/biz/ - Business & Finance

buy ivishnu, it will be the biggest meme coin in 2025

lmfao. it just got worse. ICP is the future, and the future is now. it will empower or consume every blockchain in existence.

Based. Token not needed.

>>58170150
Did you wipe your butthole with your hand today ranjeesh?

>>58170211
did you have sex today incel?

>>58170185
>faggot jumps like a retard at the market pumping whatever mentions AI integration.

You will crash hard once people realize AI is just a buzzword.

>>58170236
once you realize what AI smart contracts are capable of, and see the price of ICP when everyone else does too, you'll kill yourself.

Flipped in price not market cap

Based.

Feels so fucking good investing in a turbo genius Chad like Dom instead of some fat grifting Russian.

Two fucking years of suffering and getting laughed at by midwits but we are finally being rewarded.

>Flipped in price not market cap

>>58170150
Linkies get the rope! ICP is the king of this board now.

>>58170150
>>inbuilt https outcalls in every smart contract remove need for oracles

what incentive do the data providers have for providing accurate information?

>>58170351
what incentive does the new york stock exchange have for providing accurate information? how do they do it without chainshit?

>>58170361
>how do they do it without chainshit?
Because their transactions are not on a blockchain with irreversible transactions

I ask again, what incentive do the data providers have for providing accurate information?

>>58170312
Cringe. I shorted it.

>>58170361
Link marines are fucking retarded I wouldn’t question it

>inbuilt https outcalls in every smart contract remove need for oracles
Yes, because chainlink price feed only a http call. Maybe even a json parser. Nothing more. Also other l1/l2 has http calls with chainlink anyapi or chainlink functions.

>>better, cheaper, faster CCIP (that already exists, and is available today)
better => why is it better? does it work with private bank api?
cheaper => Why every project wants to be sooo fast and cheap? How the f are they going to generate revenue?
faster => if it doesn't wait for finality it is insecure.
and what about security? which institution are they partnered with? how decentralized is it? Is it have rate limit? Can it send messages? And I could have a lot more questions.

>AI-enabled smart contracts
What does that even mean? Why I want to run AI on ICP when I can run it on my computer or in the cloud. Also again use chainlink function to generate AI/LLM response with an api.

>doesn't have a fat fuck CEO or paid advocates shitting up /biz/ 24/7
In 2023 ICP inflation was 62% and 12% for link.

>>58170361
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/25/investing/nyse-trading-halt/index.html

>>58170415
>In 2023 ICP inflation was 62% and 12% for link.
ICP changed the definition of their circulating supply in April 2023.

It's so fucking over link xisters.....

>>58170399
the nature of their transactions have nothing to do with it. why doesn't the NYSE need oracles to provide accurate price feeds?
why do you think numerous https outcalls to multiple sources, then coming to a consensus, has a risk? did you seriously invest in a token because you think coinbase, kucoin, cmc, and numerous other sources would all conspire to provide fake data?
>>58170415
>why is it better?
because smart contracts that transact BTC and ETH are publicly available. link cannot do this.
>How the f are they going to generate revenue?
dfinity is a non profit :)
>if it doesn't wait for finality it is insecure.
it does wait for finality. it's just much faster. because ICP is superior.
>Why I want to run AI on ICP when I can run it on my computer or in the cloud
imagine typing to your wallet "swap BTC for USDC" and it does it automatically. imagine typing "set a buy order for 20 ETH at 500" and it does it. this is one of the very small use cases. having it inside of smart contracts guarantees security, unlike traditional web2 infrastructure.
>In 2023 ICP inflation was 62%
lol.

>>58170497
>the nature of their transactions have nothing to do with it

absolute midwit, you don't understand how blockchains work at all why are you even on this board?

>>58170399
>irreversible transactions
ICP is reversible and centralized. Read more retard.

>>58170510
>chainshit investor
>calls other people midwits
>can't comprehend the fact his edge case risk doesn't actually exist
sad!

>>58170515

Older blockchains need a middleman to bring in outside data.
ICP doesn't need a middleman.
But you can still create a middleman and offer specialized services if you wish.

>>58170519
"just trust me bro" doesnt work when your dealing with trillions of dollars

>>58170543
yet it works with stocks and bonds, which combined dwarf crypto.
>nooo you can't trust all those other data providers, you have to trust this one single point of failure instead!
yikes!

>>58170556
yes because your dealing with a centralized system that is reversable by a governing authority. you know the thing that blockchains don't have

Marines are confused about AI on ICP? Just try to be creative.
Would you rather KYC by sending documents to some pozzed centralized entity, or sending to an encrypted decentralized AI smart contract?
What happened to truth over trust?

>>58170570
>the government has no oversight into exchanges like coinbase or other price feed data providers
lol?
can you show me a single instance of multiple providers intentionally giving incorrect price data to somehow make money?

>>58170583
how can you be this fucking stupid? did someone feed you a script with out you actually understanding what were actually talking about?

>>58170150
>>AI-enabled smart contracts
What's in the pipeline?

>>58170595
The oracle problem isn’t a problem and you can still provide fake data to chainlink

>>58170150
LOAD ZE FLIPPENING TRADE!
Now dooomp eet again.

Coin is rising my basterds
>hasn't got the AI tag on CMC yet
We're still early.

>>58170608
yep, sure isn't a problem

>>58170583
>>58170570
The argument is retarded because the exact fucking thing they're arguing is a same risk with Link. Yeah the twenty feeds can give bad data in a black swan event and cost people billions of dollars. It happened in 2020 with mkr.

The point is that ICP can already do what Links been trying to do since 2017 plus about a thousand other things with a more robust roadmap and although they're slow on their roadmap they are actually accomplishing it unlike Link which has nothing notable to show 7 years later.

>>58170600
your mom wants my pipeline if you know what I mean. Also checked.

>>58170595
uh oh stinky linkie can't give me an example :(
his entire project seeks to solve a problem that's never been observed :(
>>58170600
https://twitter.com/dominic_w/status/1770884845570326589
this is just one aspect of ICP. there is also a enterprise private cloud solution coming soon, along with more coin standard integrations, and more.
>>58170631
ICP is unhackable due to chain-key cryptography (link doesn't have this)

>>58170634
>The argument is retarded because the exact fucking thing they're arguing is a same risk with Link.

Chainlink nodes have to provide collateral in link, they are punished for providing incorrect information

RALLY TIME CHAINSTTIINKERS. ORACLES NOT NEEDED ON THE INTERNET COMPUTER.

AI SMART CONTRACTS
AI SMART WALLETS
AI MODELS TRADED AS NFTS INCOMING

ICP IS THE NEW HOTNESS
THE ETH OF 2017
THE BTC OF 2008

ITS RALLY TIME MOTHERFUCKERS
TRIPLE DIGITS INCOMING
THE INTERNET COMPUTER IS THE WORLD CONPUTER AND FOUNDATION UPON WHICH WEB 3 SHALL BE BUILT

>>58170634
My, I do love a robust roadmap

>>58170656
She doesn't fuck turd worlders Pavinda.
>>58170657
Thanks. Stable $20 and above incoming.
Have a 250 stack of these bad boys. Looking good.

>>58170687
>he doesn't know about the 20 year roadmap

>>58170657
I didn't give you a reply because you completely misunderstood my point in a way that was absolutely breathtakingly retarded.


In the event that the NYSE provides incorrect data ( like the CNN link i gave you) the exchange shuts down, and the transactions are reversed. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE ON BLOCKCHAIN ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE FINAL. this would cost people BILLIONS of dollars assuming we have large adoption. There is no room for error on providing off-chain data, one mistake is too many.

>>58170725
can you show me a single example of multiple price feed providers conspiring to provide incorrect data?

>>58170752
can you show me billions of dollars of volume being done on chain using multiple price feeds with out chainlink?

clowniggers gmi

fulfill the prophecy of the juggalo (2k eoy)

>>58170837
>>58170752
if theres nothing to steal, then of course it hasn't been stolen yet.

>>58170837
Nobody fucking uses chainlink dude

>>58170837
okay

>>58170879
this is the ICP token anon. are you retarded?

Who has the biggest icp stack on /biz/? Post screenshot

>>58170913
1200 staked, never dissolving.
315 spot bag not selling until $100+

>>58170883
here's 15 million dollars worth of chain-key BTC and ETH. doesn't use chainlink. looks nice and juicy to steal, but sadly will never happen (because it's transacted by smart contracts)

>chainlink
Kek just saying it sounds faggy

Taking over the world

I hate chainlink. I feel like the biggest cuckold holding this

>>58170960
That's a good amount to stake. Half a pee per day.

>>58170570
>you know the thing that blockchains don't have
For someone that posted about how others "don't understand blockchains" you sure seem to not know a lot about them.
Even Bitcoin had immutability breaches that got fixed unilaterally by Satoshi himself.

Anyways about your question
>what incentive do the data providers have for providing accurate information?
The incentive is the same incentive that Coinbase (And other exchanges) have to provide honest, genuine and legitimate price feeds as what the ICP smartcontracts seem to do is pull that data straight from those sources and I'm going to assume that you are not desperate enough to actually pretend that the data from the big exchanges is not to be trusted.

Bottom line is that ultimately you can always use Chainlink with ICP smartcontracts if you please so not sure why you are getting your panties in a twist at all. The oracle problem as we have known it doesn't exist in ICP and that's just simply a fact.

>>58170963
wow a whole 15 mil. if the network 10x that it might be able to touch the hourly trade volume of defi scured by chainlink. now what if you want to trade for solana shitcoins or BSC?

>>58170980
Last Smartcon, Sergay said 3-5 years to onboard TradFi.
Link is the sort of thing to just have a suicide stack, stake if you can, and walk away.
You can't use it. You can't build on it. No point in thinking about it.

>>58171015
that's not a very good argument. when the value goes into the billions, it still doesn't require link.
>now what if you want to trade for solana shitcoins or BSC?
i'll wait for ckSOL and ckBSC to be integrated into ICP :)

>>58171008
again the "just trust me bro" isn't good enough for global adoption. i wonder what happened to the coinbase price feed that one time...

>>58171033
the security of the ICP network has yet to be tested because the defi network isn't even large enough to consider hacking

>>58171042
At this point I think you are trolling, or you don't understand some of the fundamental differences between ICP and every other outdated blockchain.
Link is a middleman. Old blockchains need a middleman. ICP doesn't.

> Football fans are so stupid
> Go ICP!!! Fuck stinkie linkies

>>58171058
>hundreds of millions of dollars of volume isn't large enough to consider hacking
lmao

>>58171078
when did 15 million become hundreds of millions?

>>58171092
that's simply two examples.
icpswap, sonic, iclight all have well over 100m of volume. it's all ICP related coins. none of them use link.

>>58171042
>b-but Coinbase failed that one time
Ok, so lets say that Coinbase gets compromised. What about the other 10 or 20, or 100 sources (Since you are free to get data from as many sources as you want) that you are requesting info from? Do you understand that this is how it works with Chainlink too, right?
I'm sorry man but you just don't have a point. You simply don't. What the smartcontracts do is EXACTLY what Chainlink does.

>>58171109
I've made my point several times, there is no incentive for these data providers to provide accurate information they have nothing at stake but their reputation.

given a hypothetical scenario where a trillion dollars are on a smart contract that can be liquidated by simply having 10 data sources collude together is a huge security risk. Chainlink would be able to handle this threat through economic incentives.

>>58171154
No, chainlink is just as vulnerable, if the profit made off colluding is bigger than the slashing then it doesn't matter, exploit still occurs. In this case, there's no difference whether you use chainlink or do an aggregate of multiple sources in ICP or whatever.

the last time ICP flipped link in price i swapped them and made a killing I'm gonna do the same thanks for the heads up OP gonna swap my 2300 ICP for LINK

steve jobs vibes.
there is a reason icp has a 20 year roadmap
if only you knew how comfy things really are

>>58171196
And if you read the white paper 2.0 you will understand how they handle this in a way where they give an actual number as to X staked can secure Y value, anything higher then Y would be at risk

>>58171154
The problem is that your point is retarded because exchanges quite literally have an incentive in having a trusted price feed.
>having 10 data sources collude together
So aggregate the data from 100 sources instead. You are free to do that, you know.
>Chainlink would be able to handle this threat through economic incentives.
How so? What's stopping Chainlink "trusted" sources from colliding, shorting something and making x100 more than they would by being honest and getting paid peanuts, again?
I can come up with weird hypothetical scenarios, too.

>>58170676
>> ORACLES NOT NEEDED ON THE INTERNET COMPUTER

correct. Chainlink is now officially irrelevant and therefore worthless.

>>58170150
Kek the butthurt on this is going to be fantastic. Stinkies can’t cope

>>58171245
This enrages the linklets.

>>58170984
if we ever hit $200 I’ll gladly quit my job and just pursue miniature painting

>>58170236
The fake AI pump has only started retard.

>>58171229
slashing + reporting, chainlink is able to secure up to a certain value based on how much the nodes have staked.

>>58171245
LAST CHANCE TO SWITCH SIDES STINKYS BEFOR WE LEAVE YOU IN THE DUST.

>>58170570
You’re arguing with an Indian who’s sole purpose here is to get people to buy ICP.

>>58171245
>>58171305
>>58171296
>oracles
Imagine being such incredible faggots that you brand something as simple as an API an "oracle" as if it's some divine thing.
Marketing is the only thing ETH and pretty much every other L2 has has going for it.

>>58171414
you're missing the point, they can't account for those conspiring providers to go out and open up a 100x short. the value they'd gain from that is far more than any slap on the wrist they'd get from sir gay, or the pocket change they get from accurately reporting data.
>>58171473
ICP is a white man's coin.
i own 2,000 ICP at a 3.80 average.

>>58171473
There really no indians at all on ICP. A few nigerians.
Go to OpenChat to get a sample of what you are dealing with.

>>58170150
>price bad coin's price worse than chart bad coin's price

>>58171414
>slashing
And, again, what's stopping Chainlink sources from colliding and and shorting for 100x profits than what they get slashed for?

>>58171488
>>58171499
Oh wow if thats the case then why did you retards immediately jump in and respond? You got a lot of free time. Fucking scammers. Even if everything you have said isn’t complete bullshit, all the biggest institutions have already decided on Link.

>>58171510
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you made a typo last time. now i know your ESL

>>58171519
Not an argument.

>>58171365
We will easily hit 200 next year. 700 more likely

>>58171515
i make 170k working from home. i do as i please. you will kneel.

>>58170150
>positive price action for icp for like the 2nd time during its whole existence
>bearish shitflinging posts like OP spring up everywhere
Just Kys honestly

>>58171531
Placing a short requires capital that is just part of the market, it isn't nefarious. not only that they wouldn't be slashed for placing shorts you don't even know what you are talking about.

>>58171545
Yea sure thing Ranjeesh don’t forget to wipe your ass with toilet paper next time.

>>58171515
And I am the owner of a sizable business in the rural midwest full of only white people and I also do as I please.

>>58171561
>>58171550
you seem upset

>>58171568
>>58171545
HAHAHAHAHA HES SWITCHING ID’s
hQCnozyQ,
Get a load of these retards

>>58171553
>it isn't nefarious
But colliding to provide wrong data (as a trusted source) to make a profit from it is.

Do you even have anything worth saying at this point or you are just gonna keep moving the goalposts?

>>58171579
uh oh the stink advocate is having a meltdown :(

>>58171582
yes sir very goalpost move yes sir buy the ICP coin!

>yes ser chainlank very gud coin many nodes good price buy now!

>>58171594
Uh oh your “people” are the most disgusting subhumans on the planet :(
>Verification not required.

>>58171607
how mad are you right now that you're missing another bull run?

>>58171582
sorry, its hard to understand your broken english

>And, again, what's stopping Chainlink sources from colliding and and shorting for 100x profits than what they get slashed for?

If you were trying to say whats stopping chainlink sources from providing incorrect price data, i have already answered this question several times now. X amount of staked link can secure Y value. anything exceeding Y is at risk

the point i am making is that HTTPS outcalls literally can not secure anything that exceeds their perceived value of their reputation

>>58171579
You are losing it. You can't stop this pump. Chainlink is not needed. We told you for years.
You listened to an 80+ year old dude about tech.
That's what happened.
YOU ALL LISTENED TO AN 80+ YEAR OLD ABOUT TECH.

Holy fuck Im glad I sold Link a while ago. If I saw a shit ass coin like ICP flip Link I think I would punch a hole through my monitor.

>>58171625
Could be worse. I could have bought a VC pump and dump that rebranded.

>>58171663
thankfully i'm a vastly better investor than you and bought all my icp at 3.80

>inbuilt outcalls

So, are there any examples of them being used? I assume Ari would crash it with no survivors instantly. Something only has to fail once for every to know its useless.

LMAO and no the Ney York stock exchange does not report accurate information, thats why link is designed to gas them.

>>58171626
>i have already answered this question several times now
No, you have not.

>be data provider for chainlink
>contact the rest of the data providers
>"hey, lets feed wrong $TICKER data and short it for massive profits"
>we all open massively leveraged short on $TICKER
>we provide wrong data
>our shorts print massive amounts of money
>Sergey contacts us
>"guys, sorry but I must slash part of your staked LINK"
Explain how "incentives" stop this.

>>58171663
The funny thing about the constant dump and dump and dump for years is that literally no one was buying and that's why it dumped. kek
We all bought $3 here lad.

Whenever I feel sad or depressed, I remember how funny it is to laugh at link baggies and cheer up

>>58171681
>>58171671
Post hands and timestamps right now

>>58171711
think you're misunderstanding the point of this thread
i don't want you to buy ICP
i want to laugh at you for buying chainshit

>>58171680
you literally have no reading comprehension and at this point i would just be repeating myself. i'll try one last time to make it simple for you. if the combined losses from slashing is greater than the gain from shorting the market, then the value is secured because a rational person would not destroy their reputation while losing money.

This is all covered in the chainlink 2.0 whitepaper feel free to download and read it any point

>>58171737
Nice concession.

>>58171737
While were at it since you guys are such uber-elite, English speaking investors, post a low buy order. Heres $4,000 under $6 for Link.

>>58171578
Wanna check the price again? Moron

>>58171794
you might want to delete that. you can read the numbers still

>>58171797
oof icp marines what happened?

>>58171794
sorry, i'm simply better.

>>58171711
I'm sitting at a large desk with several monitors in a corner office mate. I don't do zoom calls like wagies and I have a dumb phone like any respectable white person.

>>58171803
Thanks homie lmao

>>58171821
AAAHHHH MY PISS IS HEADED DOWJ THE DRAIN AGAIN

It seems vcs are pulling same shit at $20 what they did at $13, $14 and $15.

>>58171760
>if the combined losses from slashing is greater than the gain from shorting the market
Chainlink has no way to know if a provider is shorting the market, with how much money is opening a short or with how much leverage it's opening the short.

How can Chainlink Labs secure the value of something when it has no control of the potential losses to begin with? LOL

>>58171830
That was less than half of mine

>>58171866
you said it was for 4k, mine is for 3800 (my gains massively outstrip yours)

>>58171873
Good purchase. I hope you take profits before it dumps again (lol check the price)

>>58171857
what are you even talking about your understanding of smart contracts is literally laughable. The smart contract will know the entire liquidity of everything on it.

>>58171892
i'll be taking profits at 1,000, don't worry!

>>58171899
Wanna be friends?

>>58171857
It has to do with bribing nodes to report false data. Nothing to do with shorting. I hold both icp and link and you are definitely not accomplishing much here except for seeming very confused.

can you do this on chainlink?
didn't think so, stinkies.

>>58171911
Yea me too actually, but like 1/20 ratio in favor of ICP. Thank God.

ngl, ICP seems pretty dope.

>>58171911
>Nothing to do with shorting
I literally gave a hypothetical in which providers can profit off giving false data and shorting (or longing, for that matter).
The only one making no sense is anyone actually unironically arguing that Chainlink providers somehow can't collide to profit from being bad actors.

>>58170361
A monthly subscription. Nobody is saying it will be free. They’re just saying there’s no reason to use Chainshit if Chainshit is more expensive. This destroys the whole “Chainlink will have to be used by everybody because some fat Russian is the only person in the whole world who knows how to oracle” narrative. Token obsolete.

>>58170150
>>58170403
>>58170475
>>58170608
>>58170657
>>58170676
>>58170872
>>58170971
>>58170980
>>58171196
>>58171245
>>58171305
>>58171296
>>58171594
>>58171604
>>58171629
>>58171857

>>58171760
This is nonsense. The real world has operated without decentralized oracles just fine. What actually keeps people from doing this in the centralized world is jail. Some people commit fraud but most people don’t. The money you lose from fraud is tiny compared to the amount of money delusional linkers think chainshit will be able to skim off the world’s economy. That is what matters in end.

>>58172199
the same fucking dumb take that i have pointed out probably 10 times now in this thread. the current financial system does not use blockchain therefore the current world does not need 100% accuracy because transactions are reversible by an authority. transactions on chain ARE FINAL.

>>58170254
>>58171410
>ICP is back under LINK in nominal terms.

Must have been a very happy few hours huh?

>>58171896
Unless there is enough LINK staked to secure the value of ALL the liquidity in ALL those smartcontracts then Chainlink can't, by definition, secure anything.

All this goalpost-moving over you not being able to admit that exchanges DO have an incentive to provide correct price feeds lmao

>>58172245
>transactions on chain ARE FINAL.
>>58171008
>For someone that posted about how others "don't understand blockchains" you sure seem to not know a lot about them.
>Even Bitcoin had immutability breaches that got fixed unilaterally by Satoshi himself.

>>58172336
>Unless there is enough LINK staked to secure the value of ALL the liquidity in ALL those smartcontracts then Chainlink can't, by definition, secure anything.

your starting to understand. the entire size of the DEFI market is based around the amount of value that chainlink can secure

>>58172402
>the entire size of the DEFI market is based around the amount of value that chainlink can secure
KEK
feel free to provide ANY proof that there's a 1:1 ratio of staked LINK value to that of the smartcontracts Chainlink deals we will wait

>All this goalpost-moving over you not being able to admit that exchanges DO have an incentive to provide correct price feeds lmao

>>58171473
>You’re arguing with an Indian who’s sole purpose here is to get people to buy ICP.
Link is the coin with all the jeet and nigger WFH devs

>>58172451
It's not 1:1 i have already explained this you absolute fucking moron. you dont need $100 to secure $100. i would tell you to read the white paper but your reading comprehension doesn't exist. maybe you should buy some textbooks for your village

>>58172451
heres a link but i doubt your double digit IQ can comprehend it

https://blog.chain.link/explicit-staking-in-chainlink-2-0/

>>58172477
>It's not 1:1
Therefor, Chainlink can't fully secure the value with slashing which in turn means that providers can make more money colliding than money they lose from slashing.

There you go. You finally admit it albeit unknowingly.

>>58172477
>you dont need $100 to secure $100

>>58170150
sir icp very good nazi coin

AAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>58172527
keep laughing, your only making your self look more stupid

>>58172550
>your only making your self look more stupid
It's okay, I secured my stupid look with half of a smart look.

>this thread

>>58172245
Some day you will realize that immutability is a handicap not a strength of crypto. The entities that you think are going to turn over their transactions to Chainshit will never accept the type of risks that come with immutability. The reason Sirgay has pivoted to CCIP is because he knows fees from price feeds could never justify the bloated Chainshit market cap. You will see that there will be a million different ways to mitigate the risk from immutability that don’t include Chainshit. There is a reason Chainshit is always crabbing. It’s just not that useful.

>>58172566
i know reading is hard for someone of your intelligence but ill provide the information that might be lurking this thread

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

>>58172616
>immutability is a handicap not a strength of crypto
Nothing is absolute. Immutability can be as good as it can be bad. Same with centralization. People really need to stop acting like everything has to be Bitcoin and about that I agree with which is what I believe you are trying to actually say I guess.

>>58172655
>steal $120
>now I gotta pay a $100 fine
>linkies think this is fine and can't be exploited

>>58170219
no i cant compete

>>58172662
you just don't get it. i honestly feel bad for how dumb you are.

>>58172713
All this copeposting because you couldn't stop your autism from acting up and unironically argue that dozens of exchanges didn't have an incentive to give honest data and that they would all collide to mess with ICP smartcontracts let that sink in

>>58172777
i honestly don't even know what you are trying to convey

>>58172860
>i honestly don't even know
I could tell from the very moment you started posting

>>58172878
take an english class before trying to scam people again. I have proven my point several times even though you are too dumb to understand everyone else reading can.

>>58172915
You sure have buddy, you sure have.

>>58172915
After thoroughly reading your arguments, I have concluded that Sirgay is fat, CCIP is useless, token not needed and you shall remain poor.

>>58172017
What if all btc miners colluded to edit the data? What if decentralization is just a bad idea because money printer can turn on and print enough to bribe the whole world?

Its a quasi-decentralized system that is currently centralized (just like ICP) so there will be no bribery of participants as theyre all KYCd and vetted by the team and have been doing this for years.

Fantom is superior to both in every conceivable way.

>fantom

>>58172527
Sirs, i want to steal 100 dollars but in order to do that i have to convince each node participant to lie for me so i can steal it unnoticed by means of their collusion. There are hundreds of people. Maybe if i pay them each a dollar they will lie for me and let me steal it knowing they will lose the ability to make money participating in it. I will just need a few hundred dollars bribe to steal 100 dollars.

>>58170274
proof of jeet

>>58173293
>Maybe if i pay them
If you actually read more than two or three posts you would know that the hypothetical I used was one where numerous providers willingly collide to make money off giving wrong data. No active bribery involved or reason to be stealthy.
I don't even understand why you reply specifically to the one of the posts making fun of the exact reason that showcases exactly why collusion is a perfectly viable choice.

>>58173256
>What if all btc miners colluded to edit the data?
Then Bitcoin would be compromised and its value would go to 0. Not sure what point you are trying to make here. The reason Bitcoin is valuable is totally different to the reason why Chainlink is valuable.

Icp is link for jeets.
>worship some piss fetish mascot
>obsession with chain(shit)
>"hello sarr! I need the password to your internet computer windows benchod!"

>the OP has dedicated a 29 post tantrum to link and how it apparently isnt important
wow, this proves that icypiss isnt yet another clown market pump and dump coin for sure

>>58173488
How are they going to "collide" and give bad data when it is all right there on chain? If CEXes want to ruin their reputation in one swoop like that they'll be replaced entirely by DEXes instead of each having a piece of the market share.
>Then Bitcoin would be compromised and its value would go to 0.
Ahh, so you do understand why your scenario will never happen with exchanges for the same reason that both BTC and any exchange giving false offchain data would lose all value.
Glad you understand why chainlink works now.

>>58170150
>link regained lead before I even notice it wasn't in lead
Lol

Shiternet compooper

CHECK AGAIN CHUDDIES;)

>>58175259
how mad are you ICP is outperforming chainshit?
>>58175321
so the threat of reputation and economic destruction IS enough to provide valid data after all?
i guess HTTPS outcalls and the consensus mechanism built in to ICP smart contracts DOES work and DOESN'T need link after all! lol!

this thread is embarrassing

>higher price means better

>>58170150
icy pee is minty fresh, and yes I actually bought something called internet computer

ICP is a VC scam.

>>58175321
>How are they going to "collide"
By talking with eachother. Are you retarded?
>and give bad data when it is all right there on chain?
My dude, the reason Chainlink exists is precisely because the blockchain can't access external data.

>Ahh, so you do understand
Wrong, the issue here is that not only you don't understand that your Bitcoin hypothetical is in an on itself vastly different to the one I gave about Chainlink but that the reasons behind why Bitcoin is valuable are also vastly different to the reasons why Chainlink is valuable.
>BTC and any exchange giving false offchain data
>BTC
>giving false offchain data
??????????????????????
You have no idea what you are talking about and it's frankly embarrassing, stop.

>>58175321
>>58176711
Sems like I deleted part of the post by mistake
>If CEXes want to ruin their reputation in one swoop like that they'll be replaced entirely by DEXes instead of each having a piece of the market share
So you acknowledge that cexes or places like CMC, etc DO HAVE an incentive to keep price feeds honest and real.
I don't understand why you people seem to believe that the only form of incentive that exists is exclusively some kind of cold hard payment given by a third party. As if keeping a multi-billion business model running wasn't incentive enough, lol.

>>58176711
What collusion do you think will happen on a CEX? Spell it out for me. DEXes cannot collude without having an entire chain compromised. The nodes report correct data and require bribes to report false data. It is expensive to bribe every node which is why 1:1 collateral isn't needed which was the entire point being made.
Yes, link exists to bring offchain data on chain. No one is arguing against that.
The comparison between compromising an oracle network and compromising the bitcoin network is not some vastly different thing. Feel free to attempt to justify your statement to the contrary by explaining the perceived differences between the two and how it's relevant to your prior assertions.
I figured youd be too stupid to realize the 'and' separates the two distinct ideas of BTC miners being bribed and (second concept here) a CEX providing falsified offchain data on a crypto because they are creating fake transactions or longing/shorting to create a price disparity between the onchain price and what the exchange displays. Link takes aggregates of various sources anyway and has their own method for filtering out values that fall outside the range to an extreme.

>>58176758
I never claimed nor suggested they didn't.

>>58176800
>>58176792
>I never claimed nor suggested they didn't.
>What collusion do you think will happen on a CEX?
My dude, this entire chain of posts exists because some retard tried to argue that cexes would collide to give wrong data because they have n incentive to not do so, unlike Chainlinks providers. You replying to me in an argumentative manner means that you agree with the statement to some degree otherwise you would have zero reason to reply at all as that is the only thing being discussed.
At this point I'm not sure if you are trying to argue with or against anything I said (In fact I doubt you even bothered reading the discussion at all) so now I'm simply pointing out things that you are saying which are wrong or inconsistent as there's very little else for me to do other than that with the lack of clear point.
>Feel free to attempt to justify
I don't have to justify anything. If you think Bitcoin and Chainlink are anything alike you are literal low IQ and I'm not going to waste my time here trying to 'convince' of it when it's clear that you are having a dishonest argument and it's clear that no matter what anyone would say will make you change your mind about anything.

I must thank you and the other guy I replied to for reminding me why I barely interact with this midwit board.

>Link takes aggregates of various sources
So does the ICP smartcontracts. Seriously, all these posts and you people keep circling back to the same thing: That the method used by ICP is virtually the same as the method used by Chainlink.

>>58170150
>inbuilt https outcalls
>got rate limited

>>58170150
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

man, linkies are a fucking joke
i have more respect for newfags that go blindfolded to spend on rugpulls than these fuckers that keep waiting for this shit to pop off after so many years and the recent info that came to light

Welp, time to grab my shit and go back to spending on newer coins with potential like loaf cat.

thanks for the laugh anon, goodbye

>bought ICP at 11
>sold at 20

Not bad to nearly get a 2x in a week. Might rebuy if it goes under 15 again.

>>58177670

I have 5k links and 5k Ps sitting on 4-5x for both of them currently. Whichever one of them wins the bull run will take me with them anyway so I don’t care lmao!

I sold the ICP top again you guys are the best indicator ever thank you I'll buy back when there are no threads

Be real with me... Where is the coin at right now? I'm scared to look

>>58177913
It dumped back to 11.

>>58177913
Just scam pumped to 21

imagine buying something called Internet Computer

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

>>58178199

>>58170150
>ICP flipped LINK
It's like being the top student in the special needs class

>>58178294
it's fucking crashing hard

>>58170150
nobody is holding link anymore anon

>>58170515
point to a transaction that has been reversed then retard and post proof.