/biz/ - Business & Finance

Why won't this shit ever stay above .70? It's like someone wants to keep it low for accumulation. No meme.

when to buy?

Ferrari partnership was just confirmed. Strap in!

>>7967875
the big holders just want to get out. theyve missed so many opportunities for huge returns being stuck in this thing for 6+ months.

if you've actively traded in the past few months you'd have to be retarded to keep any sizable about of money in a non-performer like link.

>>7967875
lol keep coping

>>7967857
drop to <$0,50 pls

>>7967895
I bought at 40 cents and made almost 60% profit in 2 weeks. How is this non-performing?

>>7967887
made me kek
ty anon

>>7967910

time to sell you imbecile

>It is over
>Volume drippin'
>Sell orders pilin'

>>7967910
because 60% in 2 weeks is shit if you're actually trying to find good short term trades. nobody looking for good long term holds is looking this far down the volume+mcap rankings, so being stuck in something like link is just a missed opportunity for most traders.

>>7967857
>everything is bleeding out due the bear market we're in
>choose to focus on LINK, even though it's one of the best performers right now

bitch lasagna

>>7967895
It’s gone from 100 Mcap to around 80 in the last week. What are you on?

Ive been watching it the past 2 hours. Volume went up from 310 to 315 btc

Every time i sell to do a trade. I end up losing linkies

Im willing to bet we hear from sirgay soon.

Also some popular jew on twitter is explaining why we need decentralized oracles to normies.

PRICED IN

>>7968055
yep...time to sell was during the new year's crypto mania, time to buy in again was like last week, now is the time to hold.

>>7967964
>60% in 2 weeks is shit
Better than the vast majority of other coins during that time. How much do you make? 100x in one day? Why are you still here then and not driving your lambo? Maybe you're salty because you're not in the greens despite a downtrend market during that timeframe

>>7968000
thats a "ranking" in cmc, not a market cap.

>>7968570
youre not even reading. if you're going to go that far down a buy into such a low volume/low(er) cap coin, most traders expect more than 50-60% in 2 weeks.
they could have been in any number of other coins, including ones a lot less risky and still made more.

theres literally no reason to be in chainlink right now.

>salty
you realize a lot of early adopters are still here right? i've gotten some of the best information from people on here desperate to do everyone elses research for them.

not so much in the past 6 months though, since this place turned into a pajeet chainlink fest.

>>7967857
SXSW in less than three weeks. There's a good chance that before then we'll see another dip or two, just because crypto is in a glut overall, but a pump is almost guaranteed before Sergey's biggest conference yet.

>>7967964
>60% in 2 weeks is shit
Tell me what you've bought for the last four 2-week periods that returned more than 60%.

>>7968647
Sxsw is ?
SeXySWinging ?

>>7968686
South by Southwest. Sergey is presenting sharing a stage with the founder of DocuSign.

>>7968625
>crypto ""traders""

might as well get into online poker.

>>7968662
just look for yourself on cmc. you can sort by 7d delta, chainlink is even down 5% in the past week, for its volume and marketcap, its gains have been underwhelming compared to the risk you take holding it. even shitcoins like etc had a better run.

cherry-picking a 2 week period and trying to use that as justification for anything more than a short term p&d is asinine.

>>7968662
>huur everyone who buys link is in profit
except for all the bagholders who continuously fomo into aths

>>7968769
BTC holders lost, ETH holders lost, NEO holders lost, pretty much all the top coins either lost or moved sideways

>>7968767
i dont disagree, which is why i find it strange that people are so interested in a 2 week period that this shitcoin has performed over average and trying to extrapolate to it being some kind of a long term hold.

if youre having to delve so deep to find coins you should be taking real risks, and not holding on to something like link.

>>7968784
Then just dont fall prey to FOMO...

>>7967857

RENT FREE

>>7968792
yes, and a huge number made significant gains too. again, look at another shitcoin, litecoin.

you can't point at chainlink and say it's been an incredible hold for anyone over any timescale, at best it's had decent single digit multiple returns, and at worst you've managed to miss out on triple digit multiple returns just by being stuck in it.

>>7968823

>be me
>hold LINK since October

>flip literal useless shitcoin ICOs on telegram pajeets and pour profit into more LINK

ChainLink is such a non-coin why do people fall for this obvious scam

>>7968850
not wise to put all your money in one basket, especially something like chainlink of all things.

>>7967857
>It is over.
It never began. DOA.

>>7968804
>which is why i find it strange that people are so interested in a 2 week period that this shitcoin has performed over average and trying to extrapolate to it being some kind of a long term hold.

can't cure impatience. i'm in it for the long run, this is imo one of the most exciting crypto projects being developed right now.

>>7968863
it doesnt even have to be a scam, the wasted opportunity of sitting in chainlink is bad enough. even with all the shilling on here barely anybody else is interested.

>>7968823
But I didn't say that. For me, personally, LINK has been a great investment so far, I didn't FOMO in at ATH. If LINK loses 30% of its value, I am at my initial investment price. Why would it do it? The project has made significant advancements and it had a fundamental correction since then.
What I dont get is why so many people on here spend so much time either shittalking the token or hyping it. Why do people care that much?

>>7968879
>It never began.
This, but in a good way.

>>7968881
if you bought into the ICO, or the december dip, sure. chainlink itself isn't particularly flawed from a tech standpoint, but its not something i would consider buying the token of.

>>7968890
i don't know, but for some reason the pajeets here love shilling it on 4chan, but it seems to have very little interest anywhere else.

>>7968871

I've held since October, when it was 15c. I am still 4x on LINK alone fag

>>7968871
>especially something like chainlink of all things
Yeah, especially something like one of the most legitimate tokens in all of crypto of all things.

>>7968925
4x since october? please tell me that's a joke.

>>7968958

>ChainLink of all things, really sweetie?
>you mean to say you are actually holding a token which is to be utilised in blockchain agnostic bridging of real world data in a completely trustless decentralised manner and make smart contracts actually useful?
>pff sweetie you can make more buying literally worthless vaporware utility token shitcoins that get pumped and dumped by third worlders onto Reddit upbloaters

>>7968999
>you are actually holding a token which is to be utilised in blockchain agnostic bridging of real world data in a completely trustless decentralised manner and make smart contracts actually useful?
OF ALL THINGS?????

>>7969008

Seriously this brainlet faggot will never make it

>>7968999
>>7969008
nice memes. unfortunately like i've repeatedly said, chainlink has thus far been an absolutely terrible hold since it came onto the market.

you can love the tech all you want, but chainlink is absolutely vaporware right now until it manages to get real smart contract platforms like ethereum actually using it, which is a long way away, still, if ever, depending on the direction ethereum itself goes.

>somebody finally bothers to open the lid and see what's actually inside
HEY HEY HEY

>>7968899
>but its not something i would consider buying the token of.

so you're against tokenization in general, or you think the project is shit because it hasn't mooned yet?

>>7969027
>never make it
lol

>>7969050

>Ethereum

What part of blockchain agnostic do you not understand?

ChainLink doesn't rely on any single platform because it literally is a fucking independent network.

>>7969050

you are so fucking mentally stunted it's sickening

>>7969065
i just see it too unlikely to reach whatever super-dominance it would need to be a preferable choice over oracles that live and are secured by the smart contract's own networks, unless the entire market goes though some serious de-consolidation.

>>7969075
yeah, everyone's heard these arguments before, whether it's for ark, or icon, or whatever. same shit different chain. what's never explain is why they think they can become dominant in a world where no smart contract platform is.

>>7969095
sorry, did i remind you how much you're down so far? my b

>>7969118
>I just see Amazon too unlikely to reach whatever super-dominance it would need to be a preferable choice over book stores which I can enter and actually hold the books in my hands and speak to the vendor, unless the entire market goes through some serious de-consolidation

>>7969050
>until it manages to get real smart contract platforms like ethereum actually using it

do you even understand how chainlink works, or are you just trolling? you're wording it like you think chainlink has to be integrated into the ethereum platform before it can do anything, which obviously is total bullshit. it can potentially interact with every fucking distributed ledger out there, it's an external add-on.

>>7969118

Are you a retard? If no smart contract platform is dominant or if one is, it doesn't make a single difference to LINK adoption or not.

Do you even know what LINK does? Fucking lurk more you absolute /nubiz/ brainlet

>>7969132

I'm up $40k. Nothing you're saying applies to anyone who didn't FOMO in at the ATH.

>>7969118
I'm not selling so you can buy sheaper faggot

>>7969138
amazon would never have grown to the size it is today if all it did was sell books. terrible example.

>>7969163
no i understand how it works, but it still needs platforms actually using it for it to have any value. it's trying to edge itself into smart contract platforms, it doesn't have one itself, so it's quite literally beholden to them and their users integrating their contracts with the chainlink network, regardless of the implementation details.

>>7969172
lol, i've been here longer that you buckaroo. think for a minute and stop blindly disagreeing with anything that affects your emotional investments.

you expect the network effects that consolidate networks to only work for chainlink and not for the much more important underlying smart contract platform? because that makes no sense.

"connector" blockchains are quite literally one of the biggest misunderstandings in this whole space.

>>7969050
You can be angry at this man or try to argue with him but he is right. This is just a token with no use, priced by pure speculation. Nothing in this world is for certain and there is no guarantee they can deliver on the tech as promised.

>>7969229

>durr a full product isn't out yet and uncertainty is something that exists

hmmm yes very wise indeed, i never even considered this

>>7969138
>>7969228
>amazon would never have grown to the size it is today if all it did was sell books. terrible example.
That's the whole point. I also see anons saying:
>The bigger the market a project is trying to capture the bigger the barrier to entry
because LINK is going after some pretty big markets in the long-run, like data-driven automated agreements in the derivative market.
This is obvious that there will be barriers to entry, however, this is why I believe LINK is in a unique position.
NO massive tech monopoly started out going after a big market. Amazon started with fucking obscure books, before becoming the e-commerce giant it is today. Facebook started with ivy league college students. The list goes on.

LINK can literally take its pick of a handful of promising small but growing markets via a number of entry-points: automated data-driven agreements in derivatives, open banking APIs, stablecoins, smart-contract adoption, etc. The list goes on.
It just needs to work on one specific solution, and it will establish itself with a strong enough network effect that it could take over adjacent markets sequentially. It could start with high-value contracts between two investment banks, eventually move toward the broader derivative market, then automated bond coupon payments, then stock market, and then insurance contracts, and then trade finance etc.

Finally, LINK will have multiple reinforcing network effects, just like BTC had, to ensure it can maintain a monopolistic advantage:
>contracting parties
>node-operators
>stakers
>devs
>speculators

Although I'd love to hear of other projects with similar level of promising fundamentals with as good a risk/reward profile for a speculative long-term bet.
>>7969229
The same could be said for most projects, and it's just easy to shit on LINK because in hindsight it didn't outperform other alts. But I'm glad this double-standard gets applied to LINK, considering it's one of the few anti-hype projects out there

>>7969228
Do you realize the endless use cases of smart contracts and how chainlink is key to do it?

>>7969229
the token itself does have a theoretical use, i'm just talking about the failed incentives of trying to get large smart contract platforms like ethereum to use something like chainlink over something secured by ethereum's network itself.

>>7969229
>This is just a token with no use, priced by pure speculation. Nothing in this world is for certain and there is no guarantee they can deliver on the tech as promised

SO LITERALLY 99% OF THE CRYPTO MARKET, HOLY SHITTTT, SUCH WISDOM!

Sergey Nazarov is a one of the best software engineers in the world.

He is also a published author in theoretical and applied economics.

Add to this a spotless trackrecord as a CEO and an angel investor, and you have a recipe for success!

>>7969288
>failed incentives of trying to get large smart contract platforms like ethereum to use something like chainlink
>ZeppelinOS, the development standard toolkit for smart contracts and dApps on the EVM, has already announced they will be using ChainLink in the background.
Although I'm sure I'm "arguing" with someone who owns 200k LINK and is just fucking around.

>>7969274
i understand they're trying to get agreements to get data sources, because that's their only play here. without any exclusive data, (and i doubt they'll be able to get exclusivity agreements) they dont have much to offer large blockchains that themselves offer more security.

yes, they have some network effects, the problem is the underlying smart contract platform will always have the same, plus more, and that's ignoring all of the benefits you get by using oracles that are built in to whatever second layer becomes most popular for them.

>>7969281
you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

>>7969357
i dont actually own any link, no. i had considered it before i looked deeper into how much is out of their hands when it comes to adoption. and zeppelin isn't "standard", its just some third party trying to create tooling, we'll see if it goes anywhere.

>>7967875
>Why won't this shit ever stay above .70? It's like someone wants to keep it low for accumulation.

OR
That the market thinks its not worth much at present and is making lower highs and is mostly propped up by trading bots doing low end pump and dumps.

>>7969368
>everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

name one smart contracts platform that has integrated, decentralized oracles, or is actively working on creating them. i'll wait.

>>7969368
>exclusive data
Are you sure you know what LINK's actual use case is? The point is not for it to act like any other oracle service, the point is to secure the most vulnerable input and output points of a smart-contract, else it doesn't matter how secure the smart-contract platform is, or how "exclusive" the off-chain or on-chain data. If it's not tamper-proof, it defeats the whole purpose of the project.
So the argument is, can and will smart-contract platforms themselves be able to develop secure end-to-end smart-contracts before LINK gets it's decentralized oracle network online? Even if they do, will legacy systems and and other platforms not be incentivized to use middleware like LINK, in order have more choice of security and more access to different smart contract platforms? It's quite a stretch to see LINK just fading into irrelevance here
>>7969437
basically this

>>7969368
>you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?

none of potential super dominant coin alphas have oracles on their roadmap. Vitalik hopes to implement sharding by 2021-22. Smart contracts of low / medium complexity to be adopted in 2020.

>>7969467
>Sharting on Ethereum impossible until 2021-22
This makes the burger sad

>>7969467
Can you guess why none of the top tier coins that have top talent working on them are currently involved in oracles?

Chainlink is a meme two person project that spent their budget on shilling on 4chan.

>>7969437
i'll remind you that chainlink itself has nothing yet either. if oracles are as critical as every chainlink shill loves to say, then you can bet platforms like ethereum will literally have no choice but to.

>>7969458
and to secure it, it will have to have a marketcap greater than the smart contract platform itself, assuming they're sticking to their staking protocol for node selection, etc. that's my point, for ethereum, or any other project, to rely on a second entire network to secure "the most vulnerable" parts of a contract, it must clearly be more secure than the underlying network itself, therefore more valuable than ethereum itself, otherwise they're degrading security by using it.

the argument is not can they do it before chainlink, the argument is once chainlink finishes it, do they decide to implement it as part of a second-layer or later upgrade. there's no race here, security is all that matters.

>>7969368
>you realize for a single dominant smart contract blockchain everything chainlink does can be done more securely and cheaper by using an oracle layer secured by the same blockchain itself?
Do you understand why they aren't already doing that? The existing consensus methods don't work with real world data. Some of the next generation blockchains add in that functionality but all of the ones being adopted right now (hyperledger, ethereum, neo, etc. [not corda notably])do not and either need to use a centralized service which doesn't make sense, or a seperate layer like chainlink.

>>7969540
Vitalik the jesus of internet meme money stated himself, that oracles are better of as an independent network. Lurk beyond /biz

>>7969467
sharding is less important than second layers for implementing real time data.

>>7969050
Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
And look at the chart for any coin that eventually had a supermoon mission.

You're an idiot.

>>7969553
or their own layer, in the form of a second layer network, secured by the underlying network itself. theres little incentive to rely on a completely separate project, especially one with the baggage of a token. just look at how vitalik reacted when raiden released their own, he threw millions at plasma.

>>7969589
I was not making a point of what's important for what. Oracles are not his prime focus atm and bound not to be for foreseeable future. He's all in on privacy and scalability now.

>>7969599
i'm not a late adopter, i dont give a fuck about "moon missions", but 4chan's fascination with a blockchain like chainlink is fascinating.

How do you all have the patience to keep blabbering about Chainlink?

>>7969635
>a blockchain like chainlink

>>7969635
>blockhain like chainlink

what?

>>7969467
>none of potential super dominant coin alphas have oracles on their roadmap

with good reason, developing and perfecting a competitive smart contracts platform is difficult enough, adding oracles adds a layer of complexity which might not be worth the hassle and diffuses focus. that's an important reason why "add-on" oracles are a superior option.

>>7969618
right, but he's also involved in second layers, lightning equivalents, which are what opens the door for this kind of stuff. right now he's just trying to get proof of stake out without accidentally destroying ethereum in doing so.

>>7969544
>for ethereum, or any other project, to rely on a second entire network to secure "the most vulnerable" parts of a contract, it must clearly be more secure than the underlying network itself
Not necessarily; it's just means that the smart contract platform has already succeeded in ensuring security, but only limited to tokenization. To secure off-chain data, it would need to rely on a centralized oracle service, which is the next most vulnerable layer. That's what I meant when I said, to secure the input and outputs, and ensure that they're tamper-proof. It doesn't mean that "ETH is less secure", it's just two very different focal points on the overall security of a smart-contract, and LINK has a major headstart on the inputs/outputs through a focus on a middleware network.

So it's quite possible for ETH and other smart contract platforms value to increase dramatically, alongside LINK. Which is why I find it funny if people are unironically shitting on LINK; it's literally one of the few projects that will bring regulated-capital and the devs of the legacy world into cryptosphere

>>7969635
>chainlink
>blockchain

>>7969635
>chainlink
>a blockchain

this fucking guy again...

>>7969651
>>7969652
fine, a "network" like chainlink, if you want to be pedantic.

>>7969647
Because if it works it will change the world.
>also we got some heavy ass bags

>>7969544
blockchains have difficulty scaling. ETH is practically unusable for what it was designed to be (a world computer). Connecting blockchains is going to be incredibly use to any block chain that doesn't already have that ability.

>>7969690
>fine
No, not fine, you ass.

>>7969635
>Thinks chainlink is a blochain
>Fascination and fascinating

REEEEEEE

>>7969676
You're a better man than I, anon, for bothering to spell this out for him.

>>7968920
>pajeets here love shilling it on 4chan, but it seems to have very little interest anywhere else.

This is the danger sign

>>7969540

This is the only FUD that has stuck with me. why aren't their more projects if this is so important.

>>7969647
I get that and I'm 80% into LINK but we're getting to a point where we chew the same shit over and over

>>7969726

How did Bitcoin get FMA as a cryptocurrency? How did Ethereum get FMA as a smart contract and dApp platform?

>>7969676
could might maybe. In practice its a Pnd token shilled and fudded on biz that's burnt a lot of buyers and is massively and crudely manipulated on buy fake walls and crude algos that step it up and dump it

>>7969726
There were a bunch of major oracle projects, and tons of talk of oracles before the Chainlink ICO.

And don't forget that Sergey has been working on this since before ETH, so it's not like it took until 2017 for people to realize the potential of a decentralized oracle network.

>>7969726
there are a shitload...codius, corda, mobius, oraclize, oraclechain, aeternity, etc. most of them are centralized or as vaporware as you can get though.

>>7969770
this is any coin / token really outside of big5 or whatever big there is

>>7969762
But right now,in 2018, there are more eyes on crypto than ever. I don't mean normie eyes, i mean tech entrepreneurs. Theres like 6 supply chain coins (that i know of) and more platform coins. Why is there not more competition?

>>7969540
>spent their budget shilling on /biz/
There are literally no words to accurately describe this level of new

>>7969825

Because to be a serious competitor you needed to start 5 years ago. And nobody did.

>>7969770
Top kek. Guess we better pack it up. The algos and fake buy walls sure did ruin the fundamentals of the project.
>>7969726
>>7969776
>There were a bunch of major oracle projects, and tons of talk of oracles before the Chainlink ICO.
>And don't forget that Sergey has been working on this since before ETH, so it's not like it took until 2017 for people to realize the potential of a decentralized oracle network.
Very key point. There are a lot of projects trying to solve the oracle problem ( >>7969790 )
in their own way, but the advantages that LINK have are far more disruptive:
>time in development
>a community of node-operators and devs, as opposed to a centralized organization
>multiple reinforcing network effects to establish and secure its advantages for the long-term
>>7969825
See >>7969274
Along with its headstart:
>LINK will have multiple reinforcing network effects, just like BTC had, to ensure it can maintain a monopolistic advantage

>>7969676
>secure off-chain data, it would need to rely on a centralized oracle service
why? if chainlink can be decentralized, there's nothing stopping a second layer network that's secured by the underlying blockchain being just as decentralized.

you guys seem way too comfortable with this "fact" that developers for ethereum are going to throw their hands up and say, well, looks like we can't do oracles now, even through theyre the only connection between the real world and the blockchain. that's just insane.

>>7969695
what do you think second layer networks are? the entire point of them is to capitalize on the security of the underlying network while being able to create something that can be as fast and flexible for any purpose, including oracles.

>>7969704
wow a typo. nice contribution to this thread pajeet.

>>7969726
because right now, it isn't important, it will be in the future, but scalability dominates. you simply can't have oracles on ethereum without having a scalable non-blockchain network, which is what second layers are all about. horse before cart, etc.

>>7969825
There is a lot of competitors

There are prediction markets like Augur and gnosis
Blockchains with oracles natively like Aeternity and Zen Protocol
and centralized ones: oraclize is the biggest oracle provider
And other stuff like ZAP and Mobius and one other one I forget that seems to acknowledge chainlink has a huge head start and that they're going for a different market

Plus more I'm sure I don't know about them all. Remember even this december ethereums turing completeness properties and smart contracts are not what the mainstream media focuses on. This is still very new and smart contract adoption in a big way is years away.

>>7969790
>codius, corda, mobius, oraclize, oraclechain, aeternity

Most of these I have never heard of. Let me read some whitepapers. You may have relieved the last of my FUD

>>7969860
>there's nothing stopping a second layer network that's secured by the underlying blockchain being just as decentralized.
Chainlink allows anyone to connect their smart contracts to ANY blockchain.
If ETH added an "oracle layer" like you describe, this would only allow for the ETH blockchain to be used.

Everyone and their dog is making their own blockchain (like Hyperledger for Swift), meaning Chainlink's oracle solution is infinitely superior to your hypothetical ETH oracle layer.

>>7969860
>you guys seem way too comfortable with this "fact" that developers for ethereum are going to throw their hands up and say, well, looks like we can't do oracles now, even through theyre the only connection between the real world and the blockchain. that's just insane.
They're welcome to try. But their oracles will be inferior at the most fundamental level. And I would imagine that as ETH developers they would have some sense of the value of trustless networks.
The ETH devs have enough other problems to tackle, but if they want to take on oracles and put out a second rate product, they're welcome to waste their time.

And this is all asinine anyway, because we're fixating on ETH when that is only the first iteration of a technology that will be applied across a huge range of platforms and legacy systems.

>>7969882
he didn't include Zen Protocol, which is the only worth reading about

>>7969882
>most of these I've never heard of us
It's because they're scams/bandwagoners anon. Except for oraclize, centralized garbage

>>7969860
>if chainlink can be decentralized, there's nothing stopping a second layer network that's secured by the underlying blockchain being just as decentralized.
Why didn't Microsoft just invent their own internet, since it missed out on the first wave of the internet?
Because a decentralized network is a fucking mission to launch. It requires tons of dedicated devs for a long-time, it needs to establish multiple network effects, it needs to build trust with a community of legacy systems and customers, and needs time to prove itself
Once it's online, it's very entrenched.
>>7969917
Again, this. If they stretch their focus too thin, they could get rekt by a competing smart-contract platform. The name of the game is to specialize on a very specific problem, and be the best in the world. That's why I think LINK is going to succeed as the first decentralized oracle network

>>7969860

Back to BBC cuck porn for you lad, BTFO ITT

>>7967895

>>7969900
we've already gone over "connector" blockchains and why they're flawed, not to mention there's no reason a private network would have any incentive linking to a public oracle network.

>>7969917
we'll see, but if oracles are as important as everyone is saying, ethereum will simply have to if they intend to remain competitive. you can bet anyone working on a smart contract blockchain today is going to have oracles as a fundamental feature.

>>7969939
i trust the ethereum developers a lot more than i do the chainlink developers when it comes to building decentralized networks.

>>7969943
and i see you've lost the argument. i hope you'll stop posting in this thread now. bye bye.

>>7969951
>we've already gone over "connector" blockchains and why they're flawed
They're not flawed. You just want them to be in your mind.

>there's no reason a private network would have any incentive linking to a public oracle network
Lower cost, better quality, better trustlessness.

There's probably more, but hey. You got your ass spanked enough as it is, Mr. "Chainlink is a blockchain".

>>7969976
they're based on the premise that somehow these connector networks will become dominant without the underlying platforms they require becoming dominant. it's wishful thinking from link, ark, icon, etc. holders. they're trying to conflate chainlink with the internet when it's the smart contract platforms themselves that are the internet.

a private network that's private for security reasons can't use public oracles, and regardless of that given the penetration ethereum has today in private networks, a native oracle layer on ethereum would enjoy all of the same benefits.

>>7969976
>You got your ass spanked enough as it is, Mr. "Chainlink is a blockchain".
funny, because so far none of my points have been refuted by anything other than wishful thinking from bagholders. all you guys do is get more desperate and try to attack me for typos, or act like cucks like this guy

>>7970033
cucks like this guy >>7969943 *

>>7970015
>they're based on the premise that somehow these connector networks will become dominant without the underlying platforms they require becoming dominant.
What the fuck are you even talking about?

Even if some dude sets up a smart contract blockchain on his own, and wants to run a smart contract on that using Chainlink, he can do so if he has the connector for it.
You clearly have no idea what your're talking about.

>a private network that's private for security reasons can't use public oracles
Read the white paper, big boi.

This is getting real embarrassing.

>>7969950
are you trying to impress people with that portfolio?

>>7969951
>there's no reason a private network would have any incentive linking to a public oracle network.
No reason, unless they trustlessly wanted to interact with any of the things listed in the image.

>>7970052
yeah, more theoreticals. you can say the same about any "connector" network, but who are these people setting up an entirely new smart contract network just for their own use? they would be using a private network, probably ethereum, or whatever replaces it, if anything does, which will have it's own oracles.

>Read the white paper, big boi.
if youre using a public network you're trusting the public network, or elements of it. you can't do that if you're using a private network for specific security reasons. why would you ever think otherwise, do you even understand the security model here?

>>7970085
yeah, interact with any of those great logos. let's keep this in reality please.

>>7967875
Because the market cap is already at 200 mil, which means that Link has to miraculously make it into the trillions before you can start to see any real moon missions. And since people are starting to figure out that currencies like these are a load of hot air, we might not see ChainLink going anywhere for a very very long time.

>>7970115
>yeah, more theoreticals.
There's nothing theoretical about it you dimwit.
There are already connectors for Chainlink; even community-made ones like the Iota connector.

>if youre using a public network you're trusting the public network, or elements of it.
Read the white paper.
Read it.

>>7969973
>>7970033
>i trust the ethereum developers a lot more than i do the chainlink developers when it comes to building decentralized networks.
>wishful thinking
I don't see the consistency. You're applying the same double-standard to LINK that the average FUD does:
LINK is focusing on a specific problem, with a dedicated community of devs, and has been in development for quite some time.
ETH is focusing on a specific problem, different to LINK, with a dedicated community of devs, and has been in development for quite some time. And now they're going to magically solve the problem LINK is looking to solve for all inhouse blockchains and smart contract platforms.
>>7970158
>marketcap
>currency
>trillions before moon missions
kek

>>7970160
great, "connectors", i'll remind you that it still doesn't have a working network, and progress has been pretty dismal over the past few months. i have no doubt they'll be the first to release anything like it, but how long they'll get a free ride before we see native layers is another matter.

>>7970158
You're a moron.

Look at DGB right now; it has a far greater MC, and had one of the biggest moon missions in crypto history.
Why?
Because DGB was one of many novelties paraded by a single bank (Citi).
Compare that to Link, which is the ONLY crypto paraded by a network of 11k banks (Swift).

Link came at an unfortunate time (epic BTC moon mission from 3-4k to 20k immediately followed by epic BTC crash from 20k to 6k), but watch what happens when the market clears up.

>>7970130
I can no longer tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or you're just coming from a knowledge base that is somehow preventing you from seeing this for what it is.
You strike me as the equivalent of the BTC maximalists who said that "BTC will just incorporate smart contracts" when ETH first launched.
If you fundamentally fail to see why a decentralised oracle network (and ChainLink's solution in particular) is the only meaningful (current) solution to this bottleneck then I don't know what more we can say, beyond: Wait and see.

>>7970203
because the ethereum developers have delivered, they have a track record, not just some pie in the sky promises and "partnerships".

ethereum's reliance on oracles will make that decision for them. if ethereum can get by without oracles, i dont see them bothering, but if they're important as link holders like to parrot, then ethereum literally has no choice, or they some other smart contract network will, and have one up over them.

>>7970233
>tries and fails to fud connectors
>pivots to "b-b-but muh slow progress"

The ICO fundraiser was 6 months ago and they already released the Alpha.
In non-hypebeast promisecoin terms, that's lightning-quick progress.

>>7970259
i have been waiting, and waiting. and to be it seems like oracles will remain a non-issue until we get real scaling, on the order of 1000s of tx/s, and by then, who knows what the landscape looks like. dont think we wont see a lot of talk about oracles in relation to ethereum when the time comes.

>>7970304
sure, they actually have something, unlike a lot of other icos, but they're wholly reliant on other platforms adopting them, which is in turn reliant on there being a demand, which can only come with scaling. oracles are going to be a novelty for a while as it currently stands.

>>7970267
>pie in the sky promises and "partnerships"
You do realize that Sergey is allergic to both these memes, right?

One of the most persistent pieces of fud against Chainlink is the ABSENCE of publicity, promises, fancy roadmaps, announcements, partnership hype, etc.

>>7970267
>not just some pie in the sky promises and "partnerships".
Dude, that's basically what ETH was back in 2015.
Let's compare apples with apples when LINK has had it's mainnet out for a year.
>if ethereum can get by without oracles
Yea, that's not going to happen, unless they really want to be limited to tokenization.
>but they're wholly reliant on other platforms adopting them
Smart contract platforms are reliant on an oracle solution so that the legacy world will adopt smart contracts and the platforms, lol

>>7970352
>they're wholly reliant on other platforms adopting them
No they aren't.

They're reliant on node operators and users. Chainlink will be able to connect to any and all public blockchain/smart contract platforms whether those platforms like it or not.

>>7970357
given all the shilling about swift, they do seem to aim very high about reality though.

>>7970391
>given all the shilling about swift
What the hell do you mean?

>aim very high about reality
In English please.

>>7970310
I don't think it's remotely feasible for Ethereum to try and replicate the ChainLink network, and I give them too much credit to think they'd expend the incredible resources it would take to attempt one, on a project that has an entrenched first mover on top of all of the technical challenges associated with it.
Let's see what is happening in a year. In the meantime I would highly recommend you buy 10k LINK just in case you're wrong.

>>7970388
>Yea, that's not going to happen, unless they really want to be limited to tokenization.
ding ding ding, they need them, and they're not stupid enough to realize such a critical feature should be left to a completely separate chain with it's own token.

>>7970400
If nothing else, the constantly shifting goalposts are pretty indicative of how this is going.

>>7970352
1: link is longterm
2: swift partnership
3: smartcontracts domain name
4: in a couple years a lot of companies will offer smartcontracts and they will all be using link
5: ???
6: profit

>>7970391
dev shilling is different to autist shilling
do u even lurk outside /biz bro? I have not seen Sergey shilling Swift/LINK 'parnetship' anywhere.
Stop making up bullshit brother

>>7970400
sorry, very high above* reality. i.e., thinking that swift is going to have some exclusive, or preferential partnership with chainlink, is quite a claim to make.

>>7970407
well, the code is open source, after all. things get a lot easier once the kinks have already been worked out. at the end of the day it's all going to come down to market dynamics. if native oracles come out to be noticeably cheaper to use, then it has a good chance at becoming dominant for ethereum as long as ethereum stays the superdominant smart contract platform. if ethereum falters, then sure, chainlink has a reasonable chance.

i'll look into picking some up, but i'd probably want to see some serious progress on scaling for ethereum before then.

>>7970413
>ding ding ding, they need them, and they're not stupid enough to realize such a critical feature should be left to a completely separate chain with it's own token.
And yet they did. They left it for 2 years, and here we are with LINK releasing its alpha, and mainnet this year.
topkek lad. Smart contract platforms are going to literally explode if LINK succeeds, compared to if they each implement some half-assed layer with their own set of problems. I still don't know why people shit on LINK. It's like they want crypto to be stuck in 2017

>>7970426
not sure what you mean? my points have always been that chainlink has (so far) been a poor investment, and i have little hope for the valuation of the token long term because of the fundamental struggles it's going to have being a network thats reliant on other networks (especially their progress when it comes to scaling).

>>7970476
>sorry, very high above* reality. i.e., thinking that swift is going to have some exclusive, or preferential partnership with chainlink, is quite a claim to make.
Link to wherever the Chainlink team made any such claim.

>>7970502
>not sure what you mean?
Sure you are lel.

>>7970501
they also left scaling for 2 years, so i dont think that means much. development has definitely slowed down on ethereum, but that doesn't mean they're never going to investigate oracles.

and crypto will be stuck with or without chainlink as long as scaling remains the blocker.

>>7970440
i dont spend much time on reddit, no. but there's basically nothing ever said about chainlink outside of 4chan as it stands anyway.

>>7970534
not sure you are either.

>>7968820
I miss that meme

>>7970502
>chainlink has (so far) been a poor investment
Which is meaningless. Past performance only indicate market sentiment, nothing else. The same market sentiment that gave Verge a multi billion dollar valuation.

>i have little hope for the valuation of the token long term because of the fundamental struggles it's going to have being a network thats reliant on other networks
Other networks will come to rely on ChainLink, not the other way around. I don't have anything else to say on the matter. Thanks, if nothing else, for keeping it civil and at least being sincere in your stance.

>>7970158
>figure out that currencies like these are a load of hot air
>thinks LINK is a currency
Please go back to plebbit and die there, you retarded cunt

There was a big whale wall on the order history yesterday, someone post it to warn everybody not to fall for that trap and sell and all of you motherfuckers didn't believe it and now you see this fucking shitcoin dropped.HA HA. This proves the coin has been paid to be shilled here non stop to deceive retarded loosers like yourselves.

>>7970502
>>7970535
Vitalik explicitly said he won't be implementing oracles on Ethereum long ago. Get fucked, you clueless retard.

>>7970603
are you refering to this?

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/

I couldn't find anything else

>>7970615
This and and an interview from 2016.

>>7970535
All I can add is: pic related.
BTC maximalists assumed ETH would be useless because smart contracts would just be added as a feature to the BTC network. It turns out history doesn't follow such a simple linear path.
And if there's one thing history has taught us, is that there will be a variety and diversity of solutions, opinions and development in this space.

So why not bet on the projects like LINK, that not only aims to solve a critical problem, being connectivity and tamper-proofness between the legacy and blockchain world, but also capitalizes on the variety of solutions out there?

It's like you're looking for all the reasons it could fail, when as time goes on, the evidence and trends are pointing in the opposite direction.

>>7970603
>long ago
times change, and regardless, oracles simply couldnt be implemented on ethereum because blockchains are generally too slow, thats the whole point of plasma and second layers, jesus.

I believe in link. link is something that will boom in the long term. all these complaints such as OP's are based on link's performaces in the short term. Dont judge link on it's short term performances. We should invest in link's potential, not based off weekly variances.

Chainlink approaches 70 cents.

Whale puts up sell walls to halt development.

It happens every time, it must be really comfy to be a whale in LINK.

>Know price will go up long term.
>Want to keep price down so restrict knowledge to one community (/biz/)
>Prevent price from rising too much on Coin Market Cap outside of any real news.

Helps that there is rarely any real news from the devs.

Wish I was a whale

WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER

DO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF POSITIVE THOUGHT! ESPECIALLY COLLECTIVE POSITIVE THOUGHT!

THIS SHIT IS GOING TO REACH $1,000 EASILY!
HOLD THAT THOUGHT AND VISUALIZE IT IN YOUR MIND EVERYDAY AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE STARTING NOW AND IT WILL MANIFEST INTO REALITY. DO IT! I'M NOT JOKING!

VISUALIZE AS OFTEN AND AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE!

>>7970572
shitcoins like verge pumping are a diriect result of people talking about them though. as it stands chainlink has little interest, there are only a few thousand holders, volume is decent but it's almost all on binance, and 4chan is the only place on the internet that ever discusses it.

>Other networks will come to rely on ChainLink
doubtful, that's something that those networks will be acutely aware of, and will do everything they can to prevent it from happening, through their own compatibility laters, or otherwise.

>>7970657
the difference is, ethereum grew because it did something bitcoin couldnt. chainlink requires other networks use it, it's an entirely different dynamic.

>>7970683
plenty of coins low on CMC are shilled everywhere. chainlink is unique in that 4chan is the only community that seems to have a dedicated army.

>>7970659
Oracles don't have to be fast, they just have to be secure and operate on a separate layer. Not to mention they have to be blockchain agnostic.
And here's your problem, they would have to change the whole Ethereum architecture to make it ISO and SGX compliant, to make serious companies trust it. They would have to create another layer on top of the ETH network to keep the oracle data completely anonymous, otherwise the data sources can be easily identified and attacked and somehow want to make it work with competing projects, which is stupid.

Ethereum oracles are never happening, m8.

>>7970789
they don't have to change a single thing about ethereum to get native oracles working on the same layer that 90% of txs will be on, their second layer. it wouldn't be as simple as plasma alone, but when youre operating that that layer the same staking incentives apply as they do for chainlink.

>>7970838
> to get native oracles working on the same layer that 90% of txs will be on
Right. So everyone can see them on etherscan, see where the data comes from and who gets it.
You're a brainlet, m8.

>>7970555
Of course I know what he meant.

For instance: you tried to fud connectors with some dumb shit, and when you got schooled you just went "great, connectors", and instantly pivoted to the old "but muh slow progress" fud.

>>7970875
lol, like i said, noting i mentioned has actually been refuted, it's all just speculation because its entirely out of the chainlink developers hands as to how and when it gets adopted and integrated through these "connectors" into other smart contract platforms.

>>7970962
>noting i mentioned has actually been refuted
You only think that because you have mental problems.

>>7970869
>etherscan
do you even know what second layer networks are?

>>7970967
nice ad hominem, i can see how this discussion is working out for you :)

>>7970838
kill yourself you're just repeating the same shit. Seriously you are a dumb nigger. Everyone gets your point but you seem unable to elaborate on it. go away please. Reddit would probably suit you better
>inb4 adhominum
fuck off you've prattled on for 178 posts. you have one or two reasonable points that are up for debate and you seem to have an incomplete understanding of chainlink and ethereum. Kill yourself. Seriously go get some rope and just do it. Nobody cares or will ever care about your opinion. Please don't respond to this post.

>>7970967
lol

>>7970962
>it's all just speculation
Just like all your pessimism is basically speculation that the devs wont do their bidding.

>>7971008
mine is less about them being able to do their work, and more about the fact that everyone seems convinced that nobody will even be able to compete with them, based on nothing but a poor understanding of second layer scaling solutions.

>>7970985
I'm sorry bro, but there really is no other way to say this.

Your """arguments""" against the Chainlink connectors were completely and utterly demolished.

First you said something about connectors having to "become dominant without the underlying platforms they require becoming dominant"; here: >>7970015
I replied that this makes no sense, because even a blockchain created and used by only one dude could perfectly use Chainlink if it has the connector for it; see >>7970052

Then you said this was "theoretical"; here: >>7970115
I replied that this is not theoretical, since connectors already exist; even community-made ones like the Iota connector; see >>7970160

Then you conceded by saying:
>great, "connectors"
and instantly pivoted to an entirely different point: "muh slow progress".

Now all there is left is for you to admit you have a problem.

>>7970992

U got RUSED!!!!1

You have failed to convince our epic autistic brainlet ruseman the benefits of ChainLink, now he will never invest his chicken tendie allowance into the project HAH

>>7968881
>one of the most exciting crypto projects
nothing happened in the last 6 months besides pajeet shilling on biz

>>7970695

>>7968925
>counting in usd

you must be a link marine

>>7971111
And the little matter of the Alpha release.
Did you expect a weekly fireworks show to keep you entertained?

>>7971068
yes, which stands, because some random dudes blockchain is not important and doesn't do anything for chainlink. the dissonance between lots of non-dominant platforms and a dominant layer on top is still something that has yet to play out in this space, it would be a first.

and yes, sure, they exist, so what? they're theoretical until people can actually use them, and iota, of all things, is not the platform i would be developing this for first.

you gave counterpoints, sure, but nothing that refuted the underlying points.

>>7971071
you woldn't even believe me if i told you how much i had "invested" in this shit.

$1000 or death

>>7971057
As far as I have seen, most people focus on ChainLink having the first mover advantage and years of development experience. That and memes. The competition will come but probably not that soon.

>>7971131
>because some random dudes blockchain is not important and doesn't do anything for chainlink
This was an example.

The point was that Chainlink can use ANY public blockchain's. Regardless of that blockchain's "dominance".
Which completely refutes your ramblings about "dominance".

>and yes, sure, they exist, so what?
So they're not "theoretical" like you claimed.

>you gave counterpoints, sure, but nothing that refuted the underlying points.
Except I completely refuted your underlying points.

>>7971131

How much then?

If you don't have minimum 100k then you are irrelevant

>>7971131
>you woldn't even believe me if i told you how much i had "invested" in this shit.
>>7969406
>i dont actually own any link, no. i had considered it before i looked deeper into how much is out of their hands when it comes to adoption. and zeppelin isn't "standard", its just some third party trying to create tooling, we'll see if it goes anywhere.
Which one is it?

>>7970978
So, you are agreeing with me and telling me they DO have to implement a second layer to make oracles work?
Are you retarded?

>>7967857
>it's over

Yeah for the 60th times already and yet the coin keep rising steadily.

>It's crashing! it's going sub 4$
>you in two months

Stay mad dipshit.

>>7971171
yes, being first is huge, but if oracles become critical, being cheaper will generally win out in the end, which is why there's such a rush to get contracts off-chain, because you can't scale people paying a few cents for every contract call.

>>7971190
i understand, but can you seriously not see the dilemma here? chainlink would need to be superdominant for it to be useful cross-network, but for a cross-network layer to be itself useful, it would require there to be enough different platforms that a second network becomes feasible and worth the extra cost, or complexity.

if all you have are a very small number of platforms in the future, adding yet another network with it's own token into the mix makes little sense. this is all completely obvious stuff.

huh

what did OP mean by this?

Reminder this is an orchestrated shill scam

>>7971261
>chainlink would need to be superdominant for it to be useful cross-network
No. Stop.

Even if there was only a single Chainlink node, it could use any network it wanted.

>>7971229
no, you said
>they would have to change the whole Ethereum architecture to make it ISO and SGX compliant, to make serious companies trust it
which is asinine. you wouldn't have to change a thing, and there's no reason companies would be any less comfortable with ethereum than with chainlink where 65% of all tokens are currently in control of the developers.

>>7971222
>chicken tendie allowance
"this shit" being the cryptocurrency space.

>>7971262
To be fair it's just following BTC's pump right now. It could dump slightly as a result, but that just means that if you're holding BTC, all the better timing to increase your LINK stacks.

>>7971302
that operates only on /biz/ and takes 10's of millions of basement dwelling bux out of helpless incel's hands? i believe you

>>7971314
and who would want to use a chainlink network with less security than the platform linking to it? what if there were many different competing oracle layers like chainlink out there? which one would people choose then?

think this through.

>>7971356
>and who would want to use a chainlink network with less security than the platform linking to it?
Read the fucking white paper you dunce.

>what if there were many different competing oracle layers like chainlink out there? which one would people choose then?
This is like asking "what if I teleport behind you? How will you defend yourself from my sun-and-moon katana blade combo then?"

And stop moving the goalposts; Chainlink does not require superdominance. That doesn't even make sense.

So VET is now trading on coinnest.
Moon or shady?

>>7969406
>zeppelin isn't "standard"
Worked in a top 50 mcap project, admittedly a incredibly shitty one.

Open zeppelin is standard. People cherish proven implementations of important utilities in solidity.

>>7971409
the white paper has absolutely nothing to do with this. nobody is going to pick chainlink over a more secure solution for oracles. the security comes from the value of the network and thus the token.

it doesn't require superdomanance, but it does require security at the same level or better as the network they expect people to use it from. if chainlink has a very small low valued network, it's ultimately not a secure solution to source oracle data from, as it downgrades the security of whatever is using it to the least secure element.

>>7971459
last i checked it was just another ico with its own token. i dont see that taking off as a standard any time soon.

>>7971511
>the white paper has absolutely nothing to do with this.
... says someone who obviously hasn't read it.

>it does require security at the same level or better as the network they expect people to use it from. if chainlink has a very small low valued network, it's ultimately not a secure solution to source oracle data from, as it downgrades the security of whatever is using it to the least secure element.
... which is why Chainlink is decentralized.

>>7971546
you really don't understand this do you? the only incentive against bad actors and bad data is the token, low token price, low security. too low security? not worth risking using it in a high security chain, like ethereum.

it's literally as simple as that.

>>7969951
>anyone working on a smart contract blockchain today is going to have oracles as a fundamental feature.

You have no idea how any of this works, do you

>>7971511
>nobody is going to pick chainlink over a more secure solution for oracles.
>the security comes from the value of the network and thus the token
>if chainlink has a very small low valued network, it's ultimately not a secure solution to source oracle data from, as it downgrades the security of whatever is using it to the least secure element.
value will determine security?
wtf am i reading
In any case, the "security" comes from the reputation system of the node-operators. I think you're conflating ETH's network with what LINK is meant to be. LINK isn't an add-on network that can be comparable to anything ETH can add to its network. It's the potential standalone solution because of its focus on the connectivity problem between ANY legacy system and ANY blockchain.
> it does require security at the same level or better as the network they expect people to use it from
Again, there are two focal points of security, and you're conflating them: the security of the smart contract network, and then there's the tamper-proofness of the off-chain data inputs, and the outputs in the form of payment messages.
>>7971601
>low token price, low security. too low security?
Now you're 100% trolling.
Node operators set their price in LINK tokens, and the market demand can determine what to pay for LINK tokens. Price =/= INCENTIVE to keep the network secure. holy fuck.
I hope you don't have as much money in this market than you're alluding to. You got it by luck, and you better get it the fuck out, or at least read white papers before trying to shit on projects that you only have a surface-level understanding of

>>7971601
>the only incentive against bad actors and bad data is the token
You say "token", but it's really "financial incentive".

>low token price, low security.
Lel bullshit.

>too low security? not worth risking using it in a high security chain, like ethereum.
Because Vitalik comes and spanks you if you fuck up?
What the shit are you talking about?

>>7969973
>i trust the ethereum developers a lot more than i do the chainlink developers when it comes to building decentralized networks.

I agree, Apple should just build their own internet

>>7971638
i dont think you do. if you were developing a smart contract platform today, you're saying you wouldn't ensure that oracles are a first class feature? if not, are you saying that developing an oracle layer is somehow not possible?

>>7971649
yeah, like i said, it's based on the price of the network itself. how do you prevent sybil attacks if not with the token?

>>7971680
You're talking about adding on months of work to a project that could just use a finished solution. Nobody is going to do that even if they could.

>>7971652
>bullshit
so where does this magic security come from then? where's the incentive to not give out bad data for your own financial return, knowing that the money you risk losing is significantly smaller than the money you risk gaining due to the disparity in the total value in each network represented by the tokens itself?

you're trying to tell me chainlink has managed to solve the sybil problem AND done it without needing a high marketcap? maybe it is worth buying some.

>>7971680
Who would be doing the oracle computations?

1) The network nodes, on top of mining? How?

2) Another network of nodes dedicated to oracle computations for your specific smart contract platform?
Why, when there are already projects out there that do exactly this, but in a blockchain-agnostic (i.e. far superior) manner?

You're really not smart/informed enough on this matter.

>>7971721
>finished solution
if only. besides, a month or two of work is hardly an issue for such a critical feature for smart contracts, right?

>>7971742
>so where does this magic security come from then?
Financial incentive.

>>7971742
you put up collateral so if you do provide bad data you lose that collateral

>>7971760
There's a working alpha already. It will be finished this year. Why would my large company go through the time to change our code to work with each individual product we want to use when we could just use Chainlink to connect to everything?

>>7971068
Rekt

>>7971744
>mining
most of these blockchains are based on staking these days. who needs another network? it would be part of whatever overlay network you have that isn't part of the blockchain, like plasma, or lightning. the tech is literally all there today, the only reason people arent working on it, is because very few people clearly see it as something critical today, i wonder why?

>You're really not smart/informed enough on this matter.
and you seem to have just read the whitepaper, and think that somehow, magically, chainlink is going to take over the entire oracle space, and the state of blockchains won't advance further than a few speed improvements.

>>7971761
oh! so the value of the tokens then! wow, who knew?

>>7971802
because real innovation comes when you're not tied to the progress of another network.

>>7971865
That must be why so many companies write their own programming language instead of using an existing one.

>>7971742
is this the ultimate reverse psychology shilling?
>you're trying to tell me chainlink has managed to solve the sybil problem AND done it without needing a high marketcap?
I don't understand your logic: why would it need to be a higher spot price in order to "incentivize" the "security" of the network. The node operators set their price for their services in LINK, and the market demand either meets that price in LINK tokens or not. As more node operators and users start coming into the network, THEN the demand and price for LINK tokens increase. But the incentive for providing secure off-chain data and outputs is ALREADY incentivized in the model.
I think you're confusing the microeconomics and macroeconomics of the network.

It's like saying: oh shit, it's 2011 and it's not worthwhile mining BTC, because the marketcap is not high enough to incentivize securing then network. WTF???
>>7971852
>oh! so the value of the tokens then! wow, who knew?
No:
>>7971774
this is the simple answer to the incentive to secure the network
>>7971865
>because real innovation comes when you're not tied to the progress of another innovation
kek
Oh shit, better pack up the internet, it's tied to the progress of DARPA

>>7971886
you mean like Go, C#, Swift, Java, yeah.

>>7971842
>it would be part of whatever overlay network you have that isn't part of the blockchain, like plasma, or lightning
This makes zero sense.
In order to have decentralized oracles, you need oracle nodes. Where are they within a given smart contract platform? Feel free to use ETH as an example.

And please address the "blockchain agnosticism" element.

>>7971852
>so the value of the tokens then!
Lol no.
The token could be 1 billion a piece, or it could be 1 cent a piece. It does not matter.

It is so very painfully obvious how clueless you are.

>>7971895
>>7971742
>maybe it is worth buying some.
Basically, yes. 10/10 shill thread. Couldn't have shilled it better than us

>>7971898
Yes, but how many companies use those languages rather than write their own?

Over 95%

>>7971895
they price it in link, so the security comes from link itself. if you have more to gain than you do to lose by losing your link, false data, sybil attacks, etc become feasible.

where do you think the security comes from?

>this is the simple answer to the incentive to secure the network
right, so the tokens itself to be able to represent more than the amount that could be gained from nefarious purposes.

blockchain security is a complicated issue, you should really do some research into it.

>>7971924
yes, most don't, but those companies that write their own languages are among the most influential, by definition. having control of all of your core technologies is critical in something as fast moving as this space is. you can't afford to make the wrong technology choice and get tied into a bad language, or platform.

>>7971947
>they price it in link, so the security comes from link itself
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>right, so the tokens itself to be able to represent more than the amount that could be gained from nefarious purposes
This is where the laughter dies, and deeb goncern grows.

>>7971903
this isn't a smart contract platform though, it's an entirely new network. if oracles are critical for smart contracts, you have to be both a smart contract and oracle platform, or you're going to run into all of these problems down the line.

>>7971903
so what if the value of all tokens is $1M? what would you say the security of the network is then? what do bad actors have to use, and what's disincentivizing them from providing bad data?

>>7971983
>"hurrdurrrrrrrrrr muh fancy companies have patrician tastes in their core technologies"
Lelelelelel.
The banking industry's back end is still in fucking Cobol. And they outsource literally everything.

You're a very entertaining trenchbrain.

>>7972031
have to lose*

>>7972034
yeah, and we see how quick they are at adapting to the changing landscape. decentralized networks won't have the protection of regulations when the winds change.

>>7971680
What is: project scope and scope creep?

You're either trolling or you have simply not thought through this very well. If and when you're ever involved in the design and implementation of a large undertaking, you'll realize how silly you're being.

>>7972016
>if oracles are critical for smart contracts, you have to be both a smart contract and oracle platform
So you want to start a new smart contract back-end? Why?
There are already extremely popular smart contract back-ends like ETH.

>>7972031
>so what if the value of all tokens is $1M? what would you say the security of the network is then?
Unless the token becomes the de-facto world currency, it does not matter.

FUCK you're dumb.

>>7971947
>they price it in link, so the security comes from link itself.
I'm 100% sure you're mixing up the micro- and macro-economic model here, so I'll spell it out:

Micro: the node operator is incentivized by having a reputation, depending on how much LINK he has staked for collateral, past performance etc. He's incentivized to NOT fuck over contracts, else he loses his LINK and his opportunity to share the potential future value of the network. The fiat price of LINK is basically irrelevant here.

Macro: the fiat price of LINK will increase as more node operators and users join and use the network. So, node operators and users will then change the amount they're willing to accept/pay, but there was always an incentive to provide reliable, secure data right from the beginning regardless of the fiat price of LINK.

Again, can you see how the two levels are different? If you're not trolling, and you keep going with this, I think you're one or two more steps away from shilling yourself into buy LINK lol.

I wish there was a way to short this piece of shit.

>>7971947
The attack would need to be an organized attack coming from multiple nodes. How do you plan to get multiple large, legitimate nodes to all make an attack at the same time? An attack that would be public to the entire blockchain and used during the trial to put all of the node operators in prison for a very long time? The more trust a node has the more that node will be used for important data. If I had to hazard a guess I would say that you will have the option to choose how many nodes you need a response from before a transaction can finish. Maybe I want 25 nodes and I want 23 of those nodes to all have the same answer. Now you need to hack into 23 different nodes to attack my data. Good luck.

>>7972070
so now the most critical feature for smart contracts is feature creep? cant you guys make your mind up.

>>7972055
>yeah, and we see how quick they are at adapting to the changing landscape
Very quick. They simply outsource. Done.

Banks outsource virtually EVERYTHING that they haven't been already doing on their Cobol backend for the last half century.

>>7972086
yes, nothing i wasn't already aware of. which again, means the security preventing sybil attacks is that of the value in the token itself. chainlink isn't special here, it's the same as any staking based currency as far as incentives and punishments go.

>>7972103
and what happens when chainlink starts to languish as projects always do? you shouldn't outsource something as critical to smart contracts as you say oracles are, that's just poor design.

>>7972098
>so now the most critical feature for smart contracts is feature creep? cant you guys make your mind up

That doesn't even make sense. What are you even trying to say here?

Feature creep is a critical feature? Huh?

>>7972149
english not your first language?
>so now the most critical feature for smart contracts [oracles] is feature creep? cant you guys make your mind up

>>7972137
>and what happens when chainlink starts to languish as projects always do?
Huh?

>you shouldn't outsource something as critical to smart contracts as you say oracles are, that's just poor design
Why?

>>7972137
Once Link establishes itself as the default protocol it wont be easy to replace. Look at http:// for instance. Improvements have been made but doubtful its going anywhere in the near future.

>>7972157
Smart contracts and oracles are not the same thing, for one.

Secondly, where did anyone say that feature creep was a "critical feature"? Do you know what feature creep is? Lol Jesus, man -- why are you even trying to argue? You have no idea what you're talking about.

So bizarre

>>7972163
because you are now beholden to them for updates, fixes, changes, etc. looking to how the banking industry does it as an example of how "it's fine" shows me you've never really had any experience on the technical side.

>>7967857
sell orders are bullish tho you memer

>>7972119
Again, you're coming with your double-standard. If you apply that same criticism to a centralized oracle, then you can clearly see that centralized oracles are going to be completely fucked as soon as they start attempting to handle high-value contracts. In order for an attack to fuck over a decentralized oracle network, it would be a far more unlikely event, as >>7972097 mentioned.

It's hilarious that other projects don't get this amount of double-standard FUD and dissection. I'm still waiting to see why the actual concept is flawed. If they pull this off, just like pretty much every other crypto project in their implementation phase, LINK will be a top performer for 2018-2019, hands down.
The only real FUD now is saying that LINK is going to fail in the implementation, which, as time goes on, is becoming less likely

>>7972201
you did, i said oracles should be a first class feature, you responded with "feature creep". get your shit together

>>7972199
if, the word you're looking for is "if".

>>7972207
If banks adopt Chainlink, and Chainlink goes under for some reason, banks simply stop using Chainlink.

If there's a viable alternative at that point, they'll use that I guess.
If there isn't, then no more smart contracts. Just like things were before Chainlink.

Chainlink is a very simple add-on solution, anon. Banks don't even have to change their current APIs.
So I'm not sure where you're getting this "beholden" issue from.

>>7972207
Wait so your whole point is that other blockchain will add oracle's eventually?
Holy shit this guy is a fucking moron, is there anyone who can think of some original fud

>>7972229
No.... No, I didn't. I said feature creep is something you need to learn about to understand why every individual project wouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. I used it as a clear example of you not knowing what you're talking about. You don't even realize how little you understand any of this, and it's blatantly obvious that you've never been involved in the design and implementation of anything large.

>>7972222
i'm not comparing it to a centralized oracle, i'm comparing it with using a token that has a significantly higher marketcap like ether. if you can stake either it becomes pretty clear that using ether proves you with significantly more security against bad actors, than a token that has a very small cap in comparison.

which is why, back the original point, chainlink would need to be dominant enough to demand such a high cap, else using chainlink reduces the security of the contract to that of chainlink itself, not of the platform the contract is running on.

>>7972273
>staking ETH provides more security because ETH is worth more in $

You're a brainlet. Plain and simple.

>>7972265
not just any, the point was any new blockchain written from scratch would be sure this "oracle problem" was a non-starter.

and besides, there's never even been any reason to not use your own, providing your are the dominant smart contract platform, there are huge incentives, even if at least financial, to ensure the token eth is used for as many "core" services as possible. the more token fragmentation we get, the less secure each of those silo'd sevices tends to be.

>>7972244
more likely that a major player buys out LINK at some point than it going undr

>>7972269
you specifically mentioned it when i said a smart contract platform should include oracles as a core component. that is not feature creep by any metric.

>>7972273
This post just ended our need to debate you any more.

In before supercomputes on every city using excel to ddos attack the data.

>>7972285
is the marketcap of ethereum not higher than chainlink?

>>7972308
>any new blockchain written from scratch would be sure this "oracle problem" was a non-starter
But this hypothetical solution is not blockchain agnostic, anon.

Everyone is building their own blockchain; and Chainlink will work with all of them.
This is one of the major reasons why Chainlink is such a beast.

>>7972339
>87 posts by this ID

>>7972273
>if you can stake either it becomes pretty clear that using ether proves you with significantly more security against bad actors, than a token that has a very small cap in comparison.
Thanks for the laughs mate. I refer you back to >>7972086 as you're clearing mixing up the micro and macro model.
Seriously, respond to this: why can't they just be incentivized by being forced to stake with more LINK in the early stages of the network, when the price is $1 - $10, and then less LINK when the network matures and LINK is at $10 - $100?
You're trolling, right?

>>7972273
>What is fungibility

>>7972327
what are you even talking about?

>>7972339
Yes. And?

>>7972351
i think you're mixing up marketcap with the price of the token itself, which is meaningless in this entire discussion.

>>7972325
I'm sorry but you're too ignorant to continue talking to on any of this. You don't understand the most basic topics.

>>7972349
and i have yet to hear anything i haven't already before, nor any real answers to why anyone would increase costs and complexity to use a less valuable network to provide critical data.

just the same old tired wishful thinking from people that probably only have a few thousand dollars in this shit anyway,

>>7972361
so where does this financial incentive come from if you can't represent aggregate value greater than the value of all tokens in the network?

>>7972367
and you still have yet to answer any original points, other than crying about feature creep and trying to make it seem like nobody should bother adding a critical feature, they should just use the network i'm already invested in instead.

>>7972365
You yourself were first linking the "token price" to "security". See >>7971852 etc.

>>7972341
Yep and no reply to this, boy thinks he's smart probably got 100k of it himself

>>7972365
>89 posts by this ID

damn dude, you've got some serious hope that anons will all drop their bags

POST YOUR PORTFOLIO PLZ i wanna see what's better than chainlink to you.

>>7972425
yes, i said value of the tokens, not token. plural.

>>7972451
What coins do you hold.

>>7972410
>so where does this financial incentive come from
From the incentive not to supply bad data causing you to lose your contract stake.

>if you can't represent aggregate value greater than the value of all tokens in the network?
What value would you like to see represented, exactly?

>>7972361
He doesn't know about 18 decimals.
>>7972365
>>7972387
>mixing up marketcap with the price of the token itself.
Let me get this straight. Are you saying that because LINK is $0.50 that's a problem, but it would be fine if it was say $100?
You do know there are 18 decimals, right?
You do know that marketcap is irrelevant to this discussion, because it's just the spot price multiplied by the circulating supply right?
You do know that has nothing to do with how node operators are incentivized, as the amount of LINK required to stake, and how much they're paid, can be increased or decreased?
You do know that value of the network =/= how secure it is, rather perhaps that the security and reliability of the network will encourage more node operators, devs and users to join the network, which increases it's value. Right?

You're a reverse-psychology shill, right? Because thanks to this thread, there are probably anons who are now convinced of LINK's concept, and it's clear that it's getting closer to mainnet launch.

>>7972451
If you know the value of 1 token and the total number of tokens; then you know the market cap.

You are too fucking dumb to be real.

>>7972439
not sure what you mean. its not chainlink thats working with everything, its the other way around. chainlink needs other blockchains to use it for it to be a valuable network, and all the people here holding link to try and get rich.

>>7972449
you'd be disappointed, honestly. btc + all of its shitforks, eth + all of its shitforks inc. etc, neo, xmr, 0x, mkr, and then a bunch of random short term shit.

>>7972490
I think his point was - what stops some collusion of bad actors to stake all the link they have say 100m to corrupt the contract on ethereum platform which is worth more than that.

>>7972490
marketcap assumes all the tokens were sold at the last recorded price, when in reality only a fraction were sold at that price, and most were sold for less.

>>7972471
why dont you just go back and read the original point, which is that chainlink needs to see some form of dominance otherwise the value of all outstanding tokens simply won't be high enough to provide a reasonable level of security for the smart contracts that are expected to use it.

>>7972472
yeah, 18 decimals is default for erc-20s, so what? you need the dominance and market cap that comes along with it to make use of those decimals.

and i'm saying the level of security is tied proportionately to the marketcap, which in turn means chainlink needs dominance for security, which some people are trying to argue against.

>>7972419

Hey faggot

Post your portfoli

>>7972538
yeah exactly, at least there are still some sane people left in this thread.

chainlink themselves still own 65% of all tokens, which is a great reason to not invest, but at least that solves the main risk of a collution based on token ownership.

>>7972556
>95 posts by this id

Are you the excel guy again?

>>7972553
I completely agree. Market cap is a fictitious and borderline poisonous metric.
The other guy was simply trying to say "I said market cap, not token", when in reality there is no difference.

>>7972538
First off: decentralization.
Second: SGX anonymity. There would be no way of knowing what contract you're looking at.

>>7972556
>chainlink needs to see some form of dominance otherwise the value of all outstanding tokens simply won't be high enough to provide a reasonable level of security for the smart contracts that are expected to use it
Why is that?

>>7972572
>>7972515
it's dull. but ive been sitting on most of it for years, only putting a tiny fraction of a % into random alts, but that's where ive made the most money, which is why this thread, while its seems pointless, has been an interesting source of information.

>>7972604

Post your portfolio.

Or STFU.

I know your a god damn link holder

>>7972591
that explains it then, also does SGX prevent nodes copying inputs / outputs from each other?

>>7972538
That's probably never going to happen, because no one is going to risk a $100MM contract on a node with no reputation, and that doesn't mean that $100k, $1MM and $10MM contracts are meaningless. Thousands of tiny contracts being assisted by the ChainLink network could propel its value, and then eventually scale to massive contracts.
>>7972556
>the level of security is tied proportionately to the marketcap
This is still really stupid man. It's like saying that LINK is only valuable if it can afford to run contracts bigger than its marketcap on day one. Obviously no one is arguing that. But if you're thinking that something like LINK can't start out small and scale one day, what the fuck are you still doing in crypto? Literally everything started out small and scaled, and LINK of all things is not going to be as subject to scalability issues in the interim.
>>7972604
Yea, dude, this thread isn't pointless. You're either looking to get shilled on LINK, and you're playing dumb to see the strongest arguments, or you're trolling.

>>7972591
oh yeah, i totally forgot about the whole intel sgx shit and all the problems that come with that.

because that's how blockchain security works, in all forms. it's all based on financial incentives and the risk of losing money by being a bad actor. this market can only grow so much, so chainlink needs to get up there in the cap rankings if it wants to be something that major smart contracts are going to trust.

>>7972620
post what? i dont use those shitty phone apps. and if i owned any link i wouldn't be on here fishing so hard.

>>7972647
>oh yeah, i totally forgot about the whole intel sgx shit and all the problems that come with that.
Literally everything has problems.
Especially crypto.

You're literally trying to use the flawed nature of existence to fud Chainlink.

>>7972646
i think it can scale like every other coin, but the issue is when from the get go a competitor can be immediately more secure just by the nature of being able to take advantage of another blockchain/token, given that the data itself is a commodity.

>>7972630
Since SGX obfuscates that kind of thing, yes.

>>7972674
i just think they have some serious fundamental problems. and while they're trying to be decentralized, there's a real risk of unintended centralization, and strong competition, that they will have a hard time dealing with.

If you read the white paper you won't understand what's even written there. It could be garbage.

>>7972719
>i just think they have some serious fundamental problems
Cool story, bro.

>there's a real risk of unintended centralization
Unless clients are willfully choosing only a single node, no there isn't.

>>7972656

Know why I'm all in on LINK

Because every single altcoin goes 3-5x during bull runs. Even DOGE. Even Coinomi. LINK is going to at minimum 3x no matter what made up FUD you spew.

The reason you hold LINK is because in addition to the regular 3x it has the potential to go 100x.

Stay poor.

>>7969852
A token with a price set by trading method that would in regulated markets result in arrest for security fraud be used as the main payment method for a smartcontract network used by major financial services.

No. Begin again. Yes pack it up.

>>7972656
>"i wouldn't be on here fishing so hard"
>100 posts by this ID
>claims he doesn't give a single fuck about LINK, yet keeps ""arguing"" non-stop for over 6 fucking hours straight.

jesus fucking christ m8, even if you're trolling, you're one sad sack of shit.

>>7972762
link has been so far wholly unspectacular though.

>stay poor
dont embarrass yourself

>>7972774
well it's working isn't it? like i said, nobody else other than 4chan seens to be discussing chainlink...

>>7972646
>>7972577
>chainlink themselves still own 65% of all tokens, which is a great reason to not invest, but at least that solves the main risk of a collution based on token ownership.
Why didn't you spell out that this was your major concern with LINK having a lower marketcap than ETH. Is your argument that because it's a lower marketcap, it's easier to collude?
>>7972702
Erm, are you saying that node operators are just going to up and leave LINK because of another middleware network or established blockchain network? What does that have to do with security? You saying that LINK isn't secure because there isn't enough financial incentive for it to be secured by node operators? Seems circular, but please clarify because I might be misreading.
>>7972738
>chainlink themselves still own 65% of all tokens, which is a great reason to not invest, but at least that solves the main risk of a collution based on token ownership.
This is key too. It's not like users are forced to use one or two shitty low-rep nodes. They can choose the level of security they're willing to pay for.
>>7972807
>>7972822
bleh, dude. Back to square one.
It is actually being discussed elsewhere, you just choose to discuss it here.
Are you interested in buying LINK, sir?

>>7971131
How much brother?

And who shut sergey down the last time?
Thats right. The securities and exchange commission Assets.exchange a anyone or has everyone forgotten about sergays last utter failure. Complete wit acrimonious developer walkouts and inept management. No excuse. The complete history of the debacle is still all over the net. Anyone buying link is fucking dumb

>>7972849
its one of many centralization risks i have with the platform, but my main concerns are competition and the likelihood of it.

essentially, yes, that a competitor could arise from an existing network, and bring with it the security of that network in the form of market cap, distribution, etc. given how tiny chainlink is today, it's a real risk that even something being announced could make some huge waves.

https://nxtforum.org/secure-asset-exchange/secure-assets-exchange-is-shutting-down/?PHPSESSID=pvgek78tdpr40bt5mva3msu625

Hi guys!

Unfortunately, Secure Assets Exchange will not survive 1.7 hardfork.

We(I and Sergey, then also Wesley and Steve Ellis) are started project in May, 2014 just few days after Nxt Assets Exchange release. Unfortunately, due to regulations issues (those 3-letters US agencies I dunno much about) new features were not developed since September, 2014. The team switched to SmartContract.com(also Nxt-based).

Since Nov, 2015 I'm not working with Steve&Sergey for many reasons(Wesley left us around Jan, 2015). Initially we came to agreement to continue maintenance of SAE, but later disagree on conditions.

Well, the best I can do here is to open-source SAE backend(as I'm author of it). I'm not sure the guys will do the same.

Farewell letter on the website:

Due to recent increases in maintenance costs and the limited resources/time of any startup that needs to prioritize its initiatives, Secure Asset Exchange will no longer be available as of January 21st, 2016 (NXT block 621,000); please plan accordingly.

We are deeply grateful to all of our users and supporters up to this point and look forward to focusing our energy on making the next generation of great blockchain-based applications, which our now global society can truly benefit from.

Your ability to use your NXT or any of your assets will not be affected by our availability because your account and all of its assets can be accessed through the official NXT client.

To access your account using the password created on trade.secureae.com, simply combine your username with your secret phrase, with no spaces between the two; this will create the password to your NXT account for the official client. For example, if your username is “joe” and your secret phrase is “joe likes coffee” then your account’s password for the official NXT client will be “joejoe likes coffee”. Please make sure to take capitalization and spacing into account, they do matter.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at support@secureae.com.

https://nxtforum.org/secure-asset-exchange/secure-assets-exchange-is-shutting-down/?PHPSESSID=pvgek78tdpr40bt5mva3msu625

>>7972822
>like i said, nobody else other than 4chan seens to be discussing chainlink...

false. there isn't much hype, i agree on that, but what's the point as long as mainnet is merely in alpha stage?

>>7972960
it's not about the amount of discussion, so much as it is where it's being discussed that's interesting to me.

"Since Nov, 2015 I'm not working with Steve&Sergey for many reasons(Wesley left us around Jan, 2015). Initially we came to agreement to continue maintenance of SAE, but later disagree on conditions. "

"Since Nov, 2015 I'm not working with Steve&Sergey for many reasons(Wesley left us around Jan, 2015). Initially we came to agreement to continue maintenance of SAE, but later disagree on conditions. "
"Since Nov, 2015 I'm not working with Steve&Sergey for many reasons(Wesley left us around Jan, 2015). Initially we came to agreement to continue maintenance of SAE, but later disagree on conditions. "

" Unfortunately, due to regulations issues (those 3-letters US agencies I dunno much about) new features were not developed since September, 2014. The team switched to SmartContract.com(also Nxt-based). "

" Unfortunately, due to regulations issues (those 3-letters US agencies I dunno much about) new features were not developed since September, 2014. The team switched to SmartContract.com(also Nxt-based). "

ur all all fucking newfag morons. guy has a bad history

>>7973002
have you read this?
https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11

alright, good talk.

i assure you your time hasn't been wasted, and i forgive all of you for calling me names.


>>7972876
high 8 figures

>>7973043
>but later disagree on conditions.

link is dead already you faggots and most of you are too fucking deluded to even know the history of mismanagement, acrimony and failure that was assets.exchange and how sergey was told to watch his step already by the sec and here you are fapping to his next PnD. He's rich. You are not. Figure it out retards.

>>7972898
>>7972934
>>7972955
>>7973002
>>7973131
Wow, had to professionally shut down a project in unchartered market territory because of regulatory risks outside his control. Just like most successful startup founders who failed because of risks outside of their control.
That's increased my confidence in him as a founder.
Thanks, just bought 100k.
>Co-founder conflict
Wow, unheard of in the startup world. Sure glad I sold my apple stock in 1985 because Jobs was being an asshole.
>bad history
kek. Like literally every fucking startup founder if you dig deep enough
>>7972931
I think you missed the point about it being a decentralized oracle network, and I think you're overestimating how much power a handful of colluding nodes could have. The users will have much more power in being able to choose high-rep nodes, regardless of the total "marketcap"

Don't get me wrong, it's definitely not something to at least be aware of, but it seems blown out of proportion.

And I just don't think the "security" of an existing network is relevant here. The tamper-proofness of the I/O is what is at stake. ETH would have to start from square one to solve that problem, they can't just piggyback on it's underlying protocol and "large marketcap".
However, LINK CAN actually piggyback on other smart contract platforms and protocols, which makes me confident that it can survive the initial phase it needs to get through before becoming more established, and its network effects kick in

>>7973068
https://nxtforum.org/secure-asset-exchange/secure-assets-exchange-is-shutting-down/?PHPSESSID=pvgek78tdpr40bt5mva3msu625

>>7972934
>unfortunately, due to regulations issues (those 3-letters US agencies I dunno much about) new features were not developed since September, 2014. The team switched to SmartContract.com(also Nxt-based).

>>7973171
>"Since Nov, 2015 I'm not working with Steve&Sergey for many reasons(Wesley left us around Jan, 2015). Initially we came to agreement to continue maintenance of SAE, but later disagree on conditions.

some record so he has a shit history

>>7972764
>>7973213
>A token with a price set by trading method that would in regulated markets result in arrest for security fraud be used as the main payment method for a smartcontract network used by major financial services.
Shit, just sold 100k. You know your shit. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
>>7973068
Yea, I know you're going to be buying some LINK, bro. Was a good game. Show us your wallet when you buy.

>>7973248
Next sergeys Phd and why it is not listed on his bio at smartcontract.com. No fuck it dyor you screaming retards.

>>7973188
>>7973213
>>7973354
None of Sergey's previous projects were monetized though.

>>7973369
tell that to people who has btc go missing on assets.exchange.

>>7973389
Source on that claim?

>>7973389
Lel. Source right now pls.

>>7973472
>>7973489

O help me I'm a faggot o please help me because I'm too fucking l;lazy to find out jack shit about what I'm buying into. Fucking idiots Follow the phd.

>>7973572
so you don't have a source. thanks for clearing that up.

I always invest in people whos last businesses were abandoned in acrimony over working conditions and collapsed and got pulled up by the securities and exchange commission.
I like being poor.

>>7973640
bet you shit on a street too.

tell me again why link is worth a million imaginationland dollars. It makes my cock hard to see retards drool. Where are the prajeetmarines?

>>7973667
>bet you shit on a street too.

Buy link sir. Most best investment. Oooooooo sir is very got coin. You buy link now sir.

>>7973667
Please be buying link now sir.

>>7973689
>>7973715
you are a spastic little monkey.

>>7973715
not mobius??

>>7973640
if the SEC arent harassing you youre doing something wrong.

plus, when has personalities clashing ever been a bad thing. it shows tha tppl care for their project.