/biz/ - Business & Finance

Thanks just sold 100k

It hasn't even begun...

>>7502872
Too bad Swift sees more cons than pros in using Hyperledger.

>>7502872
>>7502945

IRON HANDS

>>7502953

SWIFT is a customer of LINK. SmartContract.com can survive without SWIFT. SWIFT is a dinosaur desperately trying to adapt to new tech.

>>7503000
Now I know you guys are retarded. Not checked

someone already debunked Jonny's theory on the subreddit.

sorry linkies

>>7503034

We'll see where LINK is in a few years, I'm insanely comfy and you're salty lmao

>>7503051

Just checked. I don't see anything.

Also
>reddit

Lmao

>>7502872
Actually the leaked hyperledger document was a proposal for a new Oracle solution and explains why chainlink is not suitable. Pic related

Also "fizzy" which is an axa backed insurance platform using an oracle to write flight plan data to ethereum blockchain has confirmed they are NOT using chainlink.

>>7503148
These are the specs and features hyperledgers custom in-house Oracle solution will have. He entire document shits on the current Oracle solutions, chainlink included.

>>7503193
It says right here that it's not suitable for their use.

>>7503148

Find where they said that, oh wait they didnt!

>>7503193

It never specifically mentions chainlink lmao

>>7503272

Hyperledger is a single organization. If they chose to use a custom oracle, then so be it. There will still be chainlink oracles for every blockchain, brainlet

>>7503148
>>7503193
>>7503272

*breathes in*

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

linktards BTFO. Please make a separate thread detailing this

>>7503400
Yeah it specifically reviews chainlink along with all the other Oracle solutions currently available and lists the pros and cons

>>7503400
Just give up. Chainlink is legit product but there is not any big partnerships atm.

>>7502872
is this not opensourced? chainlink is a stupid scam
who would buy a token to use this product and why would chainlink bow to a bunch of neets who bought these scam tokens
there is no reason not even legal why chainlink would honor this plan

>>7503034
It's true though. Look up what smart contracts are; they basically cut out middlemen like banks; let alone middlemen of middlemen like Swift.

>>7503462

Those cons insinuate the only "problem" is lack of adoption. The main net isn't even functional yet. Kys brainlet

>>7503479

You're gonna get BTFO when main met goes live and you can see the network traffic. They've been waiting since September 2017 to announce partnerships. Just saying.

>>7503272
>decentralized oracle networks (...) are unsuited for permissioned networks
Lol, this is straight up bullshit.
Swift literally paid Sergey to spend a year developing around Hyperledger, and he demo'd the result at Sibos.

>>7503272
Developing privacy features is on Chainlink's roadmap isn't it.

>>7504420
It doesn't matter dude, that document was created in October of 2017. They've already made their own oracle, they're not putting their entire project on standby waiting for muh decentralized Oracle privacy.

>>7503272
>>7504420
Read page 21 of the whitepaper. The Chainlink network can ensure confidentiality by using SGX.

>>7504420
It's a large chunk of the whitepaper.

>>7504585
>They've already made their own oracle
Oh wow, a whole oracle? Damn, Link btfo.

>>7504596
I've already read the muh huwyte paypuh bro. Intel SGX implementation isn't until further down the line, not to mention it's known exploits

>>7504677
its fixed tho

>>7504677
Well you can sell your LINK then. I know I won't be selling mine.

>>7504677
>Intel SGX implementation isn't until further down the line
That's because the finished product itself isn't until further down the line.

>not to mention it's known exploits
SGX is in full development.

The FUD is unreal. But whatever. All I see is there is one and only one project that's working with SWIFT. And that's ChainLink.

>>7504777
Stay poor faggot

>>7502953
If SWIFT doesn't want to go bankrupt they WILL have to adopt new technology. They're already in a tight spot, being the first adopters of smart contracts would help them immensely and they know it.

>>7502872
thanks

>>7504677
This. In that IBM document they listed what they see as LINK's cons in their eyes. They listed
>requires a lot of user engagement (a lot of nodes)
this one is not a problem since we have at least a thousand NEETs on this board alone who want to run nodes
>privacy concerns for data-sensitive networks
this one is not a problem either since LINK is gonna use Intel SGX, which is in full development and has the exploits every cretin loves to harp on about patched in a day after having them discovered

LINK has no cons at all. I'm sure they're already aware of it since this document was written so long ago.

>>7503580
wut.
This is not at all what smartcontracts do.
>>7504220
It actually makes sense that CL wouldn't be a good fit for their implimented version of 'secure blockchains'
Their implimentation is retarded and requires the use of oracles for it to be practical.
>>7504420
Yes, SGX, TownCrier
>>7504585
They have their own oracle, their customers hate it's limited functionality. Their oracle supports plugins written in Go.
I'm not going to break this down for you.

>>7505211
>wut.
>This is not at all what smartcontracts do.
Yes, it is.
They're contracts that execute automatically.
That means they cut out middlemen that execute/confirm/record/enforce/... contracts under the current system.
This includes notaries, attorneys, insurance companies, banks, courts, ...

>>7505273
I misunderstood what you were saying.
I agree, but perhaps I don't agree with the level of job displacement that will result; at least not to the level that you do.

>>7505165
They have 20k people who want to run a node and it isn't even well known and people don't realize how profitable it is
So yeah the User engagement shouldn't be a problem....

>>7505419
Oh I'm just referring to the raw principle behind it.

Adoption of smart contracts can (and very likely will) be very gradual, right alongside legacy systems.

>>7505165
>>7505494
Don't forget that in 2018 banks are basically being forced to open up their internal APIs to third parties.
There will be no shortage of source material for free agent Chainlink nodes to exploit.

>>7505211
>They have their own oracle, their customers hate it's limited functionality.
Did you read that in the emails? Can you provide more details. Cheers

>>7505615

How theorerically would those open bank API's be harnessed by joe node operator? For what use I mean? Curious if you can even think up some hypothetical contractual use of that data.

>>7503634
>They've been waiting since September 2017 to announce partnerships. Just saying.

J Cole went double platinum with no features

The fudders are getting more and more desperate I see.

>>7503148

Did you only get screenshots? Wanting a copy of this document dor references, they locked it out before I saved it.

how desperate are you bagholders? This shit is flimsy as fuck. Chainlink is gonna be worthless soon.

>>7505762
Passively by bidding on contracts that specify the use of such bank APIs, actively by creating contracts that use such bank APIs.

>>7505779

>when fudders use fomo as fud because the fud they produce is so low quality

>>7505842

Right.. But for what USE.

>>7505893
Read up on what smart contracts are.

https://chainlinknodes.com/sergey-nazarov-speak-bitcoin-ethereum-blockchain-superconference/

"The topic of his talk has yet to be announced on the conference site. However, it will most likely relate to the importance of the ChainLink
oracle project and the potential of smart contracts as a disrupting force in the financial, real estate, and insurance industries."

It better be on that topic, Sergey, it fucking better be.

>>7502872
The last time this wallet moved coins LINK went 4-5x within 60 days. Insider getting ready for the bullish news coming. Good for them, good for us. That wallet is still holding 80% of what it initially started with, nowhere near a "dump"

>>7506212

Prove

>>7506212
how many linksters do i need? currently only have 3k ~10% of portfolio, rest is in xlm
am i going to make it?

>>7506359
>79 days ago
>November 28th

>>7506536
You won't make it. XLM is already floating at the top of it's marketcap, because of the sheer amount of coin in circulation. The best it will ever do is 3x

>linkies are so deluded they think a simple two word reply from a community manager who doesnt know shit is proof of anything
LMAO
DELUDED

>>7506594
What are you talking about retard they've been dumping in chunks this entire time. Look at their dump wallet and the dates! The screenshot in pic doesn't fit nearly all the transactions

https://etherscan.io/token/0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca?a=0xe600e6009be4dbd8b9cf932027b9d26607cab55b

>>7503595
He wasn't wrong by any means though, you cultist faggpt

>>7505800
here
https://my.mixtape.moe/aabzwb.docx

>>7506778
wtf are you talking about? I'm on eitherscan and i dont see in out binance

>>7506871
AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH YOU NIGGEEEEAAAAARRRRR MY LINKS

>>7506953
https://etherscan.io/address/0xe600e6009be4dbd8b9cf932027b9d26607cab55b#tokentxns

>>7506778
It's a wallet holding 2 million linkies. The original wallet they came from sent out linkies 79 days ago.

>>7506953
Dude u can even click the address it was sent to and it tells you it's binance

>>7506953
Thx Sergey

>>7507037
>>7507083
oopps.

how do we know for sure thats not someone who go it on the ICO?

>>7507150
Because if you follow the chain of transfers, it's one of the untouchable LINK wallets, mentioned in the whitepaper.
https://etherscan.io/address/0xf37c348b7d19b17b29cd5cfa64cfa48e2d6eb8db#tokentxns

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NOT LIKE THIS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>7507083
I never saw anyone mention this, but on my wallet transfers it doesn't show the target address as "Binance". It shows my bare deposit address.
Isn't "binance" binance's cold/hot wallet? Why would anyone send crypto there? It won't be credited to your account.

>>7507251
>one of the untouchable LINK wallets, mentioned in the whitepaper.
The white paper doesn't mention any wallet, and no wallet was ever stated to be "untouchable" in any other way.

as a dev
even if I sell now it doesn't mean I wont buy back in the future (when the price is lower)
so I don't see the problem if I ultimately buy back the amount I sold (and more)

I still believe in the project
its just the smart thing to do

> buying ERC20 tokens and thinking they'll matter
These are people who litteraly couldn't even be bothered to make their own shit coin

>>7507561
There are 350 millions of untouchable link reserved for institutions.

>thanks Jonny
>I appreciate what you do
Plausible deniability. Not saying anything, but implying it. Rory wants people to believe what Jonny says, but that isnt what's really going on.

>>7507835
They could start distributing that at any time too, not untouchable at all.
And I'm pretty sure they still have 350 million left.

>>7507897
>They could start distributing that at any time too
Distributing to Binance?

>>7508006
see >>7507992

>>7508006
Who says they distributed even 1 token for institutions?

Also, going through Binance is a very good way to obscure the trail.
No need for us to know where those tokens are going if they're indeed going to staffers or institutions.

>>7508136
>>7508060
>implying it is a more likely explanation, than devs dumping their tokens on you and buying tickets to Bahamas.
>what is Occam's razor

>>7508240
If they wanted to obscure the trail of the tokens (which is very plausible), going through binance is by far the simplest option.

>>7503034

>>7508428
Comfy

>>7508376
Why would a honest startup want to hide their trail of coins?

>>7508589
So they don't reveal their partnerships before the NDA is lifted, how many there are and how much each would get

>>7508589
Because the recipients deserve some privacy.
Wouldn't want hordes of shitposters trying to guess which wallet is Rory's, for instance.

Doubly so for institutional recipients.

>>7507083

Lol wow it is realler than I thought this still makes no sense though because Sergey would be a fool to make a public appearence if it was this obvious that they have begun an exit scam, maybe they are just putting link on the market because us iron hodlers wont drop bags LMFAO

>>7508668
>>7508667
Pretty sure it's a case for IRS and SEC. I will write them an email and tip them off about possible securities laundering and tax evasion.
If the transactions aren't a scam it will all be fine, if it is, I want that fat fuck behind bars.

>>7508589
Same reason they're not (allowed to) reveal the names of institutional node operators and institutional users before the mainnet is launched.

Any serious corporation takes great care of their public image, and do not want to take unnecessary risks that could harm the brand or integrity of the corporation. And in the event that ChainLink fucks up and fails to deliver, the corporations that were attached to the project remain unnamed and undamaged.

Anyone who's ever been in big business knows this is standard shit.

>>7508743
Like I said, we should get IRS and SEC to check on them. Better safe than sorry.

>>7508721
Lol, the IRS and SEC know exactly how much Sergey has.
The token allocation was plastered all over the website for months.
1B tokens total
35% for public sale
35% for nodes
30% for development.

>>7508812
>The owner of this token transferred it to an exchange
>I suspect foul play

Yes, I'm sure the IRS and SEC will take your request very, very seriously. Go ahead.

>>7508882
The devs being completely silent is a case for securities fraud. You can't just sell people securities, do nothing for months, then start suspicious movements through a chain of wallets.
I will report it as possible securities fraud.

>>7508958
This is some 10/10 trolling.

If you're actually serious, I'm so sorry.

>>7508958
>Have an active community manager and updates
>Do nothing

Pick one

>>7502872
Is that really Rory's username? Sibos restroom attendant?

>>7508958
Americans weren't even allowed to enter the ICO

>>7509047
>Have an active community manager
Where? Some fuck on a private slack, who refuses to answer direct questions isn't a "community manager".
>updates
Where?
>>7509037
I'm dead serious and I guess you forgot your funny internet money is now being regulated by the government and all the same laws apply.

>>7509096
Let him dream, anon. He's very excited.

>>7509105
Go to the Gitter, the Sack, or even the fucking chat window on their homepage, and ask any practical or technical question and you'll get a detailed response within the day.
Especially questions regarding nodes, which is the main focus of development right now.

>>7509234
>the Sack
lol, the Slack of course.

>>7509234
A practical question no one has ever answered -
what's up with 8 million LINK being dumped on Binance by a dev wallet over the course of 2 last weeks?

>>7509515
This question was answered even before it was ever asked.

1B tokens total
35% for public sale
35% for nodes
30% for development.

>>7502953
Most of those Hyperledger cons are literally fixed by them integrating with Chainlink.

>>7509047
>>7509105
>>7509234
lol the confido community manager was still answering questions after the exit scam happened. Rory and thomas sure as fuck wouldn't be in on it.

>>7508721
The thing is that chainlink isnt a security. And smartcontract is registered in the cayman islands

>>7509709
Steve would, and he's constantly in the Gitter talking technicals.

>>7509751
>chainlink isnt a security
I guess you missed the Bitcoin hearing. SEC considers all ICOs and tokens securities.

>>7509801
bittrex listing for chainlink never

>>7508958
>this cockgobbling retard again

>>7509801
Good thing Americans were explicitly barred from participating in the ICO.

>>7510034
It means:
1. They were planning to pull and exit scam all along
2. Although they bannend US citizens from the ICO, they didn't forbid them to hold the tokens, Americans can still buy the tokens on the exchanges, which still makes them securities holders

The fat fuck didn't think that one through.

>>7510116
>bannend
>go to bed, pajeet

>>7510116
>1. They were planning to pull and exit scam all along
The SEC securities thing has nothing to do with exit scams.

>2. Although they bannend US citizens from the ICO, they didn't forbid them to hold the tokens, Americans can still buy the tokens on the exchanges, which still makes them securities holders
They bought them from third parties. CL is completely in the clear.

>>7510192
lets be real here, if sergey exit scammed I have no doubt some turbo autist who holds 50k link would hunt his ass down and murder him

>>7510192
>They bought them from third parties. CL is completely in the clear.
Nope, they are still liable.
What would absolve them from liability is the magic sentence Tether has and Chainlink hasn't
>residents of certain U.S. states are not permitted to be customers of Tether; are not permitted to cause Tethers to be issued or redeemed; and, are not permitted to hold Tether Tokens.

The fat fuck will be raped in prison.

>>7510244
No doubt.

>>7510244
I was thinking this the other day as well.

>>7510192
Theres a reason bittrex doesnt list security tokens.

you guys realize that if HL uses CL, it wont be the public chain, and it won't use that token you guys have been bagholding on to.

>>7510269
Whatever helps you sleep at night.

>>7510311
But Bittrex does list ICO tokens.

>>7510368
The token has nothing to do with the chain.
Chainlink will work with any blockchain or DLT. The token is purely for compensation and staking, which is entirely separate.

Can anyone explain to me the main differences between LINK and ICX? Why is LINK better?

>>7509673
This

GUYS CHAINLINK IS GOING TO 0 AND I'M CALLING THE SEC TOMORROW AND SERGEY IS GOING TO JAIL DEAL WITH IT

Also buy best oracle mobius

>>7510244
I hold 50K. That's not enough money for me to justify the trouble. If I had 100k+, maybe

>>7511745
2k is alot for a NEET

>be sergey
>worry about low trading volume in link
>hungry for big macs
>also want lambo nao
>market sell a couple million link
>big finance now sees link has high trading volume
>you are also now satisfied
>driving to the pickup window of mcdonalds in your brand new lambo
Serget's so fucking based, I wanna high-five him.

>>7503462

Bought 1k more.

Ty

>>7505893
Literally asking what use bank data has.

Please market sell all your LINK.

>>7505893
To make both the data providers and the node operators selling their data lots of $$$$

>>7510244
None of you faggots would do shit.
>>7510269
Let's see your six pack then Chad

>>7511131
It isn't, these fags are just trying to scam you.

>>7502872
Holy fucking christ. FUCKING FINE ILL BUY SOME FUCKING LINK JESUS FUCK. YOUVE SHILLED IT ENOUGH I BOUGHT SOME.

Six fucking months of listening to you people non fuckig stop. I lived through DGB but this good god. You people dont stop i mean fuck it I bought $4k worth. God damn i hope it moons just so you people shutup a bit while you buy lambos.

>>7513583
>he fell for it

>>7502872

OP no joke.

I'm 100% in LINK.

This convinced me to out in another 5 grand.

>>7502976
ALLLLLEEEEERROOOOOOOON HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELIX

>>7513710
Its 2.5% of my portfolio its fuck it money.

>>7503272
Listen carefully, because what I am about to say is important. Riddle Anon gave us a hint about this thing directly.

He said, "the president of a multi-billion dollar" member company from Hyperledger said about CL "I know of no other choice"

I don't have the screen, I looked for it but couldn't find it and the thread has been archived.

Bizraeli's don't take Riddle seriously, but one day you will, and people will wonder why no one understood him to be the true AssBlaster

>>7513893
FUCK

I forgot one part of the CEO's quote, he said:
"Things are moving rapidly, and I know of no other choice"

>>7507739
Ok go ahead and sell while it’s low. Perfect timing for a /biz retard.

>>7513893