/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12441689
>transfer 1000 RLC or die
>beep boop

>>12441829
It's only us 2 shillinf iExec. We're doomed bro

>>12442041
it's ok
theyll fomo in a year or less once they realize their shitcoins are scams

>>12442041
not it's not ALL IN brah here lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

>>12442083
sup allin brah its rlcbro
basically the only shiller left on biz after biz went full LINKmode
we used to have more executioners but i think most of them gave up

it makes no sense, it's like they can't see the future

Bump. Shilled this back in november 2017, a little worried about the nerds not understanding tokenomics, but still holding strong. It's obviously worth more than right now and has very real potential for a real moon mission. Link might make this obsolete tho

>>12442216
is link a second layer cloud computing solution?

>>12442227
Yes

>>12442264
How?
Can you post a link that says anything about it

>>12442227
Not exactly sure what do you mean by second layer but chainlink is a middleware essentially, a protocol for moving data safely in the web3.0. It also utilizes sgx and tee's for secure off chain computations.

>>12442268
Its common knowledge dude, I'm not gonna waste my time posting a link for you just like I don't have to prove to people that the earth is round

>>12442293
Then how come when i google "chainlink cloud computing" nothing comes up?

You can't say it does something and then go "iTs cOmMoN kNoWlEdGe dUdE" when google doesn't even show it.

>>12442288
it still doesn't sound similar to what iexec is doing at all

>>12442268
Chainlink doesn't do writeups, you can go see the pivotal tracker, but if you are particulary interested in the cloud computing side of things you should google town crier, some good papers about the ins and outs of the protocol written by top tier academics in their fields

>>12442328
It is basically the same, decentralized cloud computing. I have to admit I haven't kept up to date with iexec so maybe I've missed something

>>12442360
It's most definitely not the same. iExec is a marketplace for decentralized cloud computing with verifiable contributions as well as a dApp platform while LINK is a decentralized oracle for smart contracts to deal with information outside of crypto.

I don't see how you can make a connection between link and cloud computing.

>>12442346
Town crier was officially merged into chainlink a while ago. Like I said still holding rlc still. There is room for more than one player and maybe iexec will outperform link with focusing only on one thing. The dapp store is bullshit tho imo

>>12442386
Take a look at town crier sir

>>12442391
How is the dapp store bullshit?
Have you seen how many dapps there are now?
Some really cool ones, too, like troubadour.

>TC is an authenticated data feed for smart contracts, a.k.a. an "oracle."

So, again, nothing like iExec.
I agree though, even if LINK does encroach upon what RLC is doing, they'll probably both have niche advantages to one another and will both survive.

link is the next ethereum and will make every other crypto project obsolete
the json parser can easily add cloud computing capabilities

>>12442445
LINK isn't capable of off-chain trusted computations. Prove me wrong.

Also, I refuse to buy a coin where 65% of the supply is centralized.

>>12442439
Take a closer look at TC if I may suggest. You have a point tho. About the dapp store I'm just not feeling it, seems like a hassle. Hopefully I'm wrong and people will love it. Will take a look, been out of the loop with iexec. You make it sound promising again. Thanks

>>12442492
It's a hassle right now because it's still early stages. They definitely need a UX upgrade/simplicity pass.

iExec is definitely worth keeping an eye on. I agree that LINK is great but I don't think they are working to accomplish the same thing. I'll do more research on TC and cross compare with iExec but I can't see how it would enable the same thing iExec is doing.

All you pajurks are really arguing about this shit?
9000 shitcoins doing the same shitty thing, none of them is anything until someone big start to put effort in it, just a bunch of losers or scammers trying to make money from nothing.
What does effort mean? Takeover, engulf, and obviously to put a big cocky amount of capitalizaton on the token.

>>12442468
From the white paper

5.5 LINK token usage

The ChainLink network utilizes the LINK token** to pay ChainLink Node operators for the retrieval of data from off-chain data feeds, formatting of data into blockchain readable formats, off-chain computation, and uptime guarantees they provide as operators. In order for a smart contract on networks like Ethereum to use a ChainLink node, they will need to pay their chosen ChainLink Node Operator using LINK tokens, with prices being set by the node operator based on demand for the off-chain resource their ChainLink provides, and the supply of other similar resources. The LINK token is an ERC20 token, with the additional ERC223 “transfer and call” functionality of transfer(address,uint256,bytes), allowing tokens to be received and processed by contracts within a single transaction.

>>12442510
Not really arguing, just trying to state what we think is doing what so we can come to a better conclusion of what coins are capable of doing in the future.

>>12442537
So how does LINK do offchain computations? Is there a marketplace? Is it CPU or GPU based?

For example, how would LINK do this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUDO8BeeqBg

Also, is LINK blockchain agnostic?

>>12442567
The token is a different erc standard with a cabability to contain data and trigger computations. It utilizes intel sgx for enclave computations. Yes chainlink most definitely is blockchain agnostic, thats the main thing, blockchain middleware, data to and from legacy systems and all the different dlt systems with external adapters. I hope you are invested mate?

>>12442638
So the token serves multiple functions. It is the medium and the currency. Only thing it can't really do is run as a virtual machine. Iexec might be capable of that

>>12442567
Think about natural selection: whenever the market will decide the winner there will remain only 10 tokens, no matter if their protocols or their informatic mumbo jumbo is better or worse.
If you think to OS there were no reason for ms-dos to win the competition, and still it won.
That was because the probability of win that specific competition was based upon a very wide number of variables, not just the informatic one.
Imo a new token has some chance to survive if it brings a radically new approach, or if it's a meme and his founder is very fat.

>>12442638
Yes but can it do GPU computations? I don't see how this would be possible.

I can't see LINK controlling robots/AI like iExec can.

>>12442683
I don't agree with one coin takes all mindset.
I think LINK will be good at certain things and iExec will be good at certain things, each respectively good in their own specialization.

I think once iExec hits v4 with GPU and high performance blockchain we're going to start to understand the importance of a technology like this.

I'm not sure how LINK is going to be used within the world, to me it just seems to be a portal for people to use to do crypto-related stuff with non-crypto payments. I bet someday you'll use LINK to use RLC.

>>12442685
I don't really know about gpu computing. It could with a data and computing layer it uses, ocean protocol, but I got to admit I don't know. Thanks for further convincing the legitimacy of iExec

>>12442717
And I appreciate your attitude, we need more anons like you at biz

>>12442717
Link and RLC are completely different usecases, I don't see what the argument is about.

I own both RLC and LINK for outter solar system rocket mission

>>12442735
Yeah, GPU computing is why im really excited about iExec v4. It might enable some really interesting things.

Okay I'll have to look into ocean protocol, thanks.

Definitely, and you as well. It's great when you get to /just talk/ about shit and try to come to some sort of rational idea of what is worth what and not "MUH COINZ THE BEST BUY IT".

I know that both LINK and RLC are possibly some of the most valuable coins you can acquire right now, but I just wish the linkies would stop hating on RLC so much. They're both great coins doing cool shit, and that's why I'm trying to open their minds a little about RLC because a lot of people just pass it off as vaporware without looking deeper into it.

>>12442717
iExec is interesting, not questioning this, but its success (or the success or its dumber cousin) depends on the probability it will be adopted or not by big companies.

As a coin it's too nerdy to make it among 9000 similar coins.

>>12442820
Well, funny you say that it depends on big companies adopting it. V3 is the enterprise edition that is coming this year, and there's chinese cloud companies, intel, ibm, and ubisoft interested in it/partnered with them...so...

>it's too nerdy
What does this even mean?
>among 9000 similar coins.
Can you name some?

>>12442818
You're doing great job at that. And it's pretty fucking cheap right now. I went into this conversation with very weak arguments and was just throwing around ideas and memes, but learned a lot and got serious answers. You're based brother. I actually feel lile I owe you an apologize. Bless you anon

Fundamentally rlc seems like a better buy than link. Iexec is already on v2 and releasing v3 this year. Link hasn't even released V1 so itll having growing pains to start... yet its worth 10x rlc. Makes you think.

>>12442838
Golem

>>12442838

Ok, so probably as a protocol it can succeed.

As a coin it can't, as the entire cryptomarket could'nt in the long term.
To the eyes of a pajeet and to those of a big man with a lot of money wanting to invest in something, what's the real difference between rlc and btc, or rlc and another one? Protocols? Please.

And of course i'm not attacking this rlc, the same problem is true for all the coins in the market right now.

>>12442820
iExec is been promoting itself to companies instead of normies from the start. This is not your average cryptoscam. This a legitimate project with pioneers on its field.

Partnered with multibillion chinese companies, Intel, IBM, Ubisoft, and a long list of other smaller companies ready to use their products.

>>12442888
This anon has a point, succesfull protocol does not neccessarily mean a well monetized protocol. Link tokenomics are a piece of art, just pure genious. Other anon has a poiny with rlc being 10x cheaper. Also it's way way below ath

>>12442877
Rendercoin is a meme.

>>12442865
Thanks man, I'd consider myself the main shiller of RLC on biz. I know there used to be other ones but they seem to have left. iExec has pretty mediocre marketing, so I think telling people about it here is going to help some of my biz bros out.

It's cheap as FUCK right now. it's literally 6 cents under ICO, and there's only 80M circulating coins. If I were a value scalper I'd buy it based on that fact alone.

>>12442868
Interesting, I never considered that. But also, maybe link is a better buy because it's so "young". Then again, crypto is retarded, projects with real working products are ridiculously underbought.

>>12442877
>Golem
No. Golem is focusing mainly on rendering. iExec is a marketplace for computations and a dApp platform. iExec is far ahead of Golem if Golem ever managed to step towards dApps or a marketplace for assorted computations.

>>12442888
This is delusional speak.
The PoCo (proof of contribution algorithm) is the main reason why the token is so useful, and why iExec is so useful in the first place.

The PoCo makes it so every computation is "proofed" and trusted. It's a very interesting algorithm and I think some of you should research it.

>>12442927
>iExec is been promoting itself to companies instead of normies from the start
Yep. Another reason why I bought below $0.20.
Those large companies wouldn't attach themselves to iExec if they thought it was shit.
>>12442932
RLC's tokenomics are pretty decent. Maybe not as good as LINK but they're not absolute shit. You have to stake RLC, and buy it to do computations. Of course people will be selling it off, but in the future computations are literally going to be a form of value(they already are, but they will be moreso). There might be more value in holding RLC as supply gets eaten up/staked.
Yes, it's very far below ATH too. For no reason too.

>shilling scamlink in an RLC thread
I literally wish death upon anybody who even owns just 1 Link. Jfc fuckoff already.

>>12442927
So it's probably more correct to interpret their token as a valuecoin, like stocks you can use to buy something.
Not saying that it won't succeed, but in this bearish and saturated situation i suggest to start interpreting things with a different mood.

>>12442977
Ms-dos had a shitty filesystem and it beat competitors, apple had a revenge when reinvented homosexuality, not for the fact that his system was better.

>>12443034
It's more correct to interpret the token as a computecoin. You use the coin to acquire decentralized computations via marketplace or dApp. Some of the dApps are extremely interesting and I'm excited to see the future ones.
>https://dapps.iex.ec/

>using past centralized companies as an example of future technology success
Please stop.

>>12443065
Also, for anyone wanting to learn more about how to make your app decentralized with iExec it's a pretty interesting insight.

You will literally be able to just transmog your app into a decentralized one with iExec.

https://medium.com/iex-ec/how-to-decentralize-and-monetize-your-application-with-iexec-51d3027c6aef

>>12442932
>Link tokenomics are a piece of art
Can other anons confirm? Is the chainlink tokenomics really that good? I'm a brainlet so I don't understand the whitepaper

>>12443065
Who in earth would need to acquire decentralized computations, a part from big centralized companies? Your foolish hungry garage company of hipsters? Go back to shreddit please.

>>12443109
I can't confirm because I don't fully understand how chainlink will have value outside of running a node.

>>12443157
>a part from big centralized companies
Do you realize how dumb you sound by shrugging off the interest of giant companies?
They could literally pump iexec 1000x by themselves.

Other then that, idk if hungry garage company hipsters would use iExec. Maybe in the future there will be a use for them. Remember, iExec is capable of turning most apps decentralized.

I think that's iExec's true power. Being able to take a centralized app and make it decentralized fairly easily.

>>12443186
The interest of giant companies can be in the protocol only, not in the coin, they can change idea and destroy it.
Did you see a big capitalization in iExec? I see 4.127 BTC at the moment, basically nothing, the big companies shaked some hand and said "cheers", nothing more.

So it can be a success as a system but it can also fail as a coin, like the other 9000 coins out there, a part from LINK obviously

>>12443279
You speak like you don't know what iExec is or what the token does. I'm sorry but you are just being delusional. Your fud makes no sense.

>volume meme
The volume is whatever right now. It randomly shoots to 3000 BTC on news hype.

>>12443321

You speak like the technical aspect of "what the token does" is the only one, and since there was a general hype on that sort of shillcoins in 2016-17 you and the other nords really believed that people care about the tech specs, but that was just a bubble, so was the entire 2017 ico's thing.
Not talking badly about this specific shitcoin, but man, face the truth, it's 2019, your computational mumbo jumbo weaponized token will survive? Hard to say.

>>12443604
You quite literally cannot name another coin that is doing what iExec is.

You are betting against cryptocurrency as a whole it seems, good luck.

>>12443604
> The volume is whatever right now. It randomly shoots to 3000 BTC on news hype.
This is BECAUSE no one got a shit, not many can exactly distinguish a scam from a value project, there's no base, no rules, technical analysis does'nt work, and the wales are slapping their big dicks into the market of altcoins (that is almost all connected to bitcoin).
Beautyful period indeed.

I'm not betting against the crypto nor against iExec, to be clear i'm thinking to invest in that token, but i'm just pointing out some weak aspect of the whole thing.

On the same field of iExec it seems there's maybe AGI, DBC? Don't know.
At the level i'm considering basically all the coins on the market are the same.

>>12443734
>At the level i'm considering basically all the coins on the market are the same.
This is how I know you haven't done enough research.

It's really hard to understand your english and your ramblings make zero sense.

>>12443784
>It's really hard to understand your english and your ramblings make zero sense.
It's because hipsters like you are most comfy in echo chambers, surrounded by good english speaking bearded fags, smelling each other farts.
Please tell me where you did'nt get my arguments, i can put more effort.

>>12443854
lol
Your "arguments" are a bunch of random nonsensical ramblings with pajeet level english.

Thank you for derailing the thread.

not selling until $300
still accumullating

>>12443888
You're vesry welcomes, hope you have bester lucks with your reddists post.
This fucking board is full of trolls, admins shoudl do something.

>>12443917
I'm still accumulating as well but I'm a top 250 holder so I'm pretty content with where I am.
300$ is a very good selling point. I can see it reaching a bit higher but that might be too long of a wait. My sell point was $400, but I may sell a bunch if it reaches 100$

>>12443942
>This fucking board is full of trolls
speak for yourself

>>12443972
Omg it's you, Gilles?

>>12444075
Yes. THIS is how you command a room.

>>12444102
Shilling your own coin on /biz/? This is very mean and pajeetish of you Gilles.

And, omg, an alt-coin FROM FRANCE? this is very embarassing.
I was planning to invest 50$ (and make it boom, according to its actual market cap) but i changed my mind, thank you Gilles.

>>12444156
you are welcome sirs
good one sirs
french people OMEGALUL

>>12444172
At least you're not an hipster, but just an uber french noerd shilling coins at 4am on 4chan because you can't waste your rlc capital to buy yourself a pussy.
But you got the vision, the insight!
DeREEEEEEEEEEEEilled post

>>12443972
explain

>>12444252
They basically have this network in which apps share decentralized processing power, the power is sold via this token.
If there's a lot of apps requesting to join the network and there's a real demand of processing resources, the token should rise in price.
Processing power is the value upon this token is based, if companies accept to put all their dicks at once in that fake-decentralized ring called "the magic Gilles fairy word in which there are no clouds except Gilles one, and he gets finally laid".
Sorry for my poor explaination of this big phenomenon.

>>12444252
basically this >>12444431
but i also think staking artificially increases the price as well, despite them not thinking so.

>>12444638
It's a nice idea Gilles, full of "if", the good thing is the willingness of convert hashate into something useful, the bad is to convince hard users to switch to that platform and assure them the price of the goods they are buying will be stable, and it can't be, since it opens "processing power" to speculation,
Basically you're allowing jews to stop network services with money, good job!

>>12444819
Stability of the token doesn't matter.

>>12444431
si like link

>>12444846
> me own an Hospital,
> me need RLC to keep online services running
> me pays 1$ for 1RLC and it's very good
> RLC goes 20x

what then?

>>12444929
Pricing is relative and set by the market.

>>12444966

Tell me how this alleged computing system run by miners but exposed to (((financial speculations))) can be better than using a normal cloud computing service with fixed price/performance ratio.

>>12445084
Because centralized alternatives will not be able to compete with the prices and services offered by iExec/decentralized alternatives.

Decentralized alternatives are inherently cheaper to use. Zero upfront cost, zero maintenance, and it's a free market environment.

If you're worried about the price volatility of the token while using the tech you don't understand crypto.

>>12445109

No, i just don't get why and how someone would buy this thing to actually use it and not just for mere speculation, which is his main purpose at the moment (like the rest of the crypto).

>>12445352
Because when you're able to do anything on iExec that you can do on centralized services for 95% cheaper, then people are going to be buying and using the fuck out of RLC.

>>12445383
for 95% cheaper NOW, but then?

France is very good at starting coins to cripple things that work btw.

>>12445473
lol are you a retard?
95% cheaper no matter the price of RLC or the time.
It will always, ALWAYS, be cheaper to use a decentralized technology than a centralized one.

Here's the thing, if Ubi$oft and Intel even show a SHRED of interest(and they did), guess what, that thing might have some sort of value. They don't fuck around with their money or time.

>>12445501
Yes i am, explain me please:

>Company buys rlc
>Company uses rlc to pay miners who act as servers
>Miners receive rlc according to the hashing power
Right?

>>12445529
It's pay-per-task not according to hashing power

You have the basic idea down though.
>company buys rlc
>company uses RLC for a job/task to be completed
>company choses a miner for the task
>miner gets paid in RLC and also stakes RLC for the PoCo algorithm to work
>Miner returns product to company (verified by PoCo to prevent fake miners)
>Miner either stakes or holds/sells RLC.
>repeat cycle

dapps work differently but im not sure how they work fully. I just know that they're connected to the marketplace and work in a similar fashion.

>>12445584
So there's a contract between client and miner setting price and conditions of a certain job?
Maybe this involves some asic company too? xD

>>12445619
Can't do asic yet(or maybe ever idk)
but GPU computing comes with V4 in 2020 i think
so who knows
but yes, im pretty sure that's how it works between client and miner.

Like, client goes "hey i need 1 robot to take a floorplan of this building for this price" and miner goes "okay i like this price" and takes the job

or possibly "robot floorplan miner - I am ready for jobs at this price" and company goes "okay i need this"

it probably works both ways, but also, dapps work differently than specialized market based jobs.

https://hackernoon.com/blockchains-need-iexec-the-market-just-hasnt-realized-it-yet-5597c743cd0a

read this

It's useless. It's a fucking meme. You don't need decentralized cloud computing. The only reason to buy it is to dump bags. There is a huge difference between untamperable smart contracts and decentralized ____ shitcoin projects.
>muh cloud computing is a big industry
nobody fucking cares, banking is a big industry, go buy babb

>>12445783
great fud pajeet 10/10

>>12445383
where are you getting this 95% cheaper figure from? such a thing seems impossible

>>12446143
Centralized alternatives are overpriced and will not be able to compete with decentralized alternatives.

>Lei Zhang (Former Intel employee and Leader of Security R&D at iExec) meeting with Hui Zhang (Director of Blockchain Department at Ant Financial) and the blockchain team of engineers.

>Ant Financial Services Group, formerly known as Alipay, is an affiliate company of the Chinese Alibaba Group. Ant Financial is the highest valued fintech company in the world, and the world's most valuable unicorn (start-up) company, with a valuation of US$150 billion.

this is now 3 connections to companies worth over $100B

>>12447043
>this is now 3 connections to companies worth over $100B
/comfy/ as fuck
feels good knowing you bought the absolute bottom of the next 1000x

>>12447043
Yeah they've got huge connections but price remains low while scams are on the TOP30 crypto. It's depressing.

>>12447043

This seems like a really good reason to go balls deep in RLC. I don't really get the tokenomics but it seems so fucking undervalued and I think at some point this thing will rocket.

RLC will take a few years maybe 2022 or 2023 but eventually it will emerge as a sleeping giant.

>Thinks Intel will use a unregistered security

This is going to end in tears

>>12441829
IExecutive reporting in.
How much to make it sir?

>>12447623
This FUD is unoriginal and old. Try something better.

I'm a top 200 holder and adding every week
Pretty comfy seeing how undervalued this project is compared to the projects on the front page of cmc

i'm a (i'd like to think) non-biased holder. rlc is ok, but having too much techies in it is not that great of a thing. the team is smart as hell, but they're still too technical. they really need a more marketing/customer/user-oriented side to polish their communication process

i have a stack of 15k, working towards getting 30k as an end goal. need a clear explanation of the tokenomics and the team needs to address it at one point. we still don't have a straightforward explanation for that and that's adding an additional risk to RLC aside from its inherent risk of flanking a huge, highly competitive market with a disruptive and untested tech

you guys say it's undervalued, but i think it's around it's real CURRENT value. most of the cryptospace is still painfully overvalued so that skews a lot of people's judgement.

looking forward to this spring so we see what's up with the new version rollout. in a longer term, this can easily go to $8-10 PROVIDED we get good tokenomics.

>>12447664
t. too dumb to read security law, but thinks a Burger corporation will be ok with violating the law...imagine them explaining that to the share holders.
Delusional!

>>12447750
>you guys say it's undervalued, but i think it's around it's real CURRENT value.
Possibly in a vacuum. But in the crypto speculation world it's severely undervalued. Link fully diluted is worth around 500m. Iexec? 16m. Golem is at 60m and only has 1 blender dapp currently possible. Iexec is an entire marketplace with connections to multiple billion dollar companies. If omg had the same connections it'd be back above a 1b cap...

>>12447623
You're plain retarded, Intel has presented their SGX tech along with iExec in the same fucking stage. There's multiple tweets from Intel devs working along with iExec. iExec is their main demo for SGX. So stop being retarded and research a bit more.

>>12447839
>So stop being retarded and research a bit more.
Wow great, its still unregistered security!
Do some research instead of falling for the hype..

>>12447895
IBM is literally a worker provider for iexec. But i guess you know more than IBM... Your FUD is so 2018.

>>12447954
this is still a project that is unreleased, still time for them to drop out and keep the research. the share holders will be happy to hear how much the company saved by using the research others paid for...

You can't respond to the unregistered security claim cause you either don't know about securities or you agree that is has that possibility!

The FUD is a real possibility!!!
FYI that was me that started that FUD

Will V3 this year change this thing's price?

>>12448198
I hope so. I'll off myself otherwise