/biz/ - Business & Finance

Who gives a shit about this meme? Rory (the cuck) said that it himself, almost nobody is testing right now.

>>9746146
how deluded are you? look at the screencaps above you fucking imbecile.

>>9746120
Tl;dr fag

>>9746179
if you cant follow the breadcumbs you're never gonna make it.

>>9746179

>>9746209
LMAO
You are never going to make it. What is this, 10 transactions total? By the team?
Have fun holding your bags that Sergay is giving out for free. After all, he owns 65%.

What does anyone really want? Anyone could start doing test transactions that call APIs you all would find extremely intriguing and emails and names you'd flip your shit over but you'd have literally no way if it were someone trolling you or not.

>>9746120
Not to be a downer, but at the bottom of your infograph you are getting excited about a transaction 26 days ago that is verifying an email address. 26 days ago linkpool made a post on reddit about their email validation gizmo they made. What you're looking at is someone validating test@protonmail.com using their tool. I was hoping your thread was going to be a big deal, but sadly it isn't. https://www.reddit.com/r/LINKTrader/comments/8i4orc/onchain_email_validation/

>>9746392

I do not deny that there is truth in what you say. These transactions could possibly be created by anyone, and I would be very skeptical of any containing e-mail addresses or other information that seems too good to be true.

However, it is a large difference to say, "here are transactions though we can not determine with any certainty their origin," versus "OMG, pajeetlink has no transactions on Ropsten!! Nobody wants to use it, nobody has tested it at all! 1000 suicides EOY XD XD XD"

Take it for what you will.

Also less than one test per day. Nobody is interested in this.

>>9746415

Point noted. Will you completely ignore the larger point of my original post that there are tests, and that further investigation may be warranted before completely giving up in the face of FUD?

>>9746466
I think the disappointment comes from not really understanding what product is released right now, compared to what is actually described in the white paper and meaningfully different from what they already had in the ruby version.

ZeppelinOS is a big deal but they aren't doing anything with Chainlink yet, Factom is also confirmed, again not doing anything with it, Origami (those APIs would be very easy to spot), and the list of other confirmed users not visibly testing goes on. It's still extremely early days. Remember too that all the major clients we talk about here won't even use the public ethereum blockchain (the SWIFT POC was on hyperledger) so of course they aren't testing on ethereum.

>>9746566
>Remember too that all the major clients we talk about here won't even use the public ethereum blockchain (the SWIFT POC was on hyperledger) so of course they aren't testing on ethereum.
This. This is the anti-fud right here.

>>9746566

I agree with what you say and feel the same twinge of disappointment that we do not yet have much knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes vis a vis Chainlink and their partnerships.

I am only hoping to give those with enough initiative some possible relief-- in whatever small manner-- from the constant and current FUD.

hahah ABSOLUTE STATE OF LINKIES, SAVING THEIR BAGS