/biz/ - Business & Finance

Have no fear anon
>>>15117052

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRTqJh1fZpQ

>>15117681
didn't buy TRV?

>>15117681
Thats what you get for putting money into a well-known french scam.

"We will have a new big big exchange listing this week. Hon hon hon hon" .. a week later, nothing happens as usual.

should've bought the link dip
there's still time

>>15118292
This, sad!

>>15117681
why did you buy a trannycoin in the first place

I’m financially devastated. My bags are so heavy

lmao new "exchange annoucement" is just another DEX. The team is retarded and won't ever solve the liquidity problem.

>>15120343
sauce?

Imagine if you had put all that money to chainlink sub $0.4

>>15117681
The other RLC thread died while I was still busy educating the less technologically-inclined. The lesson continues here.
>>15118852
>This phrase... was put forth as the reason why iexec is "game changing", even though it describes the basic function of an enclave.
You are correct that the sentence is describing the functionality of an SGX enclave. Well done. Now if you put your semantic pedantry aside for just one moment you will see that, in context, it is obvious I was talking about the capabilities of RLC. Otherwise it would be a total non sequitur if line one was about RLC, line two was about unrelated technology, and line three was about RLC.
If it makes you happy, sure, I concede it was poorly-phrased and should have been stated more explicitly for the hard-of-thinking. Now, back to the main point - iExec can use SGX enclaves today. That is the point I was making. If you disagree with that point now the the poor-phrasing has been resolved, respond with your technical rebuttal.
>>NOTE: This is an EXPERIMENTAL optional module that can be loaded into chainlink to do some processing within an attached SGX enclave
>So it doesn't say "Chainlink does not support SGX".
>Thanks for conceding you turbotard.
Again, your inability to understand context is the root cause of this problem. What I said was:
>A warning that chainlink does not support SGX and the code is experimental.
I assumed I was speaking with someone with a >80 IQ, but apparently not.
Did you see the warning that says the code is experimental? Good, so you agree I am right that their SGX code is experimental.
Now go read the Gitter archives and you will see Thomas himself saying it is unsupported. I am just repeating what LINK's devs told me when I asked about it. If you disagree, you can go talk to them in their Gitter and explain why they are mistaken about what code they support.

Am I ever going to make it with just 11k RLC?

I am so close to dropping my bags, we've just broken 0.3 and it is dangerously close to going below that again.

>b-but muh superior doracle solution
OH NO NO NO AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>15121024
It is technically superior. That is not debatable.

Talk shit about LINK and you will bend the knee.
Warning to all shitcoins.

>>15121351
No, RLC has superior oracles to LINK. It's a fact and meming won't change it. If you think I'm wrong explain why.

>>15117681
If by "I'm ruined" you mean you're going to ruin your enemies by causing deep envy, then yes, you are correct

>>15121122
how about, you keep accumulating rlc and I keep accumulating link and we see next year who has made the most money? great.

They don't even have a finished product/service yet nigga be patient

>>15121679
Typical closed-mindedness, making assumptions and looking foolish.
I've been holding LINK since 0.20 and I'm still BTFDing. I hold both because they both have different pros/cons.
LINK is obviously doing better in the market and only an idiot would say otherwise. But RLC has better tech, and every time I say this nobody has a valid technical argument to make. Do you have one?

>>15121858
Tech is a meme

>>15122012
That's what people who don't understand the tech tell themselves. Developers make or break projects, and developers do understand the tech.

>>15122066
>he actually looks for 'superior tech' in this clown market
>he still doesnt get the memo
>he is bagholding rlc big time

Bag of tasks is ready and sidechain deployed on testnet. Imminent take off

>>15122119
>he thinks holding RLC means I can't hold LINK too
>he doesn't understand the tech so pretends it doesn't matter
>he thinks LINK made it this far based on memes and doesn't realize it is because of the tech

>>15122218
>he thinks im a LINK holder
your IQ is showing, you really didnt get the memo yet

>>15122361
You've joined a conversation about RLC/LINK and apparently you don't have a point to make about either, you just want to spread your ignorant theory. I'm not the one who needs to be concerned about my IQ.
If you don't understand the tech that's fine but pretending it doesn't matter at all is stupid. Obviously coins with shitty tech can pump, but it still matters especially in the long term.

>>15122427
>blah blah
enjoy the bags nerd

>>15121452
They can't they are all tribalist 12 year old retards

>>15122427
youre arguing with the willfully ignorant, stop wasting your time. In saying "you have no argument" to his responses you have made your point.

>>15117681
WHY DIDN'T YOU LISTEN?

5/15
NEVER BAGUETTE

>>15121452
Is anyone using it?

>>15123750
Very soon
Development stage is happening right now

>>15117681
Coinbase passed on your illegal security coin. It's over Gilles

>>15123889
hahahaha you faggots have been saying that since two years now. TWO FUCKING YEARS AND 0 USERS!

I can't wait for what the next excuse will be after V4 launches and there are still no users.

Tranny here, we baguette gilles fedak and he baguettes stupid bagholders, that's the nature of things.

anyone wanna summarize what this does for someone with an IQ below 80 like myself?

>>15125264
>>15117052

>>15117681
Odds on when rlc will announce theyre using chainlink in a desperate attempt to appear relevant? Id say by eoy. Any takers?

>>15117681