/biz/ - Business & Finance

in short:

yes. no doy.

>>13404000

>>13404000
this is insane. so youre telling me theyre gonna actually put fucking derivatives smart contracts into high value nodes? that would be insane, like billions if not trillions of dollars.

>>13404029
scammer, dont listen to him

>>13404029
Pajeet scammer detected

>>13404000
It's all true

>>13404046
Derivatives are quadrillion, not trillion.

>>13404000
Also remember that for a legal smart contract to be considered legally enforceable it has to be triggered by a decentralized oracle.

>>13404000
>token price can hypothetically rise to meet any implied astronomical value, therefore link $10k eoy
That's not how price works.

>>13404077
on the low end, they're trillion. we dont really know.

bottom estimate is ~20 trillion, medium estimate is ~500 trillion, high estimate is ~1.4 quardillion

>>13404089
according to which law

>>13404000
OP's ID says it all.
Link 4k EOY'19
/t

>>13404107
According to the law firms developing the standards for legal smart contracts.

>>13404029
Bullish for link. Everything he touches turns to turds.

>>13404117
>LmRMhoow

yup... it's all here. plain... as... day...

>>13404144
nice dubs =)

>quadrillion dollar industry

The state of erc20 token holders

>>13404159
thanks fren

>>13404107
Mong's law.

Can someone redpill me on LINK? I don't even get it I just like to ignore linkies and call them stinky but I'm ready to listen.
Doesn't it only allow for decentralized access to data APIs? Why is that even useful the API itself can be faulty or give bad data

>>13404096
How does it work then?

I need fudders.

>>13404343
Read the screen shot for starters.

>>13404386
That doesn't answer my question

>>13404343
here's the linkpill, one token will be worth over one million dollars in ten years

Why waste time discussing vapourware?
It's all just fantasy until you have A WORKING PRODUCT developed by QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED ENGINEERS working to A PLANNED BUDGET and TIMETABLE.

>>13404401
That sounds like a suggestion. What is your question

>>13404466
My understanding is that chainlink ensures decentralized access to APIs and provides collateral to ensure that the data feed is correct. But why is useful when the Data API could be wrong itself? The LINK node would be providing true information regarding the data API, but it would still be wrong.
Or do I not understand correctly?

>>13404343
u just need to trust our almighty father Sirgay the rest dont matter

>>13404401

from what i know.

Gold Price

the gold market is 24 hours taking place in multiple locations around the world. There is not just 1 API source for this data. there are many sources, many markets.

A decentralized oracle network (chainlink) eliminates the risk of 1 faulty API source. It eliminates the need for people to manually check the input or output of smartcontract data since the data is decentralized and works peer to peer in some way.

With this tech chainlink network enables smartcontracts to work like robots, contractual automation without oversight. true trustless execution.... wow, a lot of people will be jobless cause of something like this.

Can anyone confirm if I have that right.

>>13404428
That’s just like your opinion man

>>13404000
What the fuck? How many newfags are on this board now?
Link tokenomics have been discussed to death for the past year and a half. Any legitimate FUD for it would have come during that time,
your thread is no different. This is the reason I rarely even come onto this board now, any serious discussion for LINK is long dead.

>>13404508
Right, but in the event that an API fails, is the node responsible if it correctly reports the information from the faulty API? And in the case of limited APIs what happens? If there were, say, 10 APIs and 2 failed, would the 'true' information be decided as the majority? If that's the case does each contract need to rely, and therefore pay, for more than one nodes services?

>>13404420
I want to believe. I never even dreamed of making it and I was fine, now it entered my imagination and I will be disappointed... I bought 500 just in case but it all seems too good to be true

>>13404499

To further exapnd on this.

Sports betting (another huge market for smartcontracts)

There is one game BUT many APIs reporting data as the game goes. There is not just one source for this data.

Chainlink oracle network will tapped in to all the APIs reporting on this one game aggregating data. This ensures that one faulty API will not effect the smartcontract outcome. The data can be trusted, it can be relied on to never be down and always tell the truth.


Do we have this correct?

>>13404547
Thats a little over my head. I haven't looked deep into that yet. but thas why i started this thread.

if I had to guess and from what I know, the node is not responsible for delivering exact API data even if the API is faulty. I believe the node operator will be penalized if there is intent to deliver conflicting data from an API to try and influence the network.

That is my best guess. But im gonna ask the admin in the telegram to get clarity.

anyone else want to chime in

>>13404547
No. The node would check all 10 and write off the bad apis before submitting. 1 node for a job in most cases that does all this work for your contract.

>>13404597
Thank you anon, so a node operator only loses their collateral in the event that the majority of Data APIs send faulty data? And I'm assuming that the node operator charges some fee that would correlate with their collateral offered and the inherit risk with their chosen data APIs?

>>13404000
Based trips. Problem is Link is basically like postage stamps. You can transfer a gold bar to your mum through the postal system by adding a £4 stamp to it. But the stamp is only worth £4. Link is the stamp, not the gold bar. That’s Bitcoin.

>>13404547
Do you code solidity?
If so, you ever create a contract on remix requiring an oracle?

The problem you're describing is a reason why chainlink exists. When you create a contract requiring off-chain data, for example a betting contract dependent on a coin flip, your main choice of an oracle would be oraclize. The function would look something like:
Function coinflip() payable {
oraclizeID = oraclizequery("wolframalpha","random number between 0 and 1")
}

From this function, you can infer that the execution of your betting contract is dependent on the outcome that oraclize query's from a web page. That means that your stream of income 100% relies on up time of oraclize and up time of the webpage "wolframalpha' in this example. If instead you decide to decentralize your oracles, then the contract can pull "random number between 0 and 1" from any oracles willing to provide that data. In this example, using multiple nodes is unnecessary but if you really wanted to, you could receive an output from multiple nodes and have the network aggregate a "random" response for you, again it would be unnecessary. In this case, you decentralize your oracles to maximize the up time of your revenue stream.

>If there were, say, 10 APIs and 2 failed, would the 'true' information be decided as the majority?
If you have 10 different nodes pulling data from 10 different API's and 2 of those nodes were pulling data from 2 faulty API's then the network would flag those responses as outliers and aggregate a response from the majority. There is no finding "truth" as that would require some form of advanced AI.

>does each contract need to rely, and therefore pay, for more than one nodes services?
The more nodes you chose the more expensive it is to execute your contract. This is under the assumption that more nodes= more security. You essentially pay for the amount of security you want on your contract.

>>13404688

You almost got it right. You for got to add insurance to the package.

LINK is the insurance. So if your gold bar your sending is 1 OZ = $1300. the nodes delivering data will need $1300 worth of LINK.

>>13404949
Yep, so the ChainLink node owner will need to commit thousands of dollars in order to earn pennies, or be steam rolled by link nodes willing to undercut them.

When this information gets through their thick heads the absolute TORRENT of salt will last us for years

"How did you make your billions, anon?"
"I read a shillpost on 4chan and FOMO'd into the right coin"
A typical success story

>>13404000

the level of delusion. sergey for prison. a long sentence for fraud. you're all idiots. as for the newbies, don't buy into this absolute scam. put money somewhere where it matters. it is a known fact members of chainlink post here and they pay people tokens to post here.

>>13405072
Truth my man. Chainlink is vaporware on par with Theranos

>>13404688

except you can't add value to a useless erc20 token with no network. all these terms you guys are making up are nonsense and the entire problem you guys have is entirely made up. people will use the api they need and even ethereum isn't possible to really contract and do much on due its constraining solidity language.

>>13405080
>Theranos

A much bigger fraud. I think sergey went into with the right intentions but he and the team are clearly unable to deliver. what they'll get him on is using paid posters and the ponzi scheme he's set up here with biz users.

>>13405038
the rumored number is 10% to 15% income earned for providing data. Not sure if this is monthly, daily, per transaction or yearly.

Either way. what a return that would be.

>>13405064
Worked for early buyers of btc, eth, neo and nano. Amongst others.

>>13405064

Yeah, it was called

Bitcoin and Ethereum

Now....

Chainlink

>>13404343
I will blackpill you. Decentralised oracles are a meme. Imagine you receive an input signed by a corporation (thing of how certificates work). Your data is then validated and with legal implications. Voila. No need to do a media with several inputs, which probably do not exist or you dont want.
Do not invest on open source middlewares or second layers. Do not invest on dapps or tools. Invest in the core, the real thing, the main thing that matters the most.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are the only needed projects, everything else is replaceable.

>>13405124

One invented the blockchain. The other... invented a way to technically put software on a blockchain.

And chainlink... invented a way... to market on the internet by getting paid posters and team members to post anonymously to create excitement about a product that will never deliver.

>>13405072
I need fudders stronger then this.

This is weak fud. can you dictate how the Chainlink netowork wont work or wont be profitable? Rather then just calling it a scam and thats all.

I have yet to find real fud. Cmon biz. Im about to go all in on Chainlink. I need FUDDERS. REAL FUD. STRONG FUD.

Is there no one out there that can do a decent job of this?

>>13405114
>>13405124
I wrote that after reading this post and FOMO'ing into Link myself

It was self-derogatory

>>13404949
This isn't true.
It is not at all set in stone how much collateral is required, everything will be determined by the contract creators. While collateral certainly could equal the value of the contract, I imagine it will tend to settle at a level that ensures nodes return accurate data. Striking a balance between cost (fees and rewards) and reliability.

>>13405146


Great fud HOWEVER This has been addressed above.

The problem with your scenario is that

1. your single source of API data can go down. it can be faulty. if this is to happen it would automatically make the smartcontract null and void. and really, the whole purpose of decentralization is to create a system that can be automated.

A chainlink decentralized network is a worker that is
1. always on time
2. always comes to work
3. never gets old
4. never gets sick
5. always tells the truth.


Need more fudders please. this is helping me greatly.

>>13404654
No they would lose their penalty if they didn't report what was judged to be consensus by the apis selected. You are one level out. Its the oracles that are in question here. The author of the smart contract has to choose their apis at time of writing contract. The api is not a link issue. If you put shit in you get shit out. In other words Anon don't worry about the apis it's not your problem.

>>13405146
you are definitely going to make it

>>13404524
This.

I thought this was some genuine new insight into Chainlink, but it's just a newfag discovering Chainlink. Even more pathetic are the genuine newfag fudders who don't understand Chainlink.

Literally a couple of videos of Sergey talking will answer 90% of the concerns.

>>13405201
id like to add

a "input signed by a corporation", a single API data feed, is a worker that

1. can have days off via a vacation
2. can call in sick and need maintenance
3. can get tired and work slow
4. can have off days and checkout once in a while

Any of these options above negates the whole purpose of smartcontracts and decentralization.

>>13404524
This is extremely bullish

>>13405157

It won't be profitable because you don't need the service or even much less to attach a token. Even if they do somehow manage to build it, the token itself won't act liquid enough to have such a network facilitate it as a form of payment. It is just layers and layers of unnecessary redundancy.

>>13405242
*not

>>13404376
There needs to be a demand for tokens that exceeds supply at x price in order for price to increase. People won't buy up tokens just because the network supposedly 'needs' a certain amount of value to handle certain contracts. People would only use the network for certain contracts when it's certain that there is enough value and demand contained in the network to maintain the necessary token price.
In other words, the Link network has to serve consistent amounts of inelastic demand (that is, demand based on unavoidable business costs) in order to support a baseline token price upon which contracts of arbitrary value can be safely staked.

>>13405108
This is the pre mainnet era. The post mainnet era will be interesting since the team has mentioned that they will go to mainnet if there are users ready to use.

The tokenomics are very interesting as well. You can either run your own node or stake/"lend" your LINK to a pool where the node will use your LINK to get bigger contracts and thus more profit and then give the profit minus fee back to you(or you restake it). Now this means you'll earn passive ROI while your LINK stack is the same/growing. This will make LINK holders unlikely to sell all their stacks since they can just sell some of their staking rewards. Now this is where stuff gets really interesting. If nobody is selling their whole stacks, but the demand for offchain data is growing and more people want to run nodes to get staking rewards, then the price will start to climb high and I mean really high until the staking ROI is lower than traditional stock funds ROI. Also with Bitcoin and Ethereum, you had to sell to get profits since you couldn't stake them. With LINK that's not the case. You can keep your main stack and sell your staking rewards or just let your LINK stack grow.

>but anon crypto is risky, just in case I'm going to sell 50% of my stack at $100

Why is crypto risky? Because it's all speculative. The moment Chainlink is up and smartcontracts are regularly paying for off-chain data, it becomes less risky.

>>13405337

So basically the LINK token value is correlated to the Smartcontract economy.

the larger the smartcontract economy the higher the LINK token price

The higher the LINK token price the more stable the network for the smartcontract economy will be.

How is this fud?

>>13405157
DUDE, just give it up & go all in

>>13405452
I don't fud, I share understanding. But it is fud for the simple fact that there is still no smart contract economy based on 'legitimate' inelastic business demand.

>>13404089
Did you seriously just pull that out of your arse? Shame on you.

>>13405513
Why is there a shit bucket on your wrist?

>>13405513
>Voluntary retard stamp to prevent mating with a high IQ partner

Dysgenics in Motion™

>>13404556
it is. I owned thousands of link for a couple years. As i got more into crypto i realized it was retarded and i put everything into bitcoin. now i'll only do mainstream cryptos because everyone's a scammer out there

>>13404000
There is a second forthcoming service that will require Link be staked in order to ensure the security of the underlying network.

Cap this.

>>13405624
That would be EUgenics you stupid down-syndrome having drooling helmet-wearing retarded mongoloid fucking dumbass special ed dropout. Chainlink 1k eoy

>>13405606
>>13405624

Insurance smart contracts will never happen.

We can all agree that the entire insurance industry works by only paying out on a portion of their policies (as determined by the actuaries) but collecting premiums from all of them. Well, what happens when every single policy has to have the entire amount held in escrow until the policy is over? By defnition, that would bankrupt the company and tie up all of their cash flow. If the money is not held in escrow, then it can't properly be called a smartcontract, as the payout would not be guaranteed.

Insurance smartcontracts will never happen.

>>13404524
A breed of newfags popped up after the November crash. They are blindly entering discovery phase.

[Redacted] without pages of fudding has allowed them to discover without the same fear and uncertainty many of us were repelled with 14-20 months ago

>>13405723
of course it could. mutual escrow-account. percentages covered are public and transparent. too many policies triggered at once, draining the account. re-insurance with smart contract for that.
and nellie's your aunt

>>13405723
>my imagined rules detail the only realistic scenario
Nice

>>13405670
Tasteful

>>13405670
Lmao fail, why does every linky who gets a tattoo of the LINK logo, look like they did that shit themselves, tattoos are the one thing you don't cheap out on...

>>13405820
>>13405830

>>13405847
Mark of the beast, you sold yourself to satan.

>>13405847
imagine if they exit scam

>>13404077
Unironically what's a derivative

>>13405867
Same thing as shorting a stock

>>13404000
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

>>13405114
I'm a boomer by 4chan standards and used to hang out on /g/ from 2010-2011, I'd see endless btc threads where people would talk about mining it to get rich. I had all the money I could spare (only about $3000) ready to invest, I mentioned it to my brother, and he told me to put it into the stock market instead because there was no way btc would ever replace credit cards. I still agree with that argument, but fuck BTC went up for little reason and now I missed out. Never again. This is why I hold 5,000 LINK even if it's not enough to make it. Autistic people here called BTC and ETH, and LINK seems to be the endgame or just a giant meme.

>>13405879
>Same thing as shorting a stock

>>13405867
at its simplest, it's a financial agreement to insulate yourself from risk, like insurance.

"if jet fuel falls below $W per gallon, you agree to subsidize me $X. also if additional stipulation Y happens, you'll do Z for me."

the if/then nature of most derivative agreements makes them IDEAL tagrets for coding in smart contracts.

>>13405513
>>13405670
>>13405847
Strangely enough I'm starting to feel a slight sense of regret and pity for these people, the feeling of shame creeps up on me and I ask myself if the red herring project hasn't gone too far? These young impressionable minds are branded like cattle for life, by our doing. How can I live with this heavy burden upon my conscience?

I have often confronted my fellow Bizraelites in our secret Bizraelite discord but they are cold as steel, they put forward the idea that morality is a man-made concept and that all those who follow blindly deserve what is coming for them. I disagree, however.. I think it's our wholly duty to protect those who are misguided, to bring them on the right path and to not any longer let them wander the path that leads to their doom.

Hereby I am reveiling to you, my fellow humans.. that you are infact deceived by a cunning group of con-artists and morally abject sociopaths. The coin that we, the true Bizraelites, have plegded our full allegiance to is FTM. LINK is and always has been a red herring, one of the best quality there is, I must add. It is the prime noobie trap on this board and is meant to usurp capital from unknowing naive fomo'ers.

I know I am going to get a lot of slack for this and I might be putting myself in grave danger here, even though I am behind 9 proxies I am not certain my life is safe here. Do with this information what you please, just know that I fully cleared my conscience here by outing these freaks who have haunted this board for years. If this message gets deleted I have been compromised.

Godspeed anons.

- T

>>13405938
You're still a confused coattail riding hillbilly grasping at straws.

>>13405901
> Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL

based

>>13405855
>>13405866
>>13405956

>>13406004
You're going to regret that when you're an old lady, tramp.

>>13406022
Yes, this.

>>13404089
Source
>dude just trust me

>>13406108
It's in the archives you lazy nigger. Spoon's closed.

>>13406117
Rekt your dreams, OP

>>13406022

>cant even reach 1 fucking dollar for 2 years

>>13405879
Yeah no

Discussing Link technicals in 2019?
What is this..? Bizarrobiz?

>>13406167

This post is like day 1 of Link Marine boot camp.
So many fresh and innocent faces.

>>13406167
>Golden Casio

Stylish AND cheap, he's gonna make it.

>>13406290
>>13406493

As a burger am I actually allowed to run a Link node? What exactly is the issue with Americans and Link? Could we just not participate in the ICO?

>>13405580

Yes, so its like I said. The value of LINK is correlated to the coming smartcontract economy.

If one does not believe in smartcontracts then they should not invest in LINK

If one believes that smartcontracts is going to be a big part of our future then "go all in" on LINK

hmmm. being that I personally think Smartcontracts will be the standard form a contracts LINK could possibly overtake bitcoin. The market cap of this type of economy is in the trillions if not quadrillions. Derivitives, insurance, sports betting etc. The list goes on and on.

LINK market cap mirroring the value of smartcontracts means we can't even put a number value on it. $1000 seams like it would be fud at this point.

>>13406631
edit

*standard form of agreement (instead of standard form of contracts)

>>13405847
>>13405670
>>13405513