Let's have an honest discussion on LINK

[Anonymous No.14773100]

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.


Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.


'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.


The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

[Anonymous No.14773111]

neblio + link = Golden ticket

[Anonymous No.14773112]

>>14773100
didnt read, not selling

[John Wolpert 5644 2000 8272 50(...) No.14773122]

>>14773100
The US had banned non-white immigration from some parts of the world[13] on the basis that they would not integrate into society; this Exclusion Clause, of the 1924 Immigration Act, specifically targeted the Japanese.

[Anonymous No.14773140]

>>14773111
>>14773112
LINKs greatest asset is biztards

[Anonymous No.14773152]

As usual, everyone will turn a blind eye to this. Not the first time I've tried bringing this up though.

[Anonymous No.14773203]

You're right, and those companies that do not adapt to crypto will be get disrupted as fuck. Blockchain levels the playing field across all industries.

Hemp traceability in blockchain as an example.

[Anonymous No.14773226]

>>14773152
Blind eye to what? All you did was make some assertions with nothing to back them up.

[Anonymous No.14773271]

>>14773100
> Thinking you can have an honest discussion about link on /biz/ kek!
>LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will.
Truth. And the jury is still out on ETH.
Linkies will just spew that it's platform agnostic, but the lions share of development is going into ETH now. If ETH doesn't make it nothing else will. The whole decentralized/smart contract ecosystem may take off, or it may end in the dustbin of projects that ran really hot and fizzled out like Usenet.

[Anonymous No.14773601]

link/one is the true chadfolio

[Anonymous No.14773657]

>>14773100
This. Bunch of 4channers tried to force it as /ourcoin/, during the presale ico phase of chainlink there was a minimum requirement of 300eth to enter the presale. Bunch of anons pooled up together and shared presale links to fill them with their eth. Coin continued to get shilled and pumped up and hyped for the sibios event that link was attended, whole event turned out to be a flop chainlink had a presentation in a room of like 18 people next to the public toilets, literally no news or partnership came from the event and the coin dumped back to below ico prices and created 1000's of bagholder anons. Now during this alt bull run lots of anons and took advantage of this and shilling this coin to all the new money and newfags that joined in december and don't know this story. The coin is HEAVILY manipulated and the supply is dried up from huge whales who accumulated below ICO price to create a artificially lower supply (a lot like REQ) and these people have so much room to dump on all of you faggots to still be in profit when the time comes. In regards to actual project that chainlink aiming to achieve it's nothing more than a basic json parser for smart contracts, would take like a day to add to ethereum by itself.. literally making links whole concept pointless and definitely no need for a token. Would take a lot longer to get it working with bitcoin but the bitcoin core devs would be able to work out the solution a lot quicker than chainlink will, think that's something worth noting that literally nothing is completed and you're literally just buying a whitepaper, they have only 2 developers and they don't communicate at all with no proven background on either, in fact sergey was involved in a project before chainlink called NxT that he since been abandoned until it was took over by a new developer team

[Anonymous No.14774207]

U might wanna lookup what 'trustless' means OP

[Anonymous No.14774215]

>>14773140
didn't read not selling

[Anonymous No.14775234]

>>14773100
didn’t read not selling

[Anonymous No.14775325]

You might have your fancy business processes set up. They cost a lot and people had their pride and office-political prestige put up to those.

What if the majority of your future competitors move to decentralized oracles and gain more efficiency that way? Is there a business case then to be stuck on a legacy system which was the standard ten years ago?