LINK is made obsolete by itself and RLC.

[Anonymous No.13924969]

4000 sats or worse by next month. The project is possibly dead in the water after this knowledge.

Sybil attacks are possible since sybil resistance requires KYC or "trustworthy" node operators. Most people won't KYC because it's antithetical to the idea of crypto itself being decentralized and "anonymous". Therefore, since most operators won't want to KYC, LINK will not be sybil resistant.

Now why does RLC make LINK obsolete in this regard? It's simple. The PoCo algorithm is so well designed that iExec's dOracles can rely on it instead of KYC for sybil resistance.

Boom. I sold all of my LINK at 1.40 because I knew after RLC v3 dumped, that even LINK would dump.

I will not be buying back after learning this. I am all in RLC at the price of 0.43$, about 0.7x ICO price.

Sorry gentlemen, I thought LINK was going to save me just like all of us did, but this is the nail in the coffin. RLC is a god tier coin.

[Anonymous No.13925005]

Fuck off RLC shillers good god

[Anonymous No.13925063]

>>13925005
You can cry all you want about me shilling RLC, but everything I said is real.

Ignore it at your own peril.

[Anonymous No.13925542]

>>13924969
>>13925063
Kek
Nice work outing yourself as a brainlet with this entire post of yours.
Just put your filters on and keep accumulating that "god tier" coin of yours. Don't look back.

[Anonymous No.13925544]

>>13925005
No rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.13925547]

>>13925063
>Sybil attacks are possible since sybil resistance requires KYC or "trustworthy" node operators. Most people won't KYC because it's antithetical to the idea of crypto itself being decentralized and "anonymous". Therefore, since most operators won't want to KYC, LINK will not be sybil resistant.
>profit motive only exists under conditions of total anonymity because there exists a subset of cryptocurrency users who will accept nothing else
You know you have autism, right?

[Anonymous No.13925555]

>>13925542
no rebuttal either

[Anonymous No.13925597]

>>13925544
>>13925555
These aren't rebuttals either

[Anonymous No.13925607]

>>13925547
No rebuttal. Red herring.

>>13925555
Checked.

[Anonymous No.13925638]

It’s pretty obvious the tokenomics of link are failing they didn’t account for the High velocity low return when ping cross chain compilation

[Anonymous No.13925679]

>>13925555
You're right - there's no rebuttal from me. You are one hundred percent correct and I will forever be left wishing I had convinced you otherwise. The project will surely fail now that you have diverted your formidable funds to RLC.

[Anonymous No.13925685]

>>13925607
You claimed that nobody would run nodes because of kyc constraints. I implied that that those people are a small portion of the total number of possible node operators, especially when you consider that there is profit to be made by running a node. I know the OP is bait, I just wanted to show you how lazy it is.

[Anonymous No.13925690]

Sell me this coin
If convincing enough, ill sell my 250 k worth of LINK and go all in on RLC

[Anonymous No.13925719]

>>13925685

>You claimed that nobody would run nodes because of kyc constraints

You misconstrued my words like the true brainlet you are.

>Most people won't KYC
Is what I said.
Not that people won't run nodes because of KYC, in fact, that is the problem at hand here. Most people that run nodes will refuse KYC, increasing the chance of a sybil attack exponentially.

If you think most people are going to KYC you're just going to have a centralized piece of shit that no one wants.

[Anonymous No.13925729]

i'd kill you if possible
go away with your shitcoin

[Anonymous No.13925730]

>>13924969
just an important reminder that have already made it, frens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjEq-r2agqc
T O N I G H T

[Anonymous No.13925743]

>>13925638
When I found the cross chain wallet bug I market sold everything

[Anonymous No.13925774]

>>13925719
Lel keep up the bait and tell me how I misconstrued your words. You say nobody will KYC, I say lots of people will.

[Anonymous No.13925776]

>>13925690
Literally the first time in history that cloud computing will be decentralized, inherently trustworthy, and has near infinite use cases.
Some of those use cases include monetizing AI, monetizing datasets, monetizing unused server infrastructure, remote shitcoin mining, dApps, natural language processing, scaling blockchains, and more. It also had decentralized oracles before LINK did.

https://iex.ec/decentralized-oracles/

[Anonymous No.13925784]

>>13925774
I agree. I'd lean toward "most" people will

[Anonymous No.13925798]

>>13925776
Ohhhh, you're that "prove it" frog, who was defending the iExec muh accident comparison table

You lost son

[Anonymous No.13925804]

>>13925774
>You say nobody will KYC, I say lots of people will.
>keeps digging himself into a hole
It's almost as if you don't understand. Oh wait you don't.
KYC is fucking bad for crypto you absolute retard.

>muh DECENTRALIZED oracle
>is actually centralized with KYC
>but wait, people won't KYC
>gets sybil attacked because of that

Literally a lose/lose scenario.

[Anonymous No.13925818]

>>13925798
Funny how that chart ended up being true, despite them removing it because of linkfags crying.

see
>>13925804
and realize that KYC is the death of LINK and you.

[Anonymous No.13925819]

Thanks OP, just bought $100k more LINK.

[Anonymous No.13925832]

>>13925776
Is it competing against ETH? I dont trust ETH competitors like req

When is the timeframe for when this coin will be in the top 50 market caps, and why?

[Anonymous No.13925861]

>>13925819
Enjoy losing 50% of your money by next month.

>>13925832
It's currently a blockchain agnostic ERC-20 that could potentially have its own blockchain in the near future.

Top 50 is within 1 year timeframe.
Top 5 is by 2023.

[Anonymous No.13925869]

>>13925804
>implying kyc precludes the benefits of decentralization
>implying nobody will kyc in order to make money
If you can't substantiate either of those implications then yoir argument is trash. Do it or forever be a loser who has to have contrived disagreements with people on the internet in order to feel accomplished.

[Anonymous No.13925873]

>>13925818
If you had any knowledge of fin tech, or the regulations around aml and ctf for anyone in finance, you'd understand why kyc might be necessary

[Anonymous No.13925929]

>>13925869
>>13925873
Funny how you retards are changing your tune after learning about nodes requiring KYC.
Remember when you cared about decentralization?
Top kek faggots.

You have 2 choices.
>KYC, losing decentralization and privacy
>no KYC, get sybil attacked

[Anonymous No.13925979]

>>13925929
Oh, so you can't substantiate your arguments. What a surprise.

[Anonymous No.13925990]

>>13925861
>its own blockchain in the near future
isnt this a bad sign? sorry for noob questions. But what do you have to say about all the other coins trying to compete against ETH like ARK REQ QTUM, etc.

Will ETH have to fail in order for RLC to be successful?
Who will be RLC's main competitors?

[Anonymous No.13926056]

>>13925979
Already did many times. Go reread the thread. Fucking bagholder.

>>13925990
>isnt this a bad sign? sorry for noob questions.
Why would it be bad? Then it wouldn't have to deal with ETH fud anymore and IMO the token value would skyrocket instantly.

>But what do you have to say about all the other coins trying to compete against ETH like ARK REQ QTUM, etc.
Dunno, don't really care about those coins because they don't have anything in common with RLC. RLC isn't an ETH competitor, if anything it can help ETH with off-chain scaling solutions.

>Will ETH have to fail in order for RLC to be successful?
No, because ETH isn't similar to RLC at all. RLC is a marketplace for trading computations.

If ETH failed it wouldn't affect RLC at all, because RLC is blockchain agnostic.

>Who will be RLC's main competitors?
RLC has no real competitors. Some see Golem / SONM as competitors but that is addressed in iExec's FAQ.

>https://iex.ec/faq/

[Anonymous No.13926115]

Link fud is back. You know what that means. Strap in marines.

[Anonymous No.13926129]

>>13926115
Delusion and cope.
No rebuttal.
Pure panic.
Bagholder spotted.
You cannot refuse the facts in my OP.

[Anonymous No.13926186]

>>13926056
>already did many times
Care to point out where you provided evidence for the idea that nobody would kyc and the idea that kyc precludes decentralization? Protip: you can't because you didnt.

[Anonymous No.13926243]

>>13926186
>nobody would kyc
Because crypto users hate KYC. People use crypto to get away from shit like that. No one wants their info out there.

>the idea that kyc precludes decentralization

>KYC handlers refuse certain participants or only accept certain participants
Centralization.
To go further into this, if everyone is forced to KYC to prevent sybil attacks, then LINK becomes gatekeeped and centralized.

[Anonymous No.13926939]

>>13926243
>crypto users hate kyc
The categories you're using to make your argument are too large to be meaningful. Chainlink node operators are a substantially small subset of crypto users, who for the most part actually don't care about kyc as shown by the high number of people who prefer to use coinbase and equivalent exchanges instead of localbtc or bitcoin atms. Are you sure that chainlink node operators wouldn't want to KYC up in order to make money serving data? Furthermore, "KYC" for someone providing a service through the chainlink network has a different purpose than KYC for someone using an exchange, and that difference is important for your argument.
Also,
>implying that the interface of anarchist models of trust with people (multibillion dollar companies) who rely on traditional models of trust won't require an accepted middle ground
>implying every node operator will have to be kyc'd to serve data
>implying there won't be kyc-less listing services in the future

[Anonymous No.13926986]

>>13926939
>Chainlink node operators are a substantially small subset of crypto users
If this is the case, then it's even worse for you. It's even more centralized.
Yikes.

[Anonymous No.13927021]

>>13925861
Any ledger any chain any time anywhere that's the blockchain agnostic guarantee that has made chainlink a household name. Uncle Sergey swears by blockchain agnostic tech. Remember if it ain't blockchain agnostic it ain't worth anything!

[Anonymous No.13927037]

>>13927021
These are the types of delusional posts that turn me away from LINK.

[Anonymous No.13927051]

isnt Ethereum too slow for something liek this? probably would have been better to use stellar or something

[Anonymous No.13927085]

>>13927051
>like this
Like what? You're being vague.

[Anonymous No.13927114]

>>13926986
kek