/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17462696
At this point they might as well announce which projects/chains aren't using Chainlink.

>>17462744
This
Every single blockchain will announce a chainlink integration by EOY

>>17462744
checked

Wh-who?

>>17462744
>>17462755
Checkt

>>17462744
>>17462755
BSV will not be using chinklink never will

because https://youtu.be/9K8rszB8hAg

>>17462709
kek

>>17462696
ok now this is based

>>17462696
What's the point of a slow, expensive and useless price feed again?

>>17462794
It becomes as useful as Ethereum with Chainlink and Arbitrum.

>>17462780
I said every single blockchain, centralized cash grabs are not included

Off topic but i had a nice dream last night. Bitcoin dumped to 33$ i got scared that Link had dumped too but it pumped to couple hundred $ instead. Very comfy

>>17462794
Ask Swift, Google, Oracle, ETH, Consensys, and half of all crypto.
It's just you who are pretty dumb.

>>17462696
Fuck yes
Been waiting forever for the chinks and the koreans to get here
Let the bull run begin

>>17462744
Based and checkdd

>>17462696
Still worthless outside of speculation

>>17462780
Even BSV will eventually somehow bend the knee

Nothing of importance is being created on the etc chain. Nothing. Worthless

>>17462744
>>17462755
>>17462811

Do you feel it?

>>17462874
The three first companies you named have nothing to do with chainlink at any level resembling anything beyond startup initiatives. Stop making shit up, your p&d scam is over

>>17463099
Keep em coming, I won't stop checking. This is the big one.

>>17463099
>top performing hold of the last year
I-it's Over!

>>17463099
So ask them why they worked with Chainlink.

>>17463099
>th-they have NOTHING to do with Chainlink!!
>except of course for their initiatives with Chainlink

gj

>>17463099
Your post has nothing to do with anything that's actually factual.

>>17463130
>>17463144
>>17463151
>>17463218
>>17463275

>Blockchain startup initiatives are partnerships
>Blog posts are partnerships
>Billion dollar companies REALLY need a slow, expensive and ultimately useless webscrapper for reasons

I'll say it again: p&d is over.

>>17463307
>muh specific definition of partnerships
Let's ask Forbes.

>>17462696
But what does this mean for my 20k ERC20 tokens?

>>17463325
forbes is a meme you moron

>>17463374
this
>>17463099
checked
>>17463307
and this

2017 is over stinkers

>>17462744
Dero won't. They have their own, better solutions. Without any secondary point of failure solutions.

>>17463374
>>17463384
Cope.

>>17463420

>>17463420
Forbes is a meme. Doesn't make link any less bullish.

>>17463432
Yes anon, Forbes is a meme. Whatever you say anon. Yes yes.

>if you want you can use this product with our product
>ooohhh it is partnership

seriously how can you be this delusional. if google really be in relationship with chainlik, any kinda of relationship, the team wouldn’t work their ass of to get a slice of defi market. nothing chainlik can offer got any interest by big players.

>>17463463
Just cope.

>>17463494
thank you for proving me right. that is not partnership and google cloud platform saying you can you use this product IF YOU WANT.

>>17462744
checked and (You)'d

>>17463506
>Google actively shilling a project they worked with Chainlink on
>"not a partnership"

Juuuuuuust cope.

>>17463516
https://twitter.com/gcpcloud/status/1232834847208550400?s=21

Google never used word “partnership”, if they had partnership with link, they would tweet like this example and use partner word.

again, google cloud platform had 15K tweets and only has 3 tweets about link this is not shilling. this is just saying you can use this product and also hundred of other products with us if you want

>>17463568
>Google never used word “partnership”
Neither did Chainlink.
Forbes did for instance.

Why are you so obsessed with your specific definition of "partnership"?
Google and Chainlink worked on this project together, and it's something that would obviously benefit both.

>>17463516
example contact as in not a real contract

>>17463582
I just love seeing you faggots spiral deeper and deeper down the copen't rabbit hole.

>>17463579
oh my god you’re hopeless. they didn’t work “together”. one temp dev wrote a blogpost about a service and nothing more.

>>17463638
>they didn’t work “together”.
But they did.
Google Cloud even ran a testnet node.

>everyone on /biz/ thinks ETC is shit
>omg etc partnership! this is bullish!
there isnt even anything on twitter besides that one random site

>>17463663
Of course it's bullish.
Both actual ETH and ETH Classic are now partnered with Chainlink.

>>17462696
So like a scam fork of a shitcoin factory is using a Jason Parser to scam moar people into thinking this is moar than a cash grab?

>>17462696
>The Standard
Kinda funny how xrp shills tried to push their junk as a "standard" when its going to be Link. XRPers are in for a rude awakening when they realize their coin is useless without Link.

>>17462744
chainlink is becoming a single point of failure for the whole blockchain ecosystem
what could go wrong?

>>17463955
>decentralized oracles
>single point of failure

Words r hard.

>>17463961
decentralization won't help if there's a bug in the code

>>17463970
>the entire internet is worthless because there could be a bug in the code

>>17463889
>XRPers are in for a rude awakening when they realize their coin is useless without Link.
da fuck? You do realize millions of dollars of ODL is going on right now with no LINK used at all. LINK is just an oracle service for transferring data, not wealth. LINK will never be used for what XRP is doing simply because its not for money settlement. Plus, LINK's tps is slow as fuck.

what linkies really should be scared of is Ripple's codify. Codify will make XRP work also as an oracle service and could replace all of link's partnerships

>>17463961
The most advanced decentralized oracles ever built taken down by one of Sergey’s wage cucks

>>17464061
>typo in the contract
>"CHAINLINK HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN"

Is BTC "taken down" every time someone mistypes an address?

>>17464029
>LINK is just an oracle service for transferring data, not wealth.
peak midwit

>>17464029
>You do realize millions of dollars of ODL is going on right now with no LINK used at all.
the point is, not trustlessly.
as an example, if moneygram ever uses it, there would be centralised oracles for getting transfers off chain to on chain
points of trust

>>17464072
It is the fault of the person typing if the address is entered wrong
It is not the fault of the user of the decentralized oracle centralized by one rogue employee
Your analogy doesn’t work

>>17464107
>It is the fault of the person typing if the address is entered wrong
Yes.

>It is not the fault of the user of the decentralized oracle
They are one and the same.
The contract is a list of things the user wants.

>>17464115
I can choose to type the address correctly
I can also choose to not use a decentralized oracle.
So your argument is that I can either live with the risk or just not use the service/dapp
This is a contradiction to your bullish sentiment

>>17464061
>>17464107
Wow the fud is bad today, it’s not even amusing. At least make it funny that’s what I’m here for. You should feel bad.

>>17464168
>cope

>>17464148
>I can choose to type the address correctly
Just like you can choose to type your contract correctly before you hand it over to the decentralized oracles.

>>17464491
should have been updated and verified in test before it went to production

>>17464491
>typing your own decentralized oracles

>>17464499
This is still the initial stage.
There are going to be third-party auditing services for smart contracts.

>>17464501
I literally said "typing your contract".

>>17464520
kek you don't understand any of this

>>17464527
Says the guy who doesn't understand any of this.

You the user draw up your contract, and then have oracles carry out their part of said contract.

>>17464535
We are talking specifically about a flaw in the "decentralized" oracle. The user has no control over this.

>>17464087
LINK is purely for transferring real time data and nothing more. theres no wealth transfer aspect about it. Thats why SWIFT likes it, because it allows them to update their payment process programs. SWIFT does not use actual money transfer like XRP is trying to do
>>17464105
>if moneygram uses it
why do all FUDsters say IF. Moneygram already uses XRP. Its already posted financial records of XRP cutting costs.

>not trustlessly.
And LINK isnt? What do you think KYC certified would mean? Thats what all the major institutions would have to go through on the Chainlink network, and the major institutions will only do business with others that are KYC. Chainlink has no actual solution that supposedly makes it decentralized. It just doesnt, and every coder that has seen the code knows this. The fact that LINK uses KYC makes it not as trustless as XRP.

XRP already knows that the banks and major institutions trust each other, so it allows for greater technological leaps than something like chainlink which combines both.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ripple/comments/76wb3t/ripple_is_not_a_trustless_network_this_is_a_good/

Moneygram will not stop using XRP because they know with the current setup sybil attacks will never happen. If banks actually feared the supposed centralization XRP has, then we wouldnt be getting so many partnerships every week (bank of america, bank of egypt, etc)

>>17464546
>We are talking specifically about a flaw in the "decentralized" oracle.
No, we were talking about the XAG/XAU typo from last week.

>>17464566
>LINK is purely for transferring real time data and nothing more
That's how transactions are done over the internet: transferring data.

>>17464574
>The human error occurred while seeking to improve the XAG/USD network by releasing additional data reliability features requiring an update to the smart contract’s configuration about the specific job IDs being run by node operators servicing the XAG/USD oracle network, leading them to incorrectly request a gold price (XAU) instead of the silver price (XAG).

The error was due to human error on the ChainLink team side, hence my point that you keep missing.

>>17464611
>The error was due to human error on the ChainLink team side
Yes, because Chainlink were the ones writing/updating this particular contract.

It's up to the user(s) to write the contract correctly.

>>17464566
>Its already posted financial records of XRP cutting costs.

xrp contirbutes 11mm to operating costs
they claim they saved about 10mm

i think there is enough to at least question if ripple are paying them to use it
will see how next financial records look

>>17464616

>>17464626
Nice self-portrait.

The oracles worked exactly as intended.
The only issue here was a typo in the contract that the oracles had to follow.

>>17464645
>No, we were talking about the XAG/XAU typo from last week.
>Yes, because Chainlink were the ones writing/updating this particular contract. It's up to the user(s) to write the contract correctly.
You're a brainlet

>>17464661
The contract said "XAU" instead of "XAG" in the contract.
This was the typo.

Are you having a stroke or something?

>>17464664
The "contract" is in reference to the XAG oracle contract. You are an absolute brainlet.

>>17462696
I CANT FIND THE SOURCE ON THIS!???

>>17464661
>>17464645
the genius is nobody knows

if it was chainlink, they were vague enough about who did it and changed the conversation to how they'll fix it (multi-sig) quick we kinda forgot to care

or it was the partner and chainlink kinda sorta vaguely took responsibility instead of throwing one of the customers (/sponsor of the feeds) under the bus

either way, pretty slick PR wise

>>17464688
>The "contract" is in reference to the XAG oracle contract.
Yes.
And that XAG contract incorrectly instructed the oracles to query "XAU" instead of XAG.

What is going on with you? Are you drunk?

>>17464699
>It's up to the user(s) to write the contract correctly ChainLink's XAG Oracle contract correctly

>>17464700
>the genius is nobody knows
But we do know.

The contract asked the oracles to query XAU instead of XAG.
And the oracles did their job perfectly.

The contract is always going to be written/edited/chosen by the user(s). There's no way around this except to read people's minds, and even then their thoughts can be incorrect.
The only fix is to have some kind of auditing/review/reputation system for contract writers/auditors.

>>17464708
In this case Chainlink is the user who wrote up the contract.

What is it that you're not getting?

>>17464713
>But we do know.
who?

>>17464713
>the contract asked the oracles to query xau instead of xag
imagine if I could make 40k by writing a contract to query the wrong letter

>>17464720
Everyone.

Look at the transactions: the oracles worked perfectly.
It's just that the contract asked them to query the wrong source.

>>17464732
who made the contract update, brainlet

>>17464731
>imagine if I could make 40k by writing a contract to query the wrong letter
The same "exploit" exists today in mainstream contracts.
You can write contracts benefiting only you all day long. It's just that nobody will take them.

>>17464743
Chainlink did.
It's their contract.

>>17462709
Underrated

guys try finding the official statement by eth labs. You cant. The source of the article is ETH labs community. So what the fuck? I cant find the official statement...

>>17462696
Based and stiff.

>>17462709
Biz is not dead

>>17464228
I want funny fud, not your shit swing trade 100 link while at your moms house fud

>>17462780
Not a single peep about how external data enters the blockchain.

You are completely ignorant about the very basics of this.

>>17462755
This. Those who doubted will eventually come around to the truth that has been talked about here for OVER 2 YEARS!

>>17462696
>ETH Classic
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

>>17464766
read the blog post again
you could assume that, but they dont say it

>>17463961
>implying chainlink oracles are actually decentralized

>>17466317
>you could assume that, but they dont say it
They literally say it.

>>17466345
Chainlink launched with three independent nodes in parallel. It was decentralized from day one.

>>17462696
Oh for fucks sakes. Who the fuck asked for this?

>>17464566
>LINK is purely for transferring real time data and nothing more.

https://twitter.com/chainlink/status/1228462083328618496

It only does everything now.

>>17462696
Who fucking cares they deploy the same code they probably didn’t change a line

>>17464821
https://twitter.com/etclabs/status/1233029328767725568

>>17462696
I am up 150% on my portfolio thanks to chainlink

>>17462744
Swift it is

>>17463099
>outperforming the whole market year after year
>"your scam is over"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHH

>>17463568
>never used word "partnership"
>use partner word
Learn to speak English you cum-guzzling stree-shitting Pajeet

Link Fantom collaboration confirmed

>>17463955
>ethereum is becoming a single point of failure for the whole blockchain ecosystem

>>17463099
>The three first companies you named have nothing to do with chainlink at any level
>s-startup initiatives don’t count!
The absolute state

>>17463568
>>17463638
Is this you?