/biz/ - Business & Finance

it's already been recovering from like 3500 sats, faggot

>>4025459
new exchange will save this coin

>>4025467
I cant wait for it to hit 1$ so I can sell and never hear or think about this coin again.

When you spiritually let go of it and allow it to fullfil its destiny.

Don't you know crypto operates on the quantum level?

>>4025476
>when it hits $1

uh anon...

>>4025459
In order for it to "recover", there must first be:

1: Actual news. There hasn't been any.
2. Another exchange. It's too easy to manipulate on Binance.

It's going back to around 4k sats until there's a real reason, other than FOMO idiots, for it to pump.

>>4025476
If it ever goes to $1 it'll go past that.

>>4025502
Never say never in this insane market.

>>4025476

You probably won't want to sell when it hits a dollar.

>>4025459

Three types of news will be released in regards to ChainLink:

1) Exchange news. Hopefully it won't be too long before other exchanges are announced, considering how serious and game changing this token is. Especially being ERC20, it should not be difficult to implement. On top of that, LINK has been in the top 40 by volume for weeks now, so it should be expected that other exchanges want a piece of the action.

2) Team news. As Sergey said about a week ago, they are hiring new "technical staff", whatever that means. I can't imagine that would take more than a couple of months.

3) Adoption news. This is the big one, and would involve enterprise business signing on to use the ChainLink ecosystem as their preferred oracle service. This is almost guaranteed, given the high level interest already, and when it is announced LINK will exceed its ATH almost instantly. The problem, however, is that this news could be anywhere up to a year away. Who knows how long industry will take to get their head around. The good news, though, is that Sergey pointed out that the general level of blockchain literacy at this years SIBOS was FAR higher than at last years, both at a technical and a managerial level.

This coin is going to be huge. In the meantime, however, it is going to be a big test of holders' patience.

>>4025529
Someone tell that rory fag that they have 33m of ICO money. Surely they can hire someone to handle exchange listings. Fuck even a minimum wage pajeet will do.

>>4025459

>he fell for the pump and dump

What happened to all the hodl till lambo? 2018 2019 talk? Can we all agree the technology behind this could possibly open the floodgates and have wall street money pouring in?

this is my safe haven coin that can x10 to 20x in a year...all my short day trades is just to collect more LINK :)

>>4025476
News that makes it hit $1 will make it hit $5.

Ahhhhhhh, it's dumping again.

new exchanges and hiring marketing within this year alone will make it go $1+

companies and fintech companies, insurance, gambling, among others will start to buy link tokens...just one hedge fund can bring this to $1 anytime. with adoption next year...this is easy $5+ and in 2019...this is gonna be $20+

>>4025703

Yeah but let's not forget the acceleration of crypto

Link will be $200

Screencap this

t. Whiteowl

>>4025459
Jesus after that huge green candle it's right back to where it started.

Fuck.

>>4025827
Christ, I'm glad I dumped this. Will rebuy sub 4K after Nov fork.

>>4025703
This is painfully naive. A large portion of the coin supply is meant to be GIVEN for FREE to organizations so that they can adopt the tech a little or no cost. Something like 30% I believe.

>>4025923
nah its nots. if this gets adopted big style like paypal and shit, everyone uses it. like every damn onlineshop etc. they cant give everyone free tokens. ofc this wont happen by 2019, but long term its possible, keep in mind crypto is booming the next years, mindless idiots are going to buy everything thats in the upper charts, just for the sake of it.

>>4026083

Yeah it is. Read the white paper section on token allocation.

>>4026196
Its for node operators

>>4025703
none of them have to buy link to use smart contracts
you need to do some research

LINK will be 1k in 2020
Cap this

>>4026234
Yes u do. Did u even read the whitepaper. Tokens are paid to node operators. Node operators will be given link as an incentive to set up nodes. Im assuming big partners will be given some link. But eventually everyone who wants to use the network will need to buy tokens. Come on man. Think.

>>4026299
>Tokens are paid to node operators
from sergeys massive reserve. and a very tiny portion is paid out to node operators.

>But eventually everyone who wants to use the network will need to buy tokens
you dont need to be a node operator to use the network.

do some fucking research and stop believing bottom of the barrel pajeet shilling

>>4026321

So what makes the token have any value then? Why even bother investing in LINK?

>>4026321
You are retarded. Seriously. Ofc you dont need to be anode operator. But you need to pay tokens to the node operator. Do you get it? No one is going to use the network for free. Think man. Use your brain

>>4026328
exactly. the only cryptos worth a shit are ones used as a currency. link is not a currency.

>>4026346
going by your logic, assets and commodities have no value either because they aren't currencies

>>4026357
This guy is dumb. He thinks sergey is going to give free tokens away forever. Lol. And companies are just going to use chainlink for free. No bro. You need to buy tokens and pay them. How hard is it to understand that.

>>4026378
I think he knows the answer and is being retarded on purpose

>>4026345
you don't need LINK to run a node.
It's supposed to make your node more trustworthy or whatever.

>>4025514
>>4025602
This is the kind of retarded thinking that makes you faggots poor

>>4026357
show me some crypto assets and commodities?
your logic is retarded.

>>4026378
sergey is going to give 650m tokens away for free
deal with it

>>4025459
Umm it's up right now.

25 cents will be the new norm, from analysis

>>4026419
>show me some crypto assets and commodities?
Tokens.
>your logic is retarded.
No u

>>4026419
you clearly dont understand how this whole chainlink thing works.

>>4026489

How does it work then?

So ist this a good point to invest for a newcoiner? Or should i wait till its sub 0.20 again?

>>4026941

If you want to hold for a year, then yes. This is pretty much the best thing you can buy. If you want fast returns then no.

>>4026419

>sergey is going to give 650m tokens away for free
>deal with it

Yes, they'll likely incentivise businesses to use ChainLink by giving them some for free. At some point in the future, there will be 1 billion tokens in circulation.

But at that point, with so many businesses using ChainLink, the ecosystem will be unbelievably robust, and therefore incredibly valuable.

You seem to be suggesting that Sergey is going to give out so many coins he tanks his own project. I think you have to give him a bit more credit than that...

>>4027147
yeah, I mean if all those banks actually adopt ChainLink, and use it on a fucking daily basis, this shit is going way past the moon, and you'll need way more than 1B tokens to stop it

>>4025459
3 things need to happen. First, new exchange. Second, segwit2x fork. Third, good news from the Serge. Hopefully in that order, so that #2 doesn't kill any momentum from #3.
Aside from a few outliers, BTC's bullshit has been kicking the market's ass, and LINK doesn't have the record or fundamentals to stay stable while that's happening. Late November will be its first chance to really grow hard. Hopefully the team is sitting on announcements until then.

>>4027415

It's not limited to banks, though. It's any business that wants to use smart contracts and needs data inputted into those smart contracts in a trustless way. Lots of organisations will want to keep things in house, sure, but there is a very strong argument for decentralised oracles. They allow a business that is using them to demonstrate that they are not unduly influencing or manipulating the data. All they are doing is setting the terms of the contract, and then a trustless system is both filling out the conditions (with ChainLink) then executing the smart contract (with Ethereum or whatever).

The thing about this is that it applies to so many industries and business types that the sky is honestly the limit. And as if that wasn't enough, you look at the entities that have supplied data to ChainLink and you realise the huge end of town is already all over this. BNP Paribas alone has 2 TRILLION dollars in assets.

Even if BNP et al want their own discrete in house system, the market for a trustless service will be absolutely massive.

You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline. Longer, even.

>>4027489
>You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline

NO, I NEED GAINS NOW. IF I DONT GET WHAT I WANT I'M PREPARED TO CRASH BINANCE WITH NO SURVIVORS!!!

but seriously, i agree with you completely. people keep saying we're deluded for thinking this is the next ethereum, but it fucking is. it is the next step in the evolution of smart contracts, if you don't realize how big that is you deserve to be poor.

>>4025459
when you finally capitulatr and sell. that's when the reversal will happen.
Impatient cucks like you never make money

>>4027489
>You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline. Longer, even.
In 10 years if adoption is as widespread as youd like to wish, a bandaid solution wouldnt be needed.
Link isnt the only player in smart contracts and oracles, and there will be more to come.

>>4027540
first mover advantage. And banks wont hop to other projects once they settle on one.

>>4027540

It's the first mover when it comes to the decentralisation of oracles. Yes the ecosystem will grow, yes other players will emerge. But in terms of long term holds I honestly can't think of a single other token that comes anywhere close to this one.

It's use case is so broad and its barrier to entry is so low that I honestly can't even get my head around just how big this could be.

>>4027540
>Chainlink
>a bandaid solution

Confirmed for not knowing the first thing about this.

In order to have decentralized oracles, you NEED two distinct decentralized networks:
1) the decentralized blockchain node network (= trustless backbone)
2) the decentralized oracle node network (= connection between real-world data and the blockchain)

If you think this is a band-aid situation, then you probably think that the ideal solution is a combination of these 2 elements. Which would make very little sense.

You see, blockchain nodes and oracle nodes would be doing two completely distinct tasks; one would be creating blocks, the other doing oracle computations.
These tasks are so different, and the backgrounds and requirements for these two purposes so different, that it would make no sense for these two networks to be combined.

Just like it would make no sense for road construction companies to start building cars.

>>4027540
>2019
>chainlink is an extreme success, more and more institutions start using it
>one link is now $20
>suddenly, out of nowhere vitalik releases news that smart oracles are now integrated in ethereum itself, making chainlink obsolete
>LINK price instantly crashes to 1 cent as every client immediately terminate their partnerships
>vitalik tweets: "I told you fucking faggots that oracles aren't worth that much money. Suffer, you filthy capitalist pigs"

>>4027672

I really enjoyed anon posting some year old ETH threads last week. More than a few anons were saying "Bitcoin will just implement smart contracts".

>>4027672
>"Ethereum will simply teleport behind LINK" the post

See >>4027671

All Vitalik could do, is rip off LINK and create his own decentralized oracle network add-on.

Integrating the decentralized oracle network into ETH would make zero sense.
Ethereum was always meant to be an all-purpose blockchain, and making the oracle network native to that blockchain would defeat the purpose of an all-purpose blockchain.
Also, that would mean that ETH nodes would become oracles as well. It would stop being Ethereum.

Here's Vitalik himself explaining how oracle solutions would be "built on top" of the base layer that is ETH: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/

Since all in all this seems a nice thread with reasonable people, I'm gonna ask you guys what do you think of universa.io
I'm pretty new to ICOs an crypto as a whole, and that seems pretty interesting, especially since it's endorsed by McAffee, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
I'm not even sure if I understood correctly that it wants to replace Bitcoin blockchain.

>>4027672
Same applies to every token. They can implement every feature tokens provide but they won't because that's not the goal of Ethereum.

>>4027807
>>4027768
>>4027710

it was satire, guys

>>4025559

this, everyone is spoiled

The fork was priced in

LINK has ruined my life.

>>4028097
I'm from the future
don't sell

No BS, link won't recover.
After SegWit2x, you'll see a little surge, but there's still no good reason to invest.

-LINK needs swift, swift doesn't need link. SWIFT has a working service and said they're looking into a bunch of new technologies- not going all in on LINK

-Banks won't adopt LINK, middleware services like SWIFT might

-LINK's too complex for normies. E.g in future where LINK catches on, an insurance company is setting up Oracles to monitor alarm/firewall status- relying on Intel's trusted computing platform which is ludicrous b/c:
A- Not out yet.
B- Expensive - banks run 20 year old pc's for a reason
C- Computers are inherently UNtrustworthy (points of failure)
D- You trust a rinkydink website spitting out flight times is well secured/maintained for the pennies it earns? Fuck off.
E- Insurance companies will hire and train a bunch of LINKsperts for oracles?

-This is a crypto board (now), yet most people don't realise how revolutionary LINK could be. Too complex, and when things are too complex people buy Apple. Your aunt Helen who works in the bank bought an iPhone because Android is too complex. Serge can't explain for shit either..

-Separate LINK/ETH tokens + gas charges. Messy. Make a single block chain, with USD backing (like tether). Add Oracles on top, paid for from a single address, in USD based currency. Tokens don't stay in the system long so you don't needa monstrous pile of money to back it, operators work in dollars, oracles monitored in dollars, SWIFT takes a fee, releases a block exporer, sends each bank one cheap dell to act as a node... fucking done. Already better chances..

-For day to day use there's instant domestic transfers, for end users there's paypal.
(when was the last time you did a SWIFT transfer outside of a business setting? You probs used paypal or charged it to a VISA/MasterCard). E.g: Ring company, give own card number. Done. No looking up SWIFT/IBAN numbers, insurance, traceable.

>>4028002
Best meme

>>4028156
This nigger gets it. A well written FUD post to BTFO linkies. Too bad they’re too stupid to understand LINK let alone you’re explanation of why it won’t work out.

t. Someone who also doesn’t understand

>>4028212
Its BS because normies dont have to understand it, also they wont use it, only the banks have to. As an investor only ROI is interesting.

>>4028267
>getting paid to run a node is also interesting

>>4028267
Fucktard, normies have to operate the thing.... while working for banks/swift/insurance companies.

If you ignore the actual user base, you're fucked. The world doesn't run on enthusiast platforms.

>>4028156
Yeah it might be a little early.

> SGX intel is needed

Oracles are still useful without that. Why?

Identical data is pulled from multiple sources => reduces risk that data was tampered with at the at the source

You pull data from several oracles => reduces risk that data was intercepted and changed (man-in-the-middle attack)

> Expensive - banks run 20 year old pc's for a reason

ChainLink will use their existing APIs, they don't have to change anything.

> Computers are inherently UNtrustworthy (points of failure)

A decentralized network reduces risk because there are no longer single points of failure

> You trust a rinkydink website spitting out flight times is well secured/maintained for the pennies it earns? Fuck off.

Oracles pull the same data from mutiple sources.
Several oracles does the same task. This is then compared.

> Insurance companies will hire and train a bunch of LINKsperts for oracles?

It is not particularly hard to set up an oracle. Just rent a server in the could and set up the instance. It is not like bitcoin mining where you need absurd amounts of graphics power. Just let it run and receive your passive income.

> SWIFT takes a fee, releases a block exporer, sends each bank one cheap dell to act as a node... fucking done. Already better chances..

Why ChainLink has a chance to succeed is because it is decentralized. You don't have trust a single entity like Swift, that is why ChainLink is a more trustworthy option.

And also, Swift is not in the oracle business anyway. Swift does banking data. They don't do shipping data, car data or any other countless types of data that ChainLink will be able to handle.

> For day to day use there's instant domestic transfers, for end users there's paypal.

Using ChainLink to aid in payments is just one use case.

>>4028212
not fud, just someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>4025475
No it won’t. If people wanted to buy it they would have made a binance account, it’s not hard to make an account and takes less than a minute. No one wants to buy it.

>>4028528
I have to agree, it being on a fairly unknown exchange like binance might play a role in it not mooning, but the biggest reason is that it's still under the radar. It has huge potential, but it all depends on news/ good marketing now.

>>4028156
So how do linkies actually answer to this? We all know the old institutions are a bunch of technologically retarded boomers, we can't expect them to start using some obscure tech shilled by 4chan autists, no matter how good the tech itself may be.

>>4028692
The whole point of Chainlink is to connect their legacy systems to the blockchain so these retarded boomers will never have to understand blockchain tech at all.

>>4028447

> decentralised oracles

In a perfect world. In reality, you'll have 10k people as data sources for stupid shit like 'time' (not profitable), a few who could be legit sources for e.g. 'flight times'. meaning they could absolutely be calculated on different criteria (do we have 5 guys at heathrow hammering in flight times 24/7?), and single point of failure for data sources like firewall stats & alarms. E.g. 1 oracle monitoring the state of each alarm in a public building. Is it one central computer that handles this, or are there multiple SGX PCs monitoring each? At what point does routing cables around the building, setting up machines, guaranteeing uptimes and having the insurance company audit it, etc... make it any cheaper for the customer?

> uses existing API's

No two banks use the same APIS... one bank will use sometimes 3-4 different sets of APIs for the one product. A new service comes in and is only partially compatible. Go ask someone working in the back end how many systems are they use. How many are old POSIX dumb terminals being emulated on IE6. Again though, banks themselves won't use chainlink. Not worth time/effort.

> decentralised, no point of failure

A device monitoring the lock status on a cargo container...which needs power, needs to be 'trusted', needs to spit out data *somewhere* - either requiring (unmanageable) always-on connection or SD card to dump data to. That's a point of failure. Cargo container gets robbed, owner destroys the device to cash in. Single point of failure. "They took the monitor, officers".

> not hard to set up an oracle.

in most cases, there's no need, not worth while.

> swift isn't about oracles.

nope, LINK has 2 use cases now- not living up to either.

...continued

my suggestion is a fast alternative to SWIFT + LINK, don't think for a second they haven't realised this.
swift don't need more layers for this case.

-the oracle side of things is half baked
-the money transfer side of things is half baked.

.....

>>4028792
hardcore FUD man 10/10. You must be accumulating a shit ton of LINK

Why do people assume manipulating link means it's being held down? It's clearly manipulated to be higher than it's worth.

>>4028951
Nah, I made my cash and got the fuck out.
Will buy back in around 2 cents. Lmao.

>>4028768

>Again though, banks themselves won't use chainlink. Not worth time/effort.

Not just banks. Literally any business or organisation that wants to use smart contracts and wants to demonstrate to customers/clients that the data being entered into the smart contracts is trustless.

You're also overstating the reliance of LINK on SWIFT. Swift is a huge launchpad and an excellent opportunity, but LINK doesn't live or die on SWIFT alone.

>A device monitoring the lock status on a cargo container...

This is an IoT issue not an oracle issue.

FWIW thanks for making considered criticisms. I'm always happy to read legitimate criticisms instead of the 99% completely retarded FUD that gets propagated around here.

>>4028959
This guy fucking gets it

You have been visited by Nia "Kangz of crypto" Babialoonia.
You have 100 ETH blocks to reply with : "Baboolina, don't steal my gainz and go away." Otherwise, you will be cursed with eternal post-dump bags.

Yeah I'm done with this coin desu. I'd advise everyone else to drop this before it goes back to 3k.

Putting it into ARK.

>>4028961

The valuation is a totally different discussion to the technology. Is anything in crypto appropriately valued at the moment? Do you really think LINK is going to go to 1/6th ICO?

>>4028963
>>4028768
>Companies being able to sell their information directly to people via nodes
>Not literally printing money
What is big data?

>>4028959
>It's clearly manipulated to be higher than it's worth.

explain

>>4025459
Baboolina, don't steal my gainz and go away.

>>4028963
Not just banks. Literally any business or organisation that wants to use smart contracts and wants to demonstrate to customers/clients that the data being entered into the smart contracts is trustless.

What I'm saying is, it's too expensive to set up the infraastructure in most cases that aren't "2 separate machines monitoring the security devices which protect the crown jewels". But they've already got cameras, and guards, and infrared cams and laser beams and blah blah. The insurance companies are happy to deal with that level of evidence.

>This is an IoT issue not an oracle issue.
It's impossible in some situations to maintain a constant connection, otherwise tampering is almost guaranteed. Thus we're basically reliant on the machines which do the monitoring.. being monitored. And that becomes an oracle problem!

>>4028988
Obviously exaggerating but it's not going up at all is it, and the LINK token's value is only loosely bound to its real world applications

>>4029033

>it's not going up at all is it

I think even if I was to take an extremely cynical view of the utility and future value of ChainLink tokens (which I don't), then you'd still have to believe that it has not reached anything like its ATH.

No hype, few announcements, no partnerships, one exchange, only just recruiting new team members...

Even if I had no faith in this project at all, I would consider it a worthwhile medium term hold, considering it is maintaining top 50 volume with almost no hype.

And in terms of your other criticism you seem to be focussing in on specific banking use cases, but the ChainLink system is not limited to banking. The execution of any contract that can be automated that needs trustless external data feeds falls within the purview of ChainLink. I find it hard to even imagine the scope of possibilities that accompany that. And you're fixating on the cost of setting up infrastructure when the whole point of ChainLink is that it's adaptive to any existing technology.

this guy likes it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNRv_fNZJTU

>>4028156
>LINK needs swift, swift doesn't need link
Other way around.

If Swift does not adapt to the blockchain, they will get left behind.
And Chainlink is a very low-threshold way of connecting external data to the blockchain, whichever one they would be using.

LINK on the other hand is at its core a peer-to-peer contract system. Its purpose is to connect external data to the blockchain for smart contracts.
This use case is just as viable in an all-crypto world as it is in legacy finance.

LINK really is best of both worlds: at one a low-threshold blockchain connection for legacy finance (i.e. without having to redo their entire systems), AND at the same time a peer-to-peer contract solution for an all-crypto world.

>>4029033
> What I'm saying is, it's too expensive to set up the infraastructure in most cases that aren't "2 separate machines monitoring the security devices which protect the crown jewels". But they've already got cameras, and guards, and infrared cams and laser beams and blah blah. The insurance companies are happy to deal with that level of evidence.

Aren't you ignoring the value of smart contracts? Smart contracts make it so that we can build a safe decentralized trustless technology infrastructure that we no longer need positions such as security guards and likewise anymore. Now security guards may be the last to go as they supervise things physically, but you have a lot of people working in areas where all they do is supervising things like contracts. Everything becomes cheaper when you don't have to pay humans.

I'll say that again. Everything becomes cheaper when you don't have to pay humans. And this is only possible when we can fully trust our machines.

>>4029118
Nope, go watch everything from Sibos again. SWIFT is not putting a lot of faith in chainlink specifically, they're looking into a bunch of blockchain based solutions.

SWIFT doesn't need a decentralised solution in the sense that lots of people are verifying transactions. SWIFT can set up a bunch of data centres around the world, backed by US dollars and maintain their own block chain, which they can charge for readonly access to to monitor transactions. They have the money, the APIs the clients the infrastructure, they don't need the oracles, and they can still tell clueless banks that it's bleeding edge blockchain technology and decentralised in that it's cloud based.
Sounding a lot like Sibos already...

>>4029174
I'm not ignoring the value of smart contracts. (BTW all the smart contracts in use currently use OmiseGO, check out smartcontracts.com and follow their public addresses)
This is all possible *in theory* but in practice, we need trusted computing (which is a big ask and in its infancy), an always-on connection, someone to monitor and audit the machines, upgrades of existing systems.
Cleaner, simpler, more proprietary systems will come along, in this time because once we *have* trusted computing, this oracle shit won't be so necessary, and simpler systems that insurance company employees can use without much training will be the norm. block chain or otherwise.

bɹıɔǝp ıu

ㄗ尺工匚モ刀 工れ

>>4028768
>"there's only one source of data for flight times and device lock status"
... which is in no way a fault of Chainlink.

The point here is that if there ever is a dispute, the only "point of failure" you ever have to worry about is the flight time and lock status monitor.
Never the middleman (Chainlink).

The point is also that the process for handling the aftermath of a flight delay or lock break is automated.
No need to fill out, process, file, ... a bunch of paperwork just to get the relevant parties to even acknowledge that it happened.

If it happens, it's easily verifiable in the blockchain that the relevant monitoring service reported it.
Is there a problem with it? You immediately know the source.

Also, these are just simple examples. There are countless instances where you would have a whole bunch of APIs signalling the same data, and a whole bunch of Oracles processing that data in order to achieve consensus.
Like market interest rates for instance.

Also also, even this simple flight time example is no "pie in the sky".
Go look up Axa fizzy.
If your flight is delayed, you get a refund through a smart contract.
This is only a test, and they supposedly built the oracle "from the ground up", but it's very possible that this specific project will simply use Chainlink to process the Utocat API used by fizzy.

>>4029237
man you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and sure are trying real hard to make it look like you do. just stfu and stop guessing the future you retard.

>>4029237
>SWIFT is not putting a lot of faith in chainlink specifically, they're looking into a bunch of blockchain based solutions.
What are you talking about?
They have a bunch of blockchain projects, yes. And Chainlink was the only external crypto they showcased at SIBOS.

>SWIFT can set up a bunch of data centres around the world
Literally "they'll put supercomputes on each city", the post.

>They have the money, the APIs the clients the infrastructure, they don't need the oracles
Right.
And how exactly would SWIFT translate this external data from these sources into blockchain-ready data without oracles?

>>4029283
-Axa fizzy doesn't have people buying into fairytale tokens, which are somehow bound to the value of LINK.
-Axa fizzy uses 'public databases' to source the information. None of this fucking around waiting for computing solutions that aren't out yet (SGX).
-Axa fizzy is well marketed, presented cleanly, with a working use case on existing systems.

I'm for oracles in general, especially in this case. But notice how those public databases aren't faffing about on the eth network asking for LINK to do their processing - these are exsiting databses. This is putting existing infrastructure to good use instead of waiting for infrastructure to develop around a project.

>>4029332

The only EXTERNAL block chain. Swift already has data centres around the world. Why in the fuck do they need to pay out eth and LINK to randoms all over the globe in tokens they had to purchase, when they can fork off an existing, proven block chain project and have their own one in use, where they collect the fees from all transactions. Banks already trust Swift, and Swift want to hold on to their profits.

They have a network, the put their own block chain and oracles on their own network. Now they don't have to pay gas costs, they don't need a third party tokens, they can add data directly and have a consensus reached by their own distributed servers worldwide (They already have this network) or they can throw in an oracle or two and again not have to pay for gas.
As far as banks are concerned, it's block chain technology, on the cloud. The servers aren't processing tons of unrelated shit, like you fucks trading on exchanges so the transactions will be much faster, and they can, on a whim... change block sizes, queue priority, fix bugs, take servers down for maintenance, etc.

you guys are really not smart. you know most people in the bitcoin community have no idea wtf this is, right? a lot of them haven’t even heard of it. just fucking chill out and don’t even think about it for a month

Also, AXA already have an account on smartcontracts.com, they've obviously taken a look at link and chosen not to use it for a reason.

>>4029577
The reason everything every digital currency before bitcoin failed was that they weren't decentralized. Banks couldn't trust other banks.

Why didn't swift create bitcoin? They surely had the resources to do so.

My point is, even if Swift wanted to create a network of oracles (for which there aren't currently no evidence), could they? Wouldn't other decentralized oracles win over Swift in the end as people would be more comfortable using them?

>>4029626
>chosen not to use it

do you have a source for that claim?

>>4029718
Well the only real reason, as far as I can tell that Swift's been looking into block chain technology is that after polling customers, they expressed that they:
A- want to be able to track orders in real time
B- would like faster transactions.

Using an existing system would help, to some extent, but allowing customers read only access to a proprietary block chain on their own network would solve this outright without external costs and can be tweaked around existing systems.

>>4029720
Sure, last year they signed an oracle after the last Sibos demonstraction:
https://create.smartcontract.com/#/contracts/7e768715a5bd0d85802e8796fd1ab884
Go ahead and root through their oracles/transactions on etherscan, either they've not done anything since 2016... or they've signed up again under a new hidden name.. which would negate any benefits of having signed publicly available accounts.
That and they have the fizzy product already mentioned above.

>>4029577
>Axa fizzy doesn't have people buying into fairytale tokens, which are somehow bound to the value of LINK.
They're still paying the Utocat api. Zero difference except they have to develop their own oracle.
It would be much better and easier and likely cheaper for them to use an already established and much more trustless decentralized network.

>Axa fizzy uses 'public databases' to source the information. None of this fucking around waiting for computing solutions that aren't out yet (SGX).
Smartcontract can do the same. Obviously.

>Axa fizzy is well marketed, presented cleanly, with a working use case on existing systems.
Now imagine the same thing, except hundreds of thousands of them, all running Chainlink instead of wasting money trying to each create their own inferior oracles.

>I'm for oracles in general, especially in this case. But notice how those public databases aren't faffing about on the eth network asking for LINK to do their processing - these are exsiting databses.
It looks like you have a profound lack of understanding about the roles of the blockchain and oracles and how this relates to smart contracts.
Also, one of the major benefits of Chainlink is that all those databases and existing infrastructure can be KEPT.
Chainlink is a very low-threshold add-on that connects the entire legacy finance system (as it is now) with the blockchain.

>>4029577
>But notice how those public databases aren't faffing about on the eth network
AXA fizzy uses ETH.
Lol.

>the put their own block chain and oracles on their own network
Their own blockchain, sure. Chainlink works with SWIFT's Hyperledger Fabric for instance.

Their own network? You mean their own network of oracles?
Why would they do that when they can just use an existing solution developed over the course of four years by actual experts?
There's a reason SWIFT invited Chainlink as the only external crypto dev to develop and showcase a PoC for them.

buy the rumor

>>4029626
AXA joined the Chainlink demo AFTER their fizzy smart contract thing was released.

This implies they are interested in using Chainlink's oracles, instead of the oracle they had to improvise themselves specifically for fizzy.

>>4029961
Link to the link slack?

>>4029829
i know about the "test run" axa and sony did, but them not using it right now doesn't mean they're not interested. chainlink is a proof of concept right now, it's probably not ready for mass adaption just yet, but you can bet your ass that they're working on it.

>>4029842
>>4029920

>It would be much better and easier and likely cheaper for them to use an already established and much more trustless decentralized network.
>why make their own.

For one, they could repurpose an existing project.
In the case of swift though, specifically since it's what most of /biz/focuses on... thinking long term. Even running their own private eth/link nodes with their own unlimited supply of fake eth/LINK would be preferable to using the publicly available ones in terms of speed and profits. (which is what they're aiming for). Eth isn't that fast, running like 10 of their own nodes would be fucking lightning fast, less fuss.

>Smartcontract can do the same. Obviously.
In practical terms though, many use cases require trusted data sources, for which there is currently no market, and lots of alternative, tested, implemented solutions.


>It looks like you have a profound lack of understanding about the roles of the blockchain and oracles and how this relates to smart contracts.
No, I get it. I'm being practical. This technology just isn't ready for mass adoption.

>>4029983
Maybe they still are, couldn't find any activity on ethsplorer though. Lemme know if I'm wrong.

>>4029964
Got a date or source for this?

>>4029961
>i believe we will
>believe

why the fuck would he word it so awkwardly? either you do something, or you don't. i swear to god, i have faith in their product, but they really need to hire some experienced people for marketing and communication.

>>4030003
>couldn't find any activity on ethsplorer though

that could mean a lot of things...maybe they're testing platforms other than ethereum, or the testing phase has simply finished and now it's back to the drawing board or it's going through the final stages of development. we simply don't know at this point.

>>4030003
>For one, they could repurpose an existing project.
Yes, that existing project is Chainlink.

>Eth isn't that fast, running like 10 of their own nodes would be fucking lightning fast, less fuss.
You say you're thinking long term, but you forget about any future developments for ETH.
And raw speed is NOT a priority for Swift. Their ongoing GPI project (their flagship cross-border payments project) for instance takes a full day to process transactions.

>In practical terms though, many use cases require trusted data sources, for which there is currently no market, and lots of alternative, tested, implemented solutions.
You're confusing data sources with oracles.
Again, you do not know or understand the fundamentals of this.

>This technology just isn't ready for mass adoption.
The first version of the network is ready, practical use cases have been carried out for major clients (SWIFT, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Sony, AXA, ...), you can set up oracles/nodes, ...
This thing is just about ready to go.

>>4030145
>really need to hire some experienced people for marketing and communication

HURR DURR some anon faggot on (obscure country) (wacky zany hobby) image board thinks measly 32 million of US Fed Bux is enough for Expert PR Marketing Department Office with staff.

HAHAHA FAGGOT you obviously never stepped outside of your NEET hut, have you got ANY idea how much an office space runs for in Battery Park in NY???

LMAO the absolute state of biz "hurr durr I want freebies" WTF

>>4030179

>Yes, that existing project is Chainlink.
...or one of the many alternatives, with their own pros and cons and similar feature sets.

> any future developments for ETH.
hedging your bets on something that may or may not happen

> raw speed is NOT a priority for Swift.
they literally said that it is.

> You're confusing data sources with oracles.
nope. read it again. a lot of use cases require trusted data sources.
a lot of use cases mentioned by sergey himself. something he's admitted to in interviews himself.

> The first version of the network is ready, practical use cases have been carried out for major clients (SWIFT, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Sony, AXA, ...), you can set up oracles/nodes, ...
This thing is just about ready to go.
great, but that's not the "mass" adoption everyone's hoping for, that's test uses and one 'in the works'

>>4030312
>hedging your bets on something that may or may not happen

nigga you are telling me that you think future improvements for ethereum are a "maybe" ?
literally what, are you fucking insane for just disturbingly pessimistic
raiden, plasma... those are only the known improvements...

>>4030312
>hedging your bets on something that may or may not happen

nigga you are telling me that you think future improvements for ethereum are a "maybe" ?
literally what, are you fucking insane or just disturbingly pessimistic
raiden, plasma... those are only the known improvements...

>>4029237
>Chain link gives us the ability to trust our machines but that's dumb because we will trust our machines in the future for no reason

Dude you're saying that chain link isn't valuable solution because the problem will be solved in the future by another mystical identical solution lmao

>>4030240
what an intelligent response, you really showed me. i'm not saying that they needs some coca cola tier marketing team, just one or two non-autistic people that know how to post some nice shit on twitter would make a big difference already.

>>4030377
So a bank, with billions of dollars on the line, and already working, implemented systems, is going to put its faith in this relatively unknown startup, which can get things working in the future... but not quite right now, on a network that ... will at some point by upgraded by unknown third parties, to some unknown specification and upgraded at some point, hopefully without bugs...
Instead of a network designed specifically to handle this kinda shit that they have control over.
There are use cases, but banks are easily startled, nervous creatures, and everything crawls along, leaving swift to possibly get the ball rolling. And just because this is one solution, that's likely to work, doesn't mean it's the best solution.

>>4030390
nope, i'm saying it's not ready yet.

>>4030312
>...or one of the many alternatives
There are none.
All other similar solutions are centralized, and therefore inherently less trustworthy and higher threshold.

>hedging your bets on something that may or may not happen
1) Ethereum's updates are happening
2) more or less speed is not make or break

>they literally said that it is.
Then they would immediately make their cross-border project all about the blockchain.
Yet they don't.
Their GPI project takes a full day to process transactions; while IBM's Lumen or Ripple do it almost instantly.

>a lot of use cases require trusted data sources
Absolutely, so where do oracles fit in, according to you?

>but that's not the "mass" adoption everyone's hoping for
Not yet.
You know how time works right?

>>4029829
>Read only access to data on their blockchain

Can you find me a blockchain that gives me write access to it's data lol

>>4030461
>>>4030377
>So a bank, with billions of dollars on the line, and already working, implemented systems, is going to put its faith in this relatively unknown startup, which can get things working in the future... but not quite right now, on a network that ... will at some point by upgraded by unknown third parties, to some unknown specification and upgraded at some point, hopefully without bugs...
>Instead of a network designed specifically to handle this kinda shit that they have control over.
>There are use cases, but banks are easily startled, nervous creatures, and everything crawls along, leaving swift to possibly get the ball rolling. And just because this is one solution, that's likely to work, doesn't mean it's the best solution.
>>>4030390
>nope, i'm saying it's not ready yet.

Yeah if they own the fucking block chain, a protocol allowing for corrections could easily be implemented.

>>4030474
>if they own the fucking block chain

dude...the whole point of a blockchain is the decentralized aspect.

>>4030452
>So a bank, with billions of dollars on the line, and already working, implemented systems (...)
This is exactly the advantage of Chainlink: the existing systems, infrastructure, channels, ... all continue to exist.

>(...) is going to put its faith in this relatively unknown startup
Chainlink was the only external crypto dev showcased by SWIFT at SIBOS last week.

>which can get things working in the future... but not quite right now, on a network that ... will at some point by upgraded by unknown third parties, to some unknown specification and upgraded at some point, hopefully without bugs...
Look at grampa getting all angry at all this darn com-pyoo-turr stuff.

>but banks are easily startled, nervous creatures, and everything crawls along, leaving swift to possibly get the ball rolling. And just because this is one solution, that's likely to work, doesn't mean it's the best solution.
Lmao.

>>4030452
>Instead of a network designed specifically to handle this kinda shit that they have control over.
what is that network?

Sick of responding to the same 5 questions over and over now... If you want to hodl, hodl. If you want to make money, take go do something else for a while.

>>4030612
Fucking anything is better right now. Even tether.

>>4030592
Retard alert.

>>4030629
>Even tether.
Is tether running an oracle network?

>>4030629
Like I told you, there are some very fundamental basics that you are missing.

A decentralised oracle based network isn't necessarily the best solution for SWIFT.
Nor is link the only block chain solution they've been looking at. (It's the only external one)
Owning their own block chain for example would still afford them *most* of the benefits of using a block chain, but also give them faster transactions and more control over the system. They've managed to keep this venture afloat so far without the block chain and the banks have few real alternatives but to trust swift anyway. A proprietary block chain fits cleanly in the middle.

As for oracle based applications, maybe there's a future, but as per my original point. There's not enough going on that LINK is going to 10x or even 5x any time soon. It's not ready.

>>4030629
>15 posts by this ID

Imagine caring this much about a coin you don't even own and spending hours shitposting and fudding link, even the nervous nolinkers know this coins potential.. literally everyone here is watching this coin

>>4030726
>any time soon

2019 Link 10$ - is this realistic ?

>>4030746
I'll care about it when someone presents convincing arguments, or when the price starts to rise. In the mean time I've put in an hour or two's research and gotten all sorts of angles from tons of different people, and now have a clearer picture of the situation.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the best way to 100% guarantee a conversation continues on /biz/ is to be wrong.

>>4030799
That's not soon, I've already doubled my investment since getting back out of LINK.

>>4030829
>I've put in an hour or two's research
yeah we can tell, you don't know shit

>>4030726
>A decentralised oracle based network isn't necessarily the best solution for SWIFT.
Holy shit, you better call them a year ago and let them know.

>Nor is link the only block chain solution they've been looking at. (It's the only external one)
>Owning their own block chain for example would still afford them *most* of the benefits of using a block chain, but also give them faster transactions and more control over the system.
SWIFT does have its own blockchain. It's called Hyperledger Fabric, and it's a joint project.
Chainlink works with this particular blockchain.
SWIFT could start using another blockchain instead, and Chainlink could be made to work with that.

You have no idea how Chainlink relates to the other SWIFT blockchain projects.
No idea whatsoever.
This is the very basis of the Chainlink-SWIFT relationship, and you don't know the first thing about it.

It is time for you to stop posting.

>>4030799
let me just get my crystal ball.....
$50 EOY

>>4030858
Thanks for the good news, anon.

Think it will dip again? Should I sell at 4.8 and try to buy lower?

>>4030829
lol ok,
I spent just 5minutes researching ODN to know that's a shitcoin but I don't bother posting 17 times trying to fud on an ODN thread, I don't give a fuck about their shitcoin, why would I?
The fact that you are having to justify yourself so much in this thread and discredit everything about link shows you're scared and know deep down there's explosive potential for this coin if things go to plan.

Do you remember the last time this entire board became obsessed with shilling and fudding one single coin? Do you remember what that coin was called? It was Ethereum. This is the kind of potential that we have in LINK, worrying about a couple cent dips and rises here and there doesn't matter right now we are all pretty much at the bottom anyway. This is a coin with a marketcap that could easily go into the billions

>>4030145
>believe
It's ambiguous on purpose, you fucking idiot.

I want link to succeed so bad guys. I literally half my net worth in it at $40 cents.

>>4030850

So it's preferable for a company which primarily deals with international transactions, and whose goal right now is to offer faster payments, and traceable payments.
(I.e. making things easier for the customer) to:

-Develop and maintain the fabric network, pay fees, etc.
-Bankroll chainlink, buy tokens, pay fees
-Keep a stack of eth on hand, to pay fees.
-Hope no new major exploits are found in any of those.
-Maintain software for each

To just merging the required parts of chainlink functionality into a single network (not quite private as I was saying, but business orientated)... which they've already been developing (e.g. Fabric V1.1)...

Not buying it. You're telling me they had a hand in Fabric V1, but they're not capable of reproducing what two guys slapped on top of the Etherium network. Even though they had a hand in their own block chain, and know their own APIs inside and out.

In other cases though, sure I still think link has a chance. Soon.

>>4025459
Never.

>>4031298
>merging the required parts of chainlink functionality into a single network
This is retarded.

Blockchain nodes do very different things for very different reasons from oracle nodes.
Merging these networks would be stupid.

This is the same logic as "when road construction companies start building cars they are going to put car manufacturers out of business".

JUST

>>4026941
.20 or lower dont buy this shit at 30 cents plus its barely worth 1k sats imo

>>4031186
same :/

>>4031186

Wow youre a fucking animal

>>4027489

Can't it be used for everything that needs to be notarized basically?

>>4032058
You usually have to pay for this level of TA. Hat tip to you good sir

JUST

>>4028714
thats the genius of chainlink and most likely the main reason it will be succesful. Crypto must be dumbed down a lot if we want mainstream adoption which at this rate i think will come between 2020 or 2025 and thats being generous

>>4030452
This is true banks will have no interest in decentralized oracles, a centralized oracle app is what they want (if they even want one) and link should not target banks

>>4028156
Basically everything you just said


is priced in

>>4033433
Decentralized oracles allow banks to keep their existing systems and infrastructure, and reduce the level of trust required from banks.

>link should not target banks
Except banks and legacy finance target Link.

WEF: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC15_Technological_Tipping_Points_report_2015.pdf#page=24
World economic forum talking about smart contracts and crypto as a technological tipping point, specifically mentioning Chainlink/Smartcontract.com by name

Capgemini: https://www.capgemini.com/consulting/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2017/07/smart-contracts.pdf
Massive consultancy and IT firm Capgemini devoting an entire report to the importance of smart contracts, specifically mentioning Chainlink/Smartcontract.com and Sergey Nazarov by name as the only providers of a smart contract solution that can use external data

SWIFT: https://www.swift.com/node/39911
SWIFT itself saying how "Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) and Smart Contracts (SC) promise to transform automation in the financial industry, and are generating huge interest amongst financial institutions and technology providers."

Gartner: (see pic)

>>4033629
So banks will operate nodes with their own infrastructure that already exists.

>>4033749
I said they get to keep their infrastructure, I didn't say they got to operate nodes with their infrastructure.
Operating nodes is easy as shit with Chainlink btw.

>being in alts right now

>>4033809
how many chainlinks do i need to run a node

>>4033809
why wouldnt they be able to keep their infrastructure with centralized oracles?

>>4033879
0

>>4033817
> not seeing the bigger picture and ignoring rhe oncoming alts surge

This sideways action is killing me.

>>4033936
>Not realizing that the bigger picture is S2X and t is better to come in after the snapshot

Stay poor retard

>>4033909
Third-party centralized solutions often require significant integration, while Chainlink is pretty much an add-on.
Internal centralized solutions obviously require internal development, changing the internal infrastructure.

But the main part about decentralization is the increase in security and trustlessness.

I can't believe the fucking 2x fork is literally in two weeks. This shit doesn't even have any time to recover and 2x will probably have 50% the value of Bitcoin. Should I just sell guys?

Fuck Bitcoin I'm so fucking suck if this shit.

>>4034273
I know, man. This is getting too stressful.

>>4034273
I don't think it can get that high without tanking BTC.

>>4028156
>(when was the last time you did a SWIFT transfer outside of a business setting? You probs used paypal or charged it to a VISA/MasterCard).
I think you are way off here. If it wasn't for Bitcoin, I'd be sending SWIFT transfers every week, and I think you're underestimating how often normies send SWIFT transactions.

>LINK needs swift, swift doesn't need link.
Truth is, SWIFT transfers are slow. People can use Bitcoin transfers instead of SWIFT. This means SWIFT *NEEDS* ChainLink to compete with other options.

>>4028156
>In August 2017, SWIFT recorded an average of 26.52 million FIN messages per day.

https://www.swift.com/about-us/swift-fin-traffic-figures

>>4034273

Lots of money in the alt market now. Will probably last, what, maybe a week or so? Then everyone will dump for BTC again. Yeah, it's fucking annoying. I wish BTC would piss off.

OK, so I set up a node as described with CL documentation
What next? How am I supposed to feed it the data I parse? How am I supposed to spread the news I now provide specific data throughout the network?

>I hodl LINK

> biz fell for the link shilling
> muh oracles
> muh surgay
> muh conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDge-Ad5Rtg
25:00 IN
AMEER ROSIC CONFIRMS MEETING WITH SERGEY NAZAROV
MOON HAPPENING

>>4035175

Most his followers aren't going to rush off to buy now, but that's good news nonetheless.

>>4035175
quick rundown on this guy?

>>4035175
Literally who?

>>4030969
>Do you remember the last time this entire board became obsessed with shilling and fudding one single coin?
DGB

>>4030458
>alternatives
What about Synapse?

>>4035283
>>4035350
http://www.ameerrosic.com/
he's a big name
doesn't matter if his shit is good or not, people know who he is and listen to him

>>4035615
not ARK?

>>4025459
Hey new fag here
What's the place to trade bit/alt coin?
Have coins in coinbase, want to try my hand at day trading, just trying to see some gains.

I am aware of the risks. Thinking about getting on Bittrex

>>4025459
rule number 1: dont be a greedy pajeet

>>4035926
newfag+daytrade=get JUST'd

Real talk. I bought at $0.38 which was ~ 7500 sats...

will it ever bounce back to that price in a month's time?

>>4030969
Link is nothing special just because there's a lot of talk here
If you weren't a new faggot you'd know a lot of the threads and posts about it are straight up pajeet shills
Dozens have come and gone just the same as chainlink will and you'll just be another lame ass marine shit posting whenever you arent crying

The daily news.
https://medium.com/@CryptoTakeoff/link-10-24-status-update-a3bae047ad2

>>4030029
>I believe we will THAT SHE WILL WIN
Did you even think about how this sounded, pajeet?

>>4034225
yeah but that is what link is, a centralized solution.
It doesnt solve the oracle problem.

>>4036157

New exchange? Yes, easy.

>>4036157
Very hard to say with the upcoming forks being a wild card. We may not have seen such a dramatic crash at all without the BTC Gold fork. With SegWit2x coming in 2 weeks we may not see solid recovery until December, and order books show a 1m+ sell wall at $0.43 (in ETH).

>>4036509
Sure buddy. Whatever you say.

WHO COMFY HERE

HEHEHEHEHEH WE RICH!!!!

>>4036747
>January 1, 2018

I can feel it bros

>>4028156
>B- Expensive - banks run 20 year old pc's for a reason
Banks don't need SGX hardware, node operators do.
>C- Computers are inherently UNtrustworthy (points of failure)
>D- You trust a rinkydink website spitting out flight times is well secured/maintained for the pennies it earns? Fuck off.
SGX is cryptographically verifiable nigga, you clearly don't understand anything about this tech or you're just bullshitting
>E- Insurance companies will hire and train a bunch of LINKsperts for oracles?
They have devs already, it's not complicated at all

>>4036747
>circulating supply 1
>total supply 2
kek

>>4035926
Look at this idiot

>>4036747
Not in a million years linkies.
This won't break $.60 till Q3 2018
Hope you plan to hold your bags for a long time.

>>4036889


>>4036022
Fuck yourselves, children.
Gotta start somewhere

Here bois a screenshot from the future, hodl tight niggas

(Also a good omen)

>>4036927
>This won't break $.60 till Q3 2018

Pic related.