/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24532462

>>24532546
where?

>>24532462
I used to Fud it a lot. Eventually gave up as people are gonna do what they're gonna do. Let me know if you want to debate it.

>>24532731
not my pic. Just stole it form this board

>>24532819
I don't know if I have much to debate anon. I just think there's no point in FUDing it anymore. People see how game changing it is. FUDing just seems like a waste of time.

I think everyone fuds chainlink because we all know the oldfags left and sold and now there’s only discord trainnies and autistic underaged faggots. Also we will not forget the rock solid LARPing you niggers did. It’s so cringe I’m glad I barely see anymore of it nowadays. To wrap this up, there’s plenty of very successful projects out with different use cases and you dumb niggers jump into every single thread to fud it and shill chainlink.

>>24532845
Okay, so let me dust off my old Fud. First off let's try to keep the ad hominem at a minimum as it's a complete waste of time.

So Link wants to secure/insure data processes. However the systems that are in place now actually work better with centralization. Let's take insurance for example as that comes up a lot, and unless I've mistaken there is an African insurance company of some sort that is actually paying for Link, though I can't confirm this - this being one of the only sources of revenue it has.

Let's take car insurance.

5 years ago I got in an accident, I had to call my insurance company and they sent out a claims estimator who assessed the damage.

A year ago I got in an accident and I simply took pictures of the damage with the insurance companies app. I imagine they had a claims estimator assess the damage without needing to leave the office, where they can process many times more claims in this fashion.

It's likely in the near future, it will be pictures I take with my phone, where an AI system assesses the damage automatically. With this, there is potentially need for one a single software entity, and much less humans.

There is no point in which the insurance company needs to insure that the data is true. It's all centralized. If the company has bad data or lies then the company will suffer of its own accord. Business will go elsewhere. Competition keeps the data in check.

There are very few systems in which the data is binary enough where Chainlink is needed.

Take gambling websites. There are countless transactions that all need to be secure and accurate, if even a single metric is incorrect, the company is at risk of insolvency. These numbers have to be completely accurate all the time. Because encryption exists, the data is secure, because the free market exists, the data is incentivized to be accurate. If either of these conditions are not met, another company comes in to meet the demand for a reputable gambling website.

>>24532955
>there’s plenty of very successful projects out with different use cases

Actually there aren't. How many profitable crypto companies are there? As in earnings and not simply being overvalued by people buying their coins? What adoption are they seeing?

>>24532731
Phoenix, AZ.

I went there for a business trip then stayed for some personal time, stayed at an airbnb before my flight the next day and ran across this on the building (not this picture, this place has been posted numerous times). it was surreal.

Jealousy. Imagine being a buttcorn maxi or methead and have your gamble be outperformed by link

>>24533142
>>24533259

Also, Link and Bitcoin share very little if anything in common. Bitcoin is a truly decentralized medium of exchange. Link is centralized, the amount of key people that can completely change the code is trivial. Chainlink is a private company, Sergay will be the first to admit that they have to sell their tokens to stay afloat.

This is the equivalent of a publicly traded company selling off shares. For example Virgin Galactic did this recently, they announce it before, investors are righteously irked, and they sell off shares.

With Link there is such procedure, they simply sell off as many tokens as they like, and the amount of centralization with these tokens is extreme. This can be looked at as a positive as the founders control most of the supply thus they can protect the market.

All of this isn't FUD as much as it is simply something people forget about. It goes completely against Bitcoin and the irony here shouldn't be ignored. I'm not necessarily attacking Link in this regard as much as I'm attacking peoples conception of it. It's not anything like Bitcoin. It's simply a private company offering a method of incentivization to protect data feeds that's inspired by Bitcoin.

>>24533142
literal brainlet
jesus christ
https://www.artemis.bm/news/arbol-transacts-11m-notional-through-weather-risk-platform/

token not needed

imagine tanking link ceo dump every week

>>24533363
and again
we don't want it like bitcoin, they're religious zealots
meanwhile sergey has a massive warchest to subsidise early node operators and users and grow the team
look at vitalik and how he now wishes that eth foundation had more control of the supply, look at emin's new project and the distribution
this is literal plebbit tier thinking... yeah let's give control to whales and holders to speculate and not those who actually 'do'

>>24533460
Wasting your time with the name calling. It just makes your position look weaker.

This is a very niche product market fit. Simple weather statistics can be gathered easily. If some sort of entity decides to lie about how much it rained last week, that entity loses its credibility. I'm sure there are all sorts of agencies or aggregate that track weather, when entering into a contract, both parties agree on the tracking source and everyone is happy. You're only adding another step by forcing an intermediary in between this data feed, who simply gathers the same information, but is incentivized to stake a cryptocurrency in order to ensure the data is accurate. It's a needless extra step.

Importantly, there aren't enough instances where this type of data transaction is being thwarted by bad actors or bad feeds. It's an interesting idea with no demand. That's why no one is using it in any meaningful way.

>>24533505
They're not zealots. It sounds like you haven't given it it's fair due, and a year ago I was fudding Bitcoin as well. There's nothing else in history like it and it's our chance at making the economy (our lives) better.

I respect your opinions on Links ecosystem, though I mostly disagree. Link runs on ETH, so if ETH goes down so does Link. ETH is very centralized as well, not excited about that.

>>24533633
you need an oracle for that
chainlink is framework for composing oracle networks. do some reading and thinking before posting stupid shit
what has happened to biz
here's a simple spoonfeed you might get
https://smartcontentpublication.medium.com/chainlink-low-level-infrastructure-for-inter-oracle-competition-f3d0f327b458

>>24533698
im saying theyre zealots in how they view distribution
they see anything else as a shitcoin due to this and you are caught in the same way of thinkng
you are repeating things you have read but havent thought about

It was good there are much better investments now, link is overvalued we want the next link

>>24533712
What's your take on The Graph?

>>24533712
>>24533742

There is a problem here that comes from a priori thinking. What I've said is my own line of thinking and I haven't read it anywhere actually.

The centralized systems that are already in place don't need this oracle intermediary. I'm saying if both parties are honest then it doesn't require an intermediary. Both parties are incentivized to be honest just as humans are incentivized (via evolution) to be good. The bad actors get flushed out naturally via the free market.

What's more is that the nodes have to collect the information from somewhere, why can't that information be bad? They're only insuring that the information they collect is valid, not true.

Furthermore, this doesn't require any sort of cryptocurrency. Why can't Chainlink set up a system that ensures these data feeds by people using dollars? Why does it need to be a cryptocurrency?

Do you take part in baseprotocol.org? What is your opinion about it?


Read about their cooperation with Uniswap. As I get they are going to produce liquidity pools there and have already created Cascade services with passive income solutions.

>>24533921
what is a smart contract? look into exisiting digital agreements
the information can be bad... yes...
it needs a payment mechanism. obviously people won't be paying in link, it'll all be running in the backgroudn

>>24534005
A smart contract doesn't require crypto.
A smart contract is simply code (if y is true, then output x), this can be articulated in simple code (and is, it's called software).
Can crypto use smart contracts, sure. But you can design software that executes command based on inputs regardless of crypto. Can those inputs be designed around nodes staking cryptocurrency via oracles to validate data? Sure. I think that there is a market for this, but its inclusive to crypto (ETH) and niche. Does it warrant a 5.5B market cap? I'm not so sure. My questions were rhetorical, the information needs to be true and an oracle can't decipher truth as it's hindered by the source. It also makes things a bit dicey when these contracts are potentially immutable. This smart contract simply executes, and if a mistake was made - it doesn't care. And there is no reason this system needs crypto. It can be designed around any asset, a centralized one adds more complexity.

I know the prophecies, I've heard them. But a world that centers around Chainlink being this universal arbiter of information doesn't make enough sense. It's cool, but it hasn't found a clear path.

>>24533921
You seem like a person that wants to give a good faith line of reasoning.

I'm totally new to this stuff even though I shouldn't be (mined btc as a kid but never gave it much attention since I lost my wallet with a few hundred coins as a kid, finally gave up on figuring out the wallet's keys).

How should I go about researching crypto as an investor? I know how to trade securities and options well, but want to have some money in crypto again, so I'd like to learn a lot about it.

Thanks for your time.

>>24534154
>mined BTC as a kid
i have bad news, you're still a kid.

>>24534154
You should go back to where you began. Bitcion. Look up Michael Saylor and Raoul Pal - they have hundreds of hours worth of valuable insight and offer the most topical insights on where it's headed.

This is all happening now and a lot is happening, I wasn't much into Bitcoin even about a year ago. There's a paradigm shift that's happening with institutions moving into this space.

>>24534170
That really helps. I will make lots of money with this knowledge, where should I pump your dump, asshole?

>>24534228
So looking into how eth, link, xrp, pnk, and such aren't worth the time?
And thanks for the suggestions on those people, I'll go read some of what they write.

When the fuck is staking?

>>24534352
I know how boring Bitcoin might sound. But it's a rabbit hole, the more you learn, the more you become obsessed with it. I could go on and on on Bitcoin for hours.

I don't want to shit on other projects, but I'm all in Bitcoin right now. Doesn't make any sense to not be when so much has happened macro wise recently. Watch their talks on YouTube. If these guys don't convince you, no one will.

>>24534151
the important thing is not to be tough on yourself. all of us here in 2017 and 2018 needed spoonfeeding on this stuff
the big thing is that you need to understand this from multiple layers
first blockchain (you are missing parts of the puzzle here)
then smart contracts (no, you still don't get this - keep reading)
then chainlink
a big thing that you're really caught on is that truth needs be perfect or "absolute". we're not going to get that in many use cases. but we're going to get as good as we can and that by itself unlocks a lot
again, we were very lucky cos we were surroudned by high iq anons would helped us
you do have everything all in front of you but you have to read and research. so it's easier but harder. but you dont have to deal with the brutal fud from those days
dont spend too much time here tho, just keep an open midn and read and then it will all make sense
good luck

>>24534460
Thanks for the advice. It seems pretty sober and straightforward.

>>24534555
the first thing you need to do is stop believing anything anyone says
you need to learn to think for yourself
the anon here who doesn't get link is a good example. he might not get it but he is actually thinking and that should be admired
but yeah, don't believe anything anyone says.
just read

>>24534664
for those who dont get this
see the node operator list here: https://feeds.chain.link/
https://www.t-systems-mms.com/en/expertise/archive/smart-contracts-made-reliable-and-useful-with-the-real-world-data.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Systems_Multimedia_Solutions
dev ops teams with years of experience
hence the chainlink kyc fud
defi is the testign ground. it's importatnt to get that

>>24532462
The javascript has been hacked and now all LINK nodes are being affected, meaning they will go offline one by one.

But here's the real trick; every node that goes offline first has to be validated by other nodes, Thus the first node won't go offline until EVERY SINGLE NODE has verified it actually has gone offline

LINK will be in an infinite javascript loop. Maybe if you're a programmer you will recognize FOR and WHILE loops. Well.. This is a FOR loop that NEVER ends.

The price will TANK to at least 100 satoshi. Maybe even lower when the nodes are actually verified being offline.

Sergey is now busy setting up extra nodes to undo this process. Called contra-hacking. He has injected some GO-language code, pseudo-offline code, into the ChainLink network. This means nodes will appear the be online, while they are struggling to go offline, but in the meantime they cant because it isnt verified yet. Neat trick if you ask me, but it wont last long before the other nodes will know whats really going on.

Link is dying. When it went to five dollars the first time founders dumped it to $1. They are doing it again.