020

>>12017569
>>12017569
former "partnerships" start to distance themselves from Chainlink. SAP logos were removed from website. Currently Openlaw announced the partnership witha a competitor of Chainlink. No new news from Swift whatsoever sinve one year.

same presentation since one year, no substantial progress in the project etc. all very very concerning points.

>>12017569
ChainLink had really bad timing, that's why it's so "special"

There's 2 types of fud. Genuine fud from bad people, and semi genuine fud from people expressing themselves wanting to be proven wrong. Morale is just at a bit if a slump at the moment, especially with nothing notable happening at the last meeting.

>>12017633

huh?

Its a lot of fud but most of it is to worry about...theres oracle services coming out that are gunna be used that isnt chainlink, check out the new openlaw tweet. We thought EVERYONE would use chainlink network but we are slowing figuring out the need for decentralized oracle middleware just doesnt have demand at all

MAIN NET CANCELLEDD

>>12017613
It’s not polarised retard, no one outside of this board gives a single solitary fuck about it

>6.5% of link supply was given out
>30 million in the 300 eth min. presale
>2 million in the 100 eth min. ico
>Binance lists CL w/o any approval or partnership
(((they))) didn’t want you to know about this

>>12017681

Lol. Show me any community anywhere in crypto outside of BTC that has caused such a manic reaction to people.

Link is both shilled the the fucking heavens and fuddd to hell. People HATE and LOVE it. On an obscure board where nothing remains longer than 48 hours, Link has not gone a single day in over 1 year without being discussed by anything from 20-50% of the threads at all times.
And it has never ever mooned much. It makes no fucking sense. No other coin, even ones that mooned have achieved that.

All the while, nobody fucking understands it

>>12017706

Nobody fuds dying shitcoins. Nobody is spending so much time talking about other coins when they start dumping.

Link? It's spent most of its existence dumping, while people talk about it hardcore. That isn't normal. Normally when a coin pumps, then starts to decline it just vanishes from peoples perception and people don't talk about it. Link? It is perpetually dumping while being fudded and shilled non stop the entire time. Attention doesnt wavier. its fucking weird

>>12017706
Dude shutup and step out of your biz container box. Everything you described applies only to this shitty board. No one outside of here gives a shit.

>>12017744

Open your fucking mind a bit.

go to reddit or any other shitcoin community. when they dump, people just dont fucking talk about them. It's quiet. Link? People never fucking shut up about it even when it's dumping perpetually.

>>12017764
no one on reddit gives a fuck about link. only the same delusional spastics that spam this board and post on r/linktrader do

>>12017744
This board unironically called: Btc, Eth, and Neo.

>>12017888
and didn't call countless others

>>12017610
>Mobius >> Chainlink
>Oraclize >> Chainlink
>Rhombus >> Chainlink
YOU ARE HERE
>Singularity

>>12017888
So that's what, 0.03% success rate?

>>12017623
nobody shills req n e more lel

>>12017909

You dont fucking get it brainlet. Why does link have such sticking power you need to ask. all those failed shitcoins, nobody talks about them. They were shilled for a short time at best. Link is here all day everyday even when its fucking dumping like fuck.

Darwinism at work. People cannot fucking stop talking about this coin, and it cannot die, it means something in and of itself.

>>12017888
Checked
>>12017896
>>>12017888
>and didn't call countless others
Kek'd

Hang on Link still has a higher market cap then the likes of steem or augur, just a few weeks ago it seemed like a huge deal to get here. The whole market is tanking right now nothing specifically wrong with link

>>12018119
So youre going to completely ignore the notion that we thought these companies were going to use link oracle but are building and using their own? AND that we are learning most of traffic is going to be on private chains? Keep believing bud

>>12017986
are you literally braindead? You keep repeating yourself and arguing in circles. The reason anyone here still gives a shit is because there are dozens of bagholders desperate to shill it. The fudders are probably former linkies who got redpilled and now despise it along with all you deluded brainwashed cultists for shitting up the board. Everything you're saying is pure confirmation bias. "b-but muh shittoken MUST be special cuz muh fud and muh shilling on muh vietnamese basket weaving forum." I seriouslu cant wait for LINK to go to zero so all you cunts can off yourselves.

>>12018164

I sold my linkes on the 9k sat pump. I'm just observing now. Chill out dick head.

My basic point is still unanswered. Answer it.
There are bagholders for other projects, Other projects have way more bagholders than link does. exponential more. why do we see nothing about them? No FUD. No shill. No 50% of threads all day everyday for a year.

That is what I am asking you absolute melt. Why is LINK is special that it nobody can shut the fuck up about it even though the number of bagholders is FUCKING TINY compared to most projects. These bigger projects with more bagholders are radio silent. the people holding are not even talking about them.

>>12018203
It's exactly what you said, pure Darwinism at work. Link is the chosen coin and no amount of FUD will change that.

>>12018203
Other bagholders of other coins arent all basement dwelling, easily manipulated desperate NEETS who feel the constant need to shill their shittoken. You do see fud about other coins, its just not as intense here because the holders arent completely obsessed and constantly LARPing and ruining the board. Holders of other coins arent constantly spamming shit 24/7. So there's not as much of a strong opposition who are sick to death of all the shilling to create fud. You do realise there are people who genunely think of LINK as a shittoken, and people who genuinely despise all you brainwashed cultists right? It's not because theyre trying to suppress the price so they can accumulate, you hopeless sack of shit.

>>12017569

>why is the fud so strong

Oh fuck off you have link but you are conveniently saying nothing about the last meetup they had

it was bad, it said everything they have been saying for years, there is nothing behind the curtains, it's just a fat russian guy shilling their ideas in the hope that some rich guy starts funding them

there is nothing, it's a scam

>>12018295

>It's not because theyre trying to suppress the price so they can accumulate, you hopeless sack of shit.

Not arguing that. You make a leap of logic here.

I am talking about links sticking power. You realise that people hate other coins just as much right? what they do after they sell is they move on. The coins community on TG/reddit goes silent. on BIZ, nobody talks about it.
You have personally held alts which you sold and have not relaly thought about since. that alt has been bleeding hard since. do not deny it. People may shill it but you are likely to ignore it.

Link? Why is it an exception. Link stays because it's heavily vetted. Every FUD is either proven right and people move on like above examples, or is proven wrong and the meme lives on. There is no "army of neets". this army of neet bag holders would fucking sell like all the other shitcoins they have and stop talking about it.

This “Private permissioned” blockchain stuff is being deliberately pushed by people fudding or people that are retarded and really don’t understand blockchain. I don’t even know what is going on anymore: are people really so retarded to be shaken by this or are we all joking?

>>12017851
>no one on reddit gives a fuck about link. only the same delusional spastics that spam this
Thank fucking god for that

>>12018347
>I am talking about links sticking power.
For the 6841687415th time, it's because linkies are deluded and brainwashed into thinking this is the next supermoon and the next revolution in crypto. They'll stay with it through thick and thin no matter what and constantly spam pointless threads and LARPs relating to it. Get that through your thick fucking skull you useless cunt.

>You realise that people hate other coins just as much right?
The delusion continues. No, not on here they don't. LINK is by far the most hated shitcoin on here. It's not even a contest.

>>12018381

No. It's being pushed by people like me or even holders ironically.
It's legit FUD. It's bait for discussion. More Darwinism at work. If This FUD cannot be proven wrong and fade away then Link finally dies. If not then the spam lives on and it continues till something takes it out.

This board is like a fucking organism, and anything weak is annihilated and disappears.

>>12018322

You are right, the last meetup was kind of eerie. Even Reddit has not talked about it, things are quit there too.

All in all, last week was not that bad objectively speaking.

AWS+Kaleido mention of Chainlink, 2 partnerships announced with Olympus Labs and Rtrade technologies.

Ironically, this kind of "attention" probably plunged the coin even lower. I don't know what to even think of the project at the moment, maybe the FUD has gotten into me.

>>12018420
>plunged the coin even lower.

I mean token. fuck.

We are now in the depths of a bear market which means biz is absolutely dead. This means that we are in a filtering stage for LINK. The first filter stage was pre-ICO, before the last bullrun really kicked off. The merits and drawbacks of chainlink were discussed to death from every angle here on biz - by actual oldfags and people who know their shit. Not memeing shitposter children. So this is another filtering period. I am in no doubt that a consensus about this private/permission blockchain stuff will be reached, and I’m leaning towards LINK still being the huge success we are all thinking it will be, but just not as soon as we had hoped, or perhaps not because of legacy entities adopting them, but rather fintech startups that actually outcompete them due to decentralisation.

>>12018412
How can you take this seriously? You know very little about blockchain I take it? Like...Jesus anon. I hate to be “that guy,” but this place has gotten so dumb, very quickly. I guess only the dumbest people have hung around.

>>12018381
Idk man if you know sergey and the team they were never about the money. They would rather have companies on provate chains to keep price down. The higher the price the harder it is for new companies to start using the service. You also have to remember link is open source. No where does it say it has to use the chainlink network. Copy and paste is a real threat. Everything the team has done, "radio silence" is to keep price down so it doesnt explode like eth and become overvalued

At the root of nearly every piece of Link FUD is one base sentiment:

"You loser NEETs and your NEET software will never amount to anything. The system will chug along just fine without you, go die in a hole."

Let's prove these fuckers wrong, shall we?

Holy fuck, I can’t tell if people are being serious or if they’re joking. No one can be unironically concerned about private blockchains not needing oracles. Please someone tell me biz isn’t really all retarded Facebook fags now...

>>12018467
YEAH!!!!!!!!!!

Which larper was it who said there would be an insane dump and strong FUD on link before the singularity?

LINK is unironically overpriced as of now

See you at 6000 sats

>>12018381
See
>>12018412
This is actually a critical period to discuss this stuff. The only people left on biz right now are actually worth discussing with. Their FUD is likely to be a legitimate concern, but their positive analysis is also likely to be extremely insightful.

If you have something to say it’s inportaby that you say it. Don’t just assume because you know best, everyone else does.

>>12018450

Nope. I don't care about the FUD, but I am one man. It's good to have a think tank. I can't possibly cover every perspective. So i will continue to FUD link till 1000$. It means nothing for me to FUD link. If I FUD link and it dies because something is discovered and link is WEAK then I have only done myself a favour because it was destined to die.
I understand blockchain and Links protocols well enough, along with the usecases and legacy systems. But like i said above, I am one man.

>>12018443

This. We are in this stage again. Lets see if link can make it through to the other side. Once we dont see link spam anymore, its clear it died. As long as people are arguing about this project, it's strong.

>>12018420

We are in a bear phase. News cant make it moon anymore. Just like how bad news cant make it dump in a bull phase. Has nothing to do with merits of project(until proven so).

>>12018485
Most of it is fud but a little bit of it is serious for example the private networks, thats something no 'insider' ever mentioned and no one brought to light until now.

>>12018514
>As long as people are arguing about this project, it's strong.

But honestly this is quite wrong though, 4chan having adopted this coin among with other few chans (like the Finnish biz) does not really give us good picture of how popular this is. I mean, aren't there like 25k addresses/accounts all in all or something like that for link tokens at most?

>>12018528

Nah. It's old. It's one of the oldest blockchain fuds. It was used against link last year too.

It's just cropping up again in a new context with a hell off a lot more information to work with this time.

>>12018544
>adopted this coin

Fuck. I mean token. Not coin.

>>12018528
Wtf...a private blockchain is magical now? Why didn’t they just solve the oracle problem by making a private blockchain that everyone can access?

>>12017677
Lol. This is good.

I refreshed a fresh (0 posts) chainlink thread just new and 3 expertly written fudposts appeared.

Hmmm, really made me think

>>12017569
scummy anons

>>12018559
Link is blockchain agnostic, what they are making right now is essentially a network that has the ability to be public or private. If you knew what you invested in and read the whitepaper you would already know this. They literally say you dont have to use the public network with its token but no one ever wants to point this out.

What's the purpose of the Link token if it's Blockchain agnostic?

>>12018544

Not important. The important part is that it remains(in a huge presence) on a board that has nothing permanent. Anything shit is gone by 9 pages. Link has yet to reach normie status like ETH so it's still in the vetting proccess by early people.
there are no other shitcoins that have this sticking power, because they didn't survive it. Or biz never found them.

>>12018610
life must be tough for you anon

>>12018610
If you want a decentralised oracle service outside of the private chain. If you have a bunch of banks that network with each other and nothing else they will use private chain. BUT if any of these banks needed some input from outside of their world they would need to use the public network to get the information. So these banks that we thought would drive many transactions on the public network to rise the token in value is realistically using their own private chains where the link token in that world has no value outside of that network.

>>12018581

>linkies are so deluded and played around by reverse psychology that for every FUD they buy more link

lmfao hahahahahahaha

>>12018617
Do you think 4chan "adoption" of this can damage Link's success in the long run? Well, then again, these kind of worries are kind of childish considerng if it is a good product: no investor will give a shit even if the team was made of literal nazi pedophiles

>>12018646
not smart indeed. wait until prices are lower and buy when fud decreases (it will, consistently)

>>12018680

If 4chan decided to adopt the Nike brand and make hitler and nazi memes of it all day would that cause Nike to go bankrupt?

>>12018680
Have you ever seen a tweet by a company who mentions chainlink? Did you see the jesusanon post yesterday where he sent the marketing manager the creepiest letter in the world? You cant see the nazis memes they spam? The cainlink team is well aware of it and they hate it but they def know they need us because we are going to be the node operators. This is the reason for their radio silence they dont want this immature crypto shit attached to them because then real world companies think they are a joke just like every other shitcoin. Lets hope their hard wok over come the haters and nazi lovers

>>12018714
this

>>12017569
I'm a contrarian, I'll keep shilling during this FUD normalization time and I'll go back to FUDing the shit out of it once you slowbies get bored with it.

>>12018412
Fucking retard.

It is literally insane to not sell your whole stack right now. The main net is multiple months away and you know what will happen in February?
Right the 138k BTC/BCH/BSV will enter circulation and push the whole market down further.
If you sell your Link now and buy back in at 5k sats in February you've increased your stack by 40% and just if you're staying in BTC. If you Tether up you will gain much more.
No investor with half a brain holds any crypto as long as the Mtgox coins aren't distributed.

>>12018412
hello turd collector

>>12018509
Holy shit. My mind is blown. Permissioned blockchains are glorified centralized databases. They are not socially scalable have high governance costs and a security hole. They aren’t even fucking “blockchains” ffs

>>12018544
it's not important how POPULAR the token is outside of biz. The point is that biz is a Darwinian filter. That's why as long as LINK hasn't been abandoned by biz posters, there is still something worth discussing there. Worth discussing every single fucking day for the last year.

>>12018551
Yeah, here's an article from 2015 about the private blockchain fud, by money skelly himself
https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/08/07/on-public-and-private-blockchains/

>>12018602
>you dont have to use the public network with its token but no one ever wants to point this out.
Everyone is literally pointing this out right now

>>12018617
Exactly mate.

>>12018680
ETH suffered through money skelly and sharting memes

>>12018848
FUD makes it stronger you tard. consider you low IQ faggots lucky that CHAD fudders are making sure this coin can survive on its own merits by testing it constantly for weakness.

Only faggots stick their head i nthe sand and get lazy with an investments fundamentals.

>>12018514
You’re dumb as shit and know nothing.

>>12018874
I agree with your (earlier) statements. I was referring to someone called poopscoop

>>12018856
Yes but legacy institutions such as banks will not use public chains - at least to begin with. This is the first FUD for link which has actually concerned me. All I can think to counter it is that what you said means public blockchains will triumph eventually or start-ups will be wiling to use public blockchains and will outcompete private chain users and so provide a big enough market for smart contract data that LINK will moon off them alone.
When people say that each new partnership is just "literally who" they don't get it. One of these literal whos taking these risky steps into a largely untested technology (smart contracts with decentralised oracles) WILL be a successful business one day.

>>12018887
Thank you for your input small insect.

>>12018259
>attracting obsessive losers is a sign of evolutionary success

>>12018420
>Ironically, this kind of "attention" probably plunged the coin even lower. I don't know what to even think of the project at the moment, maybe the FUD has gotten into me.
This is what I tought aswell

>>12018931
Kek

>>12018935
this but unironically.

if the FUD is strong enough LINK will be abandoned as the biz token of choice

>>12018968
You are not Ant but i knew that you would appreciate this joke. I can recognize at least 5 people just by analyzing the way you people write.

Now, please, someone unban me in the unofficial official chainlink discord because i have been nothing but nice to everyone including the mods except for one small tiny mistake which I did not receive a strike for.

>>12018381
>This “Private permissioned” blockchain stuff is being deliberately pushed by people fudding or people that are retarded and really don’t understand blockchain.
I am a software engineer at a fang company with hundreds of thousands of link.

This permissioned blockchain stuff is legitimately surprising to me. I expected some of it but didn't expect that our most exciting partnerships would be permissioned shit that wouldn't use it.

If the existing big companies use permissioned shit then link itself isn't critical enough to these companies to get them to adopt public blockchain. At least not from the start.

Buying ChainLink is betting that

1. Big companies will react to public blockchain the same way they reacted to SaaS, and eventually use it due to its benefits being so great
2. Smaller, literally who startups and projects will use smart contracts to do things that let them compete with big companies, until we have replaced many of those companies with complicated, decentralized smart contracts
3. Something similar to the above

But in any case, it looks like the path to the moon could take quite some time. Cases 1. and 2. at least seem like they require shifts of the entire industry that could take 3-5 years.

I am 29.

I would to get rich before 30.

I don't want to wageslave till 35 and have link moon when I'm too old to seriously date 25-year-olds.

>>12018998
Nice larp, kys

>>12018931
Imagine being so desperate to get into a Reddit discord you literally beg on 4channel.org and create account after account.

>>12018998
>>12018998
>I don't want to wageslave till 35 and have link moon when I'm too old to seriously date 25-year-olds.

This 32-year old Finnish boomer made it in 2017.

He was totally broke in 2015-2016 still, and literally went all-in Ethereum. He had to borrow money from his friend. He also traded all his bitcoin for ethereum.

He made 25 million euros last year from cryptotrades alone, he sold most of his stack he got. But then again, he was also ex-semi professional poker player, so taking risks and iron hands might come with it.

>>12019066
whale hello there

i am on your team, let that sink in deeply

It's signal by the whales to dump LINK before the big crash.

Many shill posts mean whales are going to pump the price.
Many fud posts mean whales are going to dump the price.

Mainnet still many months away. Zero adoption right now. There is no reason to have a high market share, so whales are signalling they will dump LINK by posting FUD.

>>12017569
altcoins will primarily be for pump and dump schemes.

Bitcoin, eth and ripple are the only practical ones now.

>>12019077

Gee its always nice to meet an finnish fellow in /biz/

>>12019118
I guess you missed the discord group threads that were hiring link fudders

>>12018863
It wasnt pointed out til now dumb fucking retarded faggot

St this point the only sensible FUD is
1)The Chainlink network doesn't work. Link becomes worthless.. Then we move on to the next project that triggers the Hivemind.
2) Link does work. We made it but, the time frame can be sketchy.
a) singularity happens swift partnership confirmed and all that jazz. expect a non stop full year catalog of Chainlink memes.
b) slow organic growth over a 5 year period. Link holders will spout some memes but not flood the board
c) slow organic growth over a decade. Yawn. Even if we get gains we will be bored af we will either run collective biz nodes or move to the next project.


No other possible scenarios

>>12019219
Or you could just go kys

>>12017674
I wouldn't say that there is no demand, more that it's not quite ready yet so others want to do some proof of concepts and try out others in the mean time

>>12018203
never forget... 2016

>>12018203
Because many of us get that it will change the landscape of smart contracts. That's the only explanation is that many of us see how valuable it can become. It hasn't even launched and market conditions of crypto are shit, so fudders love to pounce on us. Yes there has been roadblocks, but that happens in every big project.

>>12018412
You really are a bit thick mate. Cringey af too.

>>12019405

Enjoy the bags while I scoop it up later after everyone has proven its still worth holding for me faggot

>>12019325
You must first have a problem before you have a solution. There is zero demand as of right now. If link builds the network but 90% of volume is on private chains rather then on the public chain than the demand for decentralized oracles will still be low which seems likely to be the case here. We thought banks like swift would use the public chain but in reality they dont need to at all and sergey doesnt mind because lik isnt about the money, its an open sourced project. If you know what that is its something anyone can use and edit, just like swift and microsoft cryplets is doing. Insiders larpers said this was whitelabeling but what they never mentioned is they are using private chains

>>12018935
So the guy that converted his Genesis ETH to link is retarded? And the guy who coined the term POW is a brainlet?
Yes sounds about right...

>>12018602
So without the LINK token, how are the node operators being paid for calls to permissioned networks?

>>12019459
In the private network they have their own nodes that function of their private link token. It doent represent money in their case like in public chain. In their private network it is a token that triggers something or pays the operators but they own the operator, there is no monetary value it is just a function

>>12019442
Neither of these things is implied.

>>12019459
Just like chuck e cheese has a token that functions in their network but its only just that a token that makes stuff work in their network, had to dumb it down for you sorry

>>12018528
this is wrong. people have been talking about it for the past year but few people on the board seemed to understand what a private blockchain was so they either ignored it or called it fud. This was in no way a secret or a surprise.

I remember asking assblaster about it and he just handwaved it off.

>>12018443
This. Calling the permissioned vs public blockchain stuff fud is misguided. It was a little disappointing but not because I lost faith in LINK, but more because we just have to extend the timeline a little. What I see happening is companies trying to cling on to control with their permissioned systems just like they were reluctant with using SaaS and just like they were reluctant in the Internet era. They don't like change, especially when they have to give up control. But ultimately they will, just like SaaS is the standard now. Chainlink being the software on permissioned chains will help grow the network by allowing Chainlink to start building trust with their eventual Mainnet clients as companies start dipping their toes into public blockchains. Public blockchains are the future and that's where the value lies, but the infrastructure is just not read an is probably too new still. That will start to change as newer startups start to succeed on public chains, which ends up pushing major players on to them. Not to mention, chainlink is making a real push to be competitive in the off-chain computation market, which is maybe even bigger than the oracle market. People are also quick to forget how big buying Town Crier was and how big IC3 is. People are just impatient right now and the bear market is getting to everyone.

>>12019437
>Darwinism with capital D
>scoop

Rly made me thunk. Thank you for your input turd collector.

Any network use = good

Companies that are strategic will use the public blockchain to undercut their current legacy competitors. People will wake up. Everything needs time.

The thing is its still AMAZING that these huge enterprises are going to be using any version of link network. The take awy from this is that $1000 eoy is going to take aaaaa lot longer then we thought. Not only does their provate networks have to prove themselves succesful but then we have to hope they transfer over to the public chain which might/might not happen unless theres an incentive of more security, maybe? All in all, these private networks are great press for chainlink. Chainlink token WILL rise in value, it just might not be that susden huge green dildo we thought, just keep holding! The next two years will be insane for chainlink! Its still the most promising project in this space. I mean for christ sake they invented a new way for computation and more secure number generation, those two things alone were a sidequest for chainlink that not only could change the systems we have now but WILL because it is a more secure and cheaper way of doing the same thing! Its like saying no to a car when you ride horses.

>>12017677
nice FUD whats the discord?

>>12018714
Tbh ...... if link just mooned like Netflix or Amazon or ETH without the Nazi memes then it would be no fun getting rich off this.

I like that Nazi memes have a chance of ruining the project. Nothing in life is worth it without it being earned or overcoming a challenge.

I mean I bet 10% of us will at least attempt to start right wing militia death squads to wipe out minorities. So I have no problem with the Nazi memes. It's who we are.

Chainlink mooning without the Nazi memes would be like eating sushi prepared by a spic

>>12019662
I agree im honestly half in for the tech and half in for the memes. People can talk shit about chainlink but never in the history of the world have we seen such fire and dank memes.

>>12019662
>>12019689
woof

>>12019662
You’re fucked. Why would you hinder your investment over such trivial shit. Are you this much of an autist?

>>12019624

based

>>12019662
Jesus fucking Christ..

>>12018998
Dude..... honestly......you are fine. I'm 36. And who wants to date 25 year olds when you can date 18 year olds?

The economy is getting bad. If it takes 3 years for Link to moon you'll be able to have any 18 year old pussy you want because sugar babies will be in high supply

>>12019662
This is one of the smarter posters here

>>12019718
Because when companies have the oppurtunity to save billions/millions of dollars they suddenly forget about all the no name shit posters that literally have no effect. These companies have gone through REAL fud for decades, a twitter reply isnt gunna do shit sorry bud good lucl pajeet harder

def no chance of $5 link in 2019 then ??!!?!?

>>12019771
Yeah but you don’t answer my computer concern. What you’re doing / putting brainpower into is inheritantly pointless. For what? Your own inner satisfaction? Just seems like there’s better ways to spend your time at night.

>>12019718
No I'm not a faggot normie who likes to have fun. I need Link to moon.... but if it got fucked over because of Nazi memes and went to zero its be almost as satisfying as making millions. It would be fucking hilarious. I love you guys but i fucking hate you too after a months of listening to all this bullshit.

If I lose my investment financially it'll be hedged knowing the fact that many of you will be ruined and that's funny to me

>>12019830

It's genuinely unknowable at this point. Depends how well mainnet goes and if Link gains a wider following than it has now (ie. end of stealth phase).

>>12019830
Theres def a chance for that. One major partnership announcement could shoot us right throught that. But dont count on it, improve your life meanwhile so when it does happen you are ready

>>12019856
Previous *

Once you have real reaponbilities you’ll realize you’re wasting your time.

SO - is $5 LINK even a possibility in 2019 then ???

>>12019830
Be realistic, come on. A major recession is much more likely. Why would ChainLink pull a 20x? That type of thing doesn’t happen just because some mainnet comes out. It is the result of hyper speculation.

Besides SWIFT and DocuSign what are we classing as a major partnership?

>>12019875
sure $10 probably likely

>>12017677
KEK

>>12019862
Your brain works in a weird way. I truly feel bad for whatever trauma you’ve went through during your development. Imagine sacrificing eternal freedom for some weird pseudo justification through seeing others suffering. Interesting. Although I’m assuming you’re baiting.

>>12017652
>3 type of FUD

Genuinely doing it out of boredom waiting for the singularity making sure non believers get confused just like with ETH back in the day.

>>12019754
Appreciate the kind words

>>12019206
Did you not see the article from 2015

>>12019856
I dont post nazis memes or fud link you moron. The people who do are literally mentally ill.

What caused ETH to moon back in the day?

>>12019929
The ICO bubble.

>>12019924
No i read the whitepaper before that when it came out that clearly stated you dont have to use the public network. Fuckinf moron what is the IQ of this thread

>>12019929
Yeah icos and the btc bullrun helped too..all these scam icos had to use eth

>>12019901
Im the AK-47 ran out of gas fag. I like to have fun, and make the best out of shitty situations.

Im actually the nicest person in the world. I've shilled and gotten 4 random people to invest in Link. So I'm not some faggot like here on biz who fuds to prevent others from potentially getting rich because I'm a cocksucker... although I do understand that mindset.

I mean come on..... yeah it'll obviously suck it the project gets fucked.... but I try to turn negatives into positives and honestly it would be fucking hilarious if this shit were to tank given what chainlink has become and how many people have undeniable faith in the project

>>12019894
Stop. $10 won’t happen in 2019. ETH is more likely to go to $10 than ChainLink.

>>12019439
Thomas has said it himself that they want to build the BEST oracle software for both private and permissioned chains. This is not FUD, it's actually a good thing. Those who want to use permissioned chains will use them, there is nothing anyone can do to stop that. The best thing for LINK holders is that they will still use the chainlink system and, should they mke the transition to public chains, obviously LINK will be primed as their oracle of choice.

I think people need to start taking much, much more seriously all the partnerships that Chainlink has lined up. Hundreds of teams. THESE are the ones who will use the decentralized oracle network and drive initial demand of the LINK token. These are the experimenters. Whether legacy entities will see the benefits of decentralisation and transition is a matter of opinion, but it isn't the only thing that could make LINK moon.

Remember that ETH mooned without being adopted by banks. It mooned on the back of hundreds of shitcoin ICOs that did nothing. The hundreds of teams that LINK has lined up will ACTUALLY do something in the REAL WORLD and aren't just meme token projects. One of them or more will be extremely successful. Even if only ONE of them becomes a billion dollar company that will have a significant impact on LINK's price.

It's important to have these discussions especially while the board is dead. It's impossible to have them when LINK is mooning or btc has crashed because of the hyper bipolar posters.

>>12019892

Digital Asset or Microsoft

>>12018863
I think a good counter to the permissioned block fud is to think back to ARPANET. things like arpa, intranets, etc were like permissioned blocks, but connectivity to the outside then became an apparent money maker. LINK is the connection to the outside for permissioned blocks

>>12019718
ANd btw I don't post Nazi memes. I don't even know how to make a meme. I just think it's hilarious that there are some racist autists out there that actually seriously take the time to make and post them

I FUD AND SCHILL LINK EVERYDAY......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

surely node operators staking with remove a fair chunk of LINK from circulation inflating price, not the degree of the ICO bubble, but its got to have some effect.

i'm sure we've got another little speculative LINK moon coming after mainnet, gonna hit $1 surely - a fucking dollar is nothing

>>12019999
Checked and yeah you dont have to shill to me man im all in. Unfortunately its really hard to have a decent conversation on this board now. Honestly youre better off talking about this shit in delphi discord where actual conversations happen. Lmk if you want an invite ill try to get one

>>12019624
I agree with you anon

>>12019635
What I want to know if is public chains and decentralisation actually cuts costs?

Like, decentralisation will basically put whole teams of people out of jobs, right? Using a centralised, private blockchain means that you still have to have people looking after the paperwork and all sorts... am I thinking abut this correctly? Some anon posted this earlier and I'm not sure if it's accurate: (continued in next post)

>>12020047
>ll the advantages of blockchain lie in its ability to create decentralized, trustless systems. Using it in permissioned, centralized settings is pointless and honestly just feels like a dry run on the part of companies to see if it's worth transitioning to a public blockchain. And honestly, by not using LINK it's not like they aren't paying out the ass for reliable oracle input. They simply own or maintain expensive relationships with their trusted oracles. That means having employees, providing benefits, owning buildings, or in the case of trusted contractor being able to promise them regular business and meeting minimums. Is that really cheaper and more agile in the long run than paying into a public blockchain (which uses LINK) for oracle input, as needed? And that's really the point of blockchain--- it lowers the cost of trusted relationships and it's only a matter of time until companies realize that.

>But should we really care if companies use blockchain or chainlink? Isn't the mission of blockchain greater in scope than that?

>The whole point of trusted decentralized systems is that services and goods can be exchanged in a peer-to-peer, ad hoc manner. The authorities and organizing entities traditionally required for complex, trusted services/goods (government, businesses) aren't actually needed in the potentials of blockchain. With Chainlink, we're talking about a future (admittedly, a distant one) where individuals can produce and function with the efficiency and ease traditionally available only to large companies that aggregated resources and prospered by economies of scale. With blockchain, an individual can pay--- as needed--- for individual services and information, and be able to function like a big company used to. We should not be asking if big companies and banks will be using tokens for projects because we shouldn't focus on that sort of adoption.

>>12020045
I'm not shilling: I'm actually hoping someone will play devil's advocate and have an argument with me. There are people here who know more about this shit than me and I'd like to hear from them.

>>12020045

Can I have an invite please?

>>12019901
hello. do u need antibullyingservice ?

>>12017569
Because it's down over 50% in less than a month?
Just sayin, that'll turn lots of hands to jelly.

>>12020030
Something like 40% of CND tokens are staked and look at where that price is trading

>>12020068
A private blockchain is just cloud computing which requires constant company maintenance and man hours since there's no incentive for outside entities to ensure it's up and running.

I can't believe there are still brainlets that don't understand that blockchain's breakthrough tech is its incentivized nature which ENTAILS decentralization. It's not the other way around.

>>12020022
Not just connection to the outside world, but the network effects of a permissionless system which snowballs in use as more people use it

>>12020110
Bad bot

>>12020114
You do realize that most coins are, right? BTC dumped the whole market in that timeframe, not just LINK.

>>12017569
>Be you
>Wake up
>The year is 2022
>You sit down in front of your laptop as you remember what happened.
>The crypto market crashed 4 years ago, at a moment nobody expected.
>Mass suicides, people losing everything, / biz / full of pink wojaks for weeks, and the countless suicide threads popping up after the crash.
>A tear rolls down your cheek as you open / biz /, remembering the good old times when you dreamed about getting rich posting pink wojaks, shilling, and calling other people pajeets. You remember all those who tried and lost their lives and savings trying to get rich. You remember the digimarines, the deluded arkies, the bitcoin maximalists as btc went down.
>A wasteland. No crypto threads.
>You close / biz/ and open coinmarketcap.
>The page is almost completely empty. Only 5 coins appear in front of you, with a total marketcap of almost 10 trillions.
>You take a look at your bed.
>Your 10/10 white bride is still sleeping.
>Your 100% white children are probably sleeping too.
>You take a look at your Rolex in your wrist.
>It’s 6:37 am
>You close your $1M laptop and stand up.
>There’s a wall in front of you.
>A handsome bearded white man is staring directly at you.
>He’s holding a white cube with a light-blue padlock.
>At his side, there’s a frogman with a crown, blessing him with a divine wand.
>The moment feels almost surreal. A divine force of happiness invades your mind and soul, completely overwhelming you, bringing you to your knees, as you almost pass out.
>A smug smile shines across your face as you remember that random shill that made you go all in on ChainLink.
>”Thank you anon, thank you Kek, thank you Sergey” - You whisper softly as you close your eyes and inhale deeply.

>>12020204
But then if decentralization is so good then why would anyone use a private blockchain?

Also, I thought that decentralisation came at a premium - you're having to pay multiple node operators, in the case of LINK, and you also have to pay gas to use the blockchain.... Am I missing something here? Is it that it literally just cuts out employees that you end up saving much more money?

massive amounts of fud are a buy signal. there is something big on the horizon. help yourself by not being a fool and selling your stack.

>>12020343
>But then if decentralization is so good then why would anyone use a private blockchain?
exactly

>>12020343
>thought that decentralisation came at a premium -
decentralization cuts out the trusted 3rd party that is currently required. Which is cheaper to operate? A bank or a computer program? Large companys will use private blockchains because the tech is immature and no one is going to trust public chains until they get there shit worked out. Private blockchains are still better than the current system because it is a distributed ledger that is shared between parties instead of everyone keeping their own books.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/blockchain-will-impact-financial-sector/

>>12020349
it's always a buy signal for you idiots, and yet you always lose.

>>12017569
The FUD is strong and "feels" that way because their presentation was inept

I'd just like to thank the link fudders for putting so much time and energy into correcting the record for all the innocent newfags. It must take real virtue to follow every single piece of news related to a project that you don't even own, and then write post after post explaining why people shouldn't invest in it.
I know you guys must take a lot of time off following your own projects to post about link and I just think it's an amazing example of how dedicated people can be to helping others.
We are all lucky to have such a dedicated group of altruists as you guys. There's definitely nothing suspicious about people posting wave after wave of carefully considered criticism about a project they claim to have no investment in.

>>12020540
kek, this right here is why i never really listen to fud like this. Do you retards really think that these faggots really have your best interest in mind? They don't. They want to fuck you and buy your tokens for pennies on the dollar

>>12017569
> Why all the FUD?
Because people are fucking tired of all the Link shilling that has desecrated /biz/ for months, that's why.
The stock market guys make a stock market general thread. But the link brainlets have to post a new thread every 2 minutes to check with everybody to make sure they're still gonna /make it/ because they're so insecure about their /investment/ in link.

>>12017569

I'm sorry for stinkers linkers but watching both the BTC and USD charts at the same time, it looks like it's going to be a bloodbath for link very soon (you could already see it at 60c btw)

>>12018164
>>12018295

kek no one's reading these college essays you're posting get a fucking grip dude

Also, OP, LINK has painted a 6th red candle in a row on the daily chart. People hate seeing that shit, it makes them susceptible to manipulation. They want that bad feeling in the pit of their stomach to go away at any cost so they capitulate and sell, or they come here and look for any sort of salvation they can find, a good LARP, some new event coming up that might turn things around, anything. They're desperation is palpable and they are easy to take advantage of.

>>12020451
Shit look at this article

https://www.coindesk.com/ibm-blockchain-maersk-shipping-struggling

Kek, looks like private blockchains really are fucking doomed

>>12020451
>decentralization cuts out the trusted 3rd party that is currently required.
Can you give an example? You mean like a lawyer?

>>12020343
>I thought that decentralisation came at a premium
It does but not what most people use the internet for. It can't and probably won't ever be able to handle low-latency real-time performance requirements so you can forget ever playing your favorite twitch shooter on it but it'll likely still get to the point where it can handle streaming real-time video and audio fine since people are generally fine with 1000ms (1s) latency during conference calls.

>>12020343
>why would anyone use a private blockchain
Like I already said, companies already essentially use private blockchains through modern cloud computing tech. Public blockchains are just their evolution.

>>12018998
>This permissioned blockchain stuff is legitimately surprising to me. I expected some of it but didn't expect that our most exciting partnerships would be permissioned shit that wouldn't use it.

ZKPs will make permissioned blockchains obsolete, the FUD is completely baseless outside of a short horizon where ZKPs aren't being used at an enterprise level.

>>12019662
Fucking idiot

>>12020622
>It’s hard enough to get enterprises that compete with each other to work together as a team, but it’s especially tricky when one of those rivals owns the team.

>“I won’t mince words here – we do need to get the other carriers on the platform. Without that network, we don’t have a product. That is the reality of the situation.” he told CoinDesk.

>The problem is that Maersk’s rival shipping carriers are concerned about joining the platform on a less than equal footing. Indeed, the chiefs of two rival shipping carriers, CMA CGM (third largest by ship fleets and containers) and Hapag-Lloyd (No. 5), have publicly dismissed the Maersk-IBM blockchain solution as unusable.

Hmmm....

>>12020622
>According to Jensen, “The other carriers basically said, ‘sure, maybe – tell us a bit about it. And by the way, if we do this then who owns the IP rights?’ Whereupon they were given the answer that the IP rights would be for Maersk and IBM.”

This shit right here. They cant fucking help themselves but too try to screw over their competitors.

>>12020659
What is ZKP?

>>12020682
Yeah I guess trustlessness is going to be important to enable rivals/competitors to work together like they want to.... the problem here in this article literally boils down to trust. Or is it more complex than that?

>>12020682
Exactly. People like to FUD BTC by saying "Satoshi/China owns 50%" or FUD LINK by saying "Sergey owns 60%" but the reality is that's nothing compared to "Disney owns 100%" or "Private banks own 100%"

>>12020682
>In all fairness, building big blockchain networks is an unprecedented business and IBM is exploring different approaches to the problem. Jerry Cuomo, Big Blue’s vice president for blockchain technologies, says there are two ways you can go, in his experience: Either start out small and centralized with just a few trust anchors, or choose a more decentralized approach that involves wrangling together a large consortium and is going to take longer to get off the ground.

>“We are not sure that one is right and the other wrong,” Cuomo told CoinDesk. “If you start off small and centralized, the challenge will be getting the next big trust anchors on board. On the other hand, with the decentralized approach, you can have multiple competitors and their lawyers all asking questions and it’s going to take some time. You’ve got to pick your poison,” he said

I don't understand what he's saying. With a decentralised system isn't trustlessness supposed to mean that all this worrying and fretting is actually not an issue? This is obviously a nuance I do not understand and I hope someone can enlighten me.

>>12017569
>FUD
everyone knows kikes are do not share wealth, specially with a bunch of nazis. they will be running business in permissioned (private) blockchains.
LINK tokens are fucking WORTHLESS because permissioned blockchains are tokenless. its not FUD, its just reality.

>>12018403
Brainlets with no concept of technology.
It must of been the same technological delusion when steam cars at first evolved to take over a horses place of transportation. That smartcontracts are doing to the dna of business information and automation that ChainLink faclitates. The 4th Indrustrial revolution is coming regardless of your opinion

>>12020695

zero knowledge proof. it'll allow enterprises to operate publicly (with all the benefits of public blockchain like decentralization) without revealing sensitive information (all the benefits of a private blockchain).

look up hacera. the ceo is jonathan levi, same guy in this picture with sergey and vitalik. his significance didn't make any sense to me until this latest fud.

>>12020695
Trust is literally what all of blockchain and crypto is about. Trust is really expensive. Everyone knows it. And now we have this tech that can significantly decrease the cost of trust and everyone can see it but they all want to control it. But they cant because that defeats the whole point.

Some parts of the economy will be able to switch eaiser than others but eventually the wave will build until everyone has to get onboard or get left behind.

>>12020766
checked
1000 suicides eoy

>>12020164
jesus I just looked that up

>>12020806
>Some parts of the economy will be able to switch eaiser than others but eventually the wave will build until everyone has to get onboard or get left behind.
I wonder when this will start happening...
2019 we should see more announcements of start-ups partnering with the chainlink network and their first mainnets. Some of their mainnets/systems or whatever may also launch in 2020. I guess by the end of 2020 it should be apparent whether they're off to a good start or not, a year after the launch of these decentralised projects, and by 2021 we will see if they are flourishing? I guess it would follow the pattern of any start up. So I guess we need to hold our linkies until 2022 at the earliest... unless speculation causes the singularity before actual mass adoption

>>12020468
yeah yeah im not worried one bit

>>12017683
Not necessarily true, CZ asked the team directly and they gave approval.

Not going to sell this fucking low but I’m definitely to where if we can hit a dollar or close again I’m selling and never investing in anything ever again

How were you so wrong biz

>>12021132

Pathetic

>>12021013
Speculation will kick in at some point on the run up for sure and it will start trading at many multiples of its actually value like most tech stocks are right now

>>12017569
>This is the strongest FUD since Feb-April.
It's the cycle. Trade accordingly.

>t. Pre-SIBOS fag

>>12017569
It is in accordance with the will of the Order >>12021270

>>12021085
>>12017683
this isn't even speculation. binance sent people to the slack to ask, and cz has said they only list with permission.

Permissioned blockchains are literally babbys first step into decentralized smart contracts. If companies are ready to try out their own private blockchains with chainlink oracles, it’s because they have their eyes on using a fully decentralized network with decentralized oracles. Any chainlink adoption is amazing news. All it means is there’s no guarantee we see 1000$ EOY anymore

>>12020314
10/10 post