CHAINLINK

[Anonymous No.20820684]

Here's what I've gathered from Link from spending too much time on this board. It's rare to find actual synopsis' of this fucking thing without digging through "the archive" so here's what I've learned in layman's terms. If I've gotten things wrong, feel free to correct me. More discussion/information is always a boon.

If you delve into the inner workings of how Link will work it is extremely complex and esoteric. You can't truly understand it if you're not educated in programming, blockchain and network infrastructures. And that's really just the tip of the iceberg. There's nuance to how this coin would/could exist that no one here has the level of knowledge/powers of prediction to speak on.

To bastardize/summarize, Chainlink wants to connect API's (think of API's as handshakes) from various entities (corporations/data sources) and connect them using smart contracts (if this, do that), all of which can be theoretically connected together (linked) relatively easily, and/or in an automated way that will supersede current solutions/create new ones.

These contracts will execute their given instructions based on the contracts code. Examples for use case are paying out an insurance policy given a set of parameters that are met e.g. earthquake insurance is automatically processed when a richter scale reaches a certain level. This example only takes into account one source of data (or API) but use your imagination to come up with other examples that can be built on various forms of information coming in. This is the first use for Link.

The second use is to protect this data; hence Link is staked via these processes. Bad actors/bad information are disincentivized to broadcast out because these data sources are required to stake Link tokens as insurance for transactions. If bad information is given, their link tokens are at risk.

1/2

[Anonymous No.20820690]

If Chainlink becomes adopted, Link price *theoretically* will go up in value as tokens are required to process transactions. But it's impossible at this point to say where a balance will be struck. We are in the fetal stage of this project, pure speculative investing and price discovery. Anyone that tells you otherwise, or says that Link should be worth more (or less) has schizophrenia. It's a complete gamble because blockchain is still trying to find a foothold in anything besides as an investment.

Chainlink is also nothing but code. Blockchain is code. One's and zeroes. Nothing more special. And so, it isn't impossible to say that traditional solutions can't accomplish what Link hopes to achieve as a use case. As the world exists today, this use case is achieved with code and software that sends out and interacts with networks via traditional encryption methods. Could Link be a paradigm shift? Sure, but it needs a ludicrous amount of infrastructure/development.

The psychology of Chainlink threads is interesting. Obviously many threads harp about how Link is the future (see XRP for similarities). This is because Link can be imagined to be utilized by a virtually infinite number of parties in a virtually infinite amount of ways. Succinctly, Chainlink links information together and protects it with Link cryptocurrency. This is the stuff that dreams are made of (mass adoption) and why many Link threads strive on preying on your credulity. Promoters will vaguely/outright accuse you of stupidity for not investing; a common reply is that only those with very high IQ can comprehend Link's future.

Ultimately, a use case for blockchain may be found, or it may continue to be a store of wealth. No one knows. Try not to get caught up in threads that do nothing but use ad hominem without getting into the technical and fundamental aspects of Link (or any crypto). Invest only into what you can understand. Hopefully this helps, maybe not. As always and most importantly, DYOR.

[Anonymous No.20820767]

Nobody cares what it does. Price go up sell price go down buy

[Anonymous No.20820839]

>>20820767
FUCK OFF YOU ABSOLUTE NUFAG

[Anonymous No.20820857]

>>20820767
you dont know do you :/

[Anonymous No.20820917]

That gigantic fuckhuge wall of words and you STILL DON'T KNOW WHY CENTRALIZED ORACLES ARE A PROBLEM

AHAHAHAHAHA LOOK AT THE RETARD

[Anonymous No.20820923]

>>20820684
Seems like a good synopsis. Not that I would know better..
My impression is that this crypto is powered by hopium. This board wants a second chance at a bitcoin like gain..
It seemingly has some potential, but there also seems to be a lot of big ‘ifs’ attached to this happening.
I don’t think, from what I can see..that anyone has any idea what will happen with it, just a hope.
I guess we’ll find out..but who knows when.

[Anonymous No.20820952]

>>20820690
>it isn’t impossible to say that traditional solutions can’t accomplish what Link hopes to achieve

How would trad solutions do it theoretically

[Anonymous No.20820958]

It’s biggest use case right now is price feeds for defi. The thing that theoretically drives it up with normies is connecting lazy legacy systems to the blockchain. The thing that ultimately will make it huge is the profits that will be realized by the first big corporations who are able to fire a whole shitload of lawyers and other various middlemen because of efficiency’s gained through smart contracts. At that point anyone who doesn’t follow suit can’t compete and $avalanche$

[Anonymous No.20820970]

drns

[Anonymous No.20820975]

>>20820952
They literally can't that's the whole point, I'm honestly amazed he did all that research without asking the most basic question (easy to find the answer too)

[Anonymous No.20820998]

>>20820917
Link isn't decentralized, far from it.
Do you have examples of how centralized sources of information are currently a problem? Bonus points for an example of a real event (problem) that happened.

[Anonymous No.20821042]

>>20820998
bZx attack you fucking retard, it's like you don't even follow defi news holy shit

You apparently don't know how trusted networks at enterprise level are built either

[Anonymous No.20821050]

in the ecosystem of the Internet of Things, the way i see link is as the framework to an Internet of Contracts or at a higher level an Internet of Trust. its the monetization of trusted data.

[Anonymous No.20821055]

>>20820684
chainlink is a secure data transfer protocol enabled by a network of nodes, the core of the code is just a parser and aggregator. The value is in the physical nodes, which achieve functional decentralization through distribution. Nodes will also offer other features like enclaves (also called TEEs, google them) for enhanced security and privacy. It’s also worth noting that chainlink’s approach to building that network is literally the only way it can be done, which is why they are the industry standard and will be the secure blockchain data transfer protocol (oracle) of all serious projects and financial institutions

[Anonymous No.20821063]

>>20820975
Can you extrapolate on why? I think you're implying that traditional solutions can't do *exactly* what Link does.
You can add a system of "decentralized' oracles, nodes and cryptocurrencies. But that doesn't mean that you can't theoretically accomplish the same "smart contracts" with code.

[Anonymous No.20821084]

The fact you honestly can't see the enormous sea of value in blockchain is hilarious to me. "Yeah the internet sends text so what?"

[Anonymous No.20821101]

>>20820952
Only way they could is if they copied all the code from github and remade an entirely new Chainlink with their own version of tokens. Muh Json parser idea. But this possible could mean costing trad. solutions much more than just opting to use Chainlink.

In the end, value is determined by the market. Not just speculation on the tech.

[Anonymous No.20821111]

>>20821042
We're not on the same page. A bZx attack is specific to cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency can be mutually exclusive to alternate solutions.

Thanks for proving my point about ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.20821113]

Holy fuck the OP wrote that whole wall of text and I am not even reading it LMAO!!!!

[Anonymous No.20821117]

>>20821063
When parties in an agreement are trying to cheat and there is a centralized shit system what the fuck do you expect to happen? Why do I need to spoon-feed this basic shit?

[Anonymous No.20821130]

>>20820684
>spending too much time on this board.
>without digging through "the archive"

[Anonymous No.20821141]

>>20821111
>Centralized systems are specific to crypto
Okay retard, it's amazing you manage to face each day with your disability

[Anonymous No.20821159]

>>20820684
Hahahahaha we’ve already talked about stuff 3 years ago Simeon you’re damn late to the game

[Anonymous No.20821164]

>>20821084
Encryption. Billions of transactions are happening all day and we take them for granted. What are some value propositions?

>>20821101
You don't need a blockchain. Smart contracts are code.

[Anonymous No.20821171]

>>20820998

You have no idea what LINK does apparently after all your research. You just described a transfer layer and an API.

The service LINK provides is automatic, trust less, verified real world data to the blockchain. It allows for smart contracts to be more than exchanging crypto.

BASIC EXAMPLE: right now you can’t create a smart contract to sell oil or gas or any other commodity that changes on a daily or say minute by minute basis. Not reliably anyway and not without trusting a 3rd party source.

Chainlink allows the smart contract to connect to as FEW or as MANY sources of data (nodes) on that commodity as required to “secure” that contract.

That’s literally it. The nodes reach consensus and the contract executes. It doesn’t SOUND like much but it’s actually a quadrillion dollar problem and there is no other remotely as sound or as close to fruition project in the world.

Also you’re welcome. Buy more LINK dilshit.

[Anonymous No.20821187]

>>20821164
>Duuuhh what could possibly be the value in a distributed secure immutable scalable database

[Anonymous No.20821192]

>>20821164
my nigga. When did I say blockchains?

[Anonymous No.20821208]

>>20821164
Smart contracts are tamper proof code. There is a difference

[Anonymous No.20821258]

>>20821171
Your example was synonymous to the example I gave.

>right now you can’t create a smart contract to sell oil or gas or any other commodity that changes on a daily or say minute by minute basis.

You can program this via code. You can protect it with encryption. I don't know why people don't see this.

[Anonymous No.20821267]

Y’all know these posts are just simeon right, he’s 3 years late to the conversation can’t even figure out literally the fundamental part about the whole thing

[Anonymous No.20821276]

>>20821063
>But that doesn't mean that you can't theoretically accomplish the same "smart contracts" with code.
That is exactly what it means, because those smart contracts would be worthless if the data in those contracts was implemented in a centralized manner.

[Anonymous No.20821291]

>>20821258
What don’t you understand about centralized vs decentralized?

[Anonymous No.20821312]

>>20821291
Like you need to go back to crypto 101 simeon. Why is bitcoin so revolutionary or are you going to claim it’s about to crash back down to $0 too like you claim w link?

[Anonymous No.20821328]

>>20821187
You're counting your chickens before they've hatched. Link is lightyears away from connecting to all these various data sources, connecting everything in this regard. It's an incredibly difficult problem and an immense undertaking. What I'm getting at, is that it does not require blockchain. Can blockchain do it? Can you insert blockchain into it? Yes. But it's not required.

[Anonymous No.20821356]

>>20821258

It’s not trustless. You cannot code trust, what are you failing to understand?

That’s why the idea of “onchain” oracles is a meme. Do you think someone would run millions of dollars in contracts through on a data source (basically a judge and jury) without any guarantee that data is valid? What if you wanted 50 sources of data to feel “secure” in your operation?

How do you ensure every data provider is legitimate and true? How do you ensure those providers aren’t attacked and compromised in some way with “code.”

Either you’re trolling or simply not capable of understanding intentionally or not.

[Anonymous No.20821377]

>>20821356
He’s trolling dude it’s simeon

[Anonymous No.20821398]

>>20821377
Digits of truth
sage thread

[Anonymous No.20821401]

>>20821328
Introduce staking thousands of people will make it their life mission To see it works

[Anonymous No.20821434]

>>20821276
Okay. But when you ordered something on Amazon, your CC info is encrypted for the transaction. When you sign onto your bank, the bank uses encryption to broadcast out the information that you see on your screen. There is highly sensitive information being distributed nonstop all across the globe. These processes are typically fine with traditional encryption methods. Could security be better, undoubtedly. But security gets better every day. All of these transactions are happening in the "centralized" manner that you refer to.

[Anonymous No.20821468]

>>20820690
>Chainlink is also nothing but code. Blockchain is code. One's and zeroes.
Chainlink contains a 2

[Anonymous No.20821471]

>>20820684
now it sounds like a commie coin

[Anonymous No.20821481]

>>20820684
>70x ICO
>fetal stage

HAHAHAHAHA.

Sell your LINK this week for DIA. Screencap this.

[Anonymous No.20821519]

>>20821434
These are all dogshit and not secure at all, where have you been? This shit leaks all the time this was a ridiculous example. Literally every single US citizen's data was leaked a few years ago

[Anonymous No.20821535]

>>20820998
LIBOR scandal. What are you, 14 years old?

[Anonymous No.20821588]

>>20821356
Code doesn't care about trust. Good working code does exactly what it is programmed to do. Sophisticated code can do things that blow the mind. Virtually everything you do on the internet is code. No blockchain required.

There seems to be this idea that transactions are constantly being tampered with. Hackers and bad information are skewing the data. I don't see this problem, but honestly I'm not well versed on network transactions en masse.

A company doesn't need a third party arbiter to approve these transactions in this trustless and "decentralized" manner. A company will suffer of its own accord if its information is compromised or is giving out bad information.

>Do you think someone would run millions of dollars in contracts through on a data source (basically a judge and jury) without any guarantee that data is valid?

You've described every network transaction that's ever existed. This already happens.

[Anonymous No.20821600]

>>20821471
well the cool thing about it is that no one has ownership over the network, that doesn’t make it commie though

[Anonymous No.20821630]

>>20821588
>This already happens.
and it doesn’t work well at all
time to fix it

[Anonymous No.20821641]

>>20821481
There's so much to say about a post like this. I'm going to let you in on a mystery of the universe:

What is anything worth?
It's worth exactly what someone will pay for it.

[Anonymous No.20821664]

>>20820998
Insurance not paying up and you having to take the case to trial

[Anonymous No.20821667]

>>20821588
You are describing centralized transactions. They don't matter in this context.

[Anonymous No.20821702]

>>20821267
It might actually be. He’s using a lot of 50 cent vocabulary either needlessly or incorrectly. Either he’s a brainlet trying to sound smart or he’s ESL

[Anonymous No.20821714]

1000 Eoy

[Anonymous No.20821769]

>>20821714
Checked

[Anonymous No.20821771]

>>20821641
Here you go OP, this pic's for you.

[Anonymous No.20821817]

>>20821630
I don't know, my bank statements have always been on point. And I've never heard of a transaction where I received less or more than I agreed. It's an esoteric issue though. But this post is getting at the crux of it. This is where Link really needs to exist in terms of discussion and debate.

>>20821664
Insurance isn't binary. I can think of only a few cases in which a policy could be paid out based on a set of criteria brought together by data sources. Unfortunately insurance cases are not boolean. And there is software that exists already today that simplifies and continues to simplify insurance claims.

[Anonymous No.20821822]

>>20820690
If this was the only thing in the Zeus report I might have sold some of my stack

[Anonymous No.20821840]

>>20820958
Will computer scientists replace these lawyers or will the contracts be ready to go and the company fills in the blanks for what they need?

[Anonymous No.20821844]

>>20821771
Thanks for supporting my argument. I've seen this post a million times and it's exactly what I refer to. Now try an argument, but I don't think you'll have one.

[Anonymous No.20821861]

>>20821844
Why I bother trying to convince a fag like you to get rich?

[Anonymous No.20821902]

>>20821861
Maybe you're a fag lover, anyways you're still trying to do it.

[Anonymous No.20821933]

>>20820684
I'm not reading that shit nigger, here is the tl;dr for complete brainlets
>eth lets you run scripts on the blockchain (more specifically on the computers running the blockchain software)
>these scripts have it's own wallet and you can put eth into it, and distribute it into other wallets based on the scripts logic
>currently no good way to put third party data into these scripts exists (such as the current temperature outside, the winner of a race, or literally info you might get from an API) because of the distributed nature of the blockchain
>chainlink creates a way to verify this third party data(aka an oracle) and input the data into the scripts
there you go. It's a way to put data into a script that is distributed across many nodes, that's it. The actual link token is the way the oracles doing this work of verifying and inputing the data into the script get paid

These scripts are called "smart contracts" which is a retarded name and is confusing. It's not a contract it's a script, I would have called it a "blockchain script"

[Anonymous No.20821950]

>>20821902
Nah I'm just mocking you for my own amusement.
In fact you make great points, I definitely think you've uncovered the flaws in link and you should not buy any.
Well done, flawless victory.
Now since this is mainly a link board I trust you will be leaving presently and never returning, yes?
Or at the very least never making another link thread and/or never participating in a link thread ever again?

[Anonymous No.20821964]

>>20820684
>>20820690
Get the fuck out of here with your pseudo intellectual bullshit. The time for serious discussion was 3 fucking years ago. Ask yourself what have you been doing for 3 whole fucking years? Probably cooming and nothing of value. Either buy and shut the fuck up or fuck off. No one cares.

[Anonymous No.20821986]

>>20821291
I understand that "centralized" works already. VISA works. Decentralized is a novel idea, maybe it's the future. But I don't know and neither do you. You would think however, that if transactions were constantly being thwarted, more companies would be using blockchain to protect their data.

[Anonymous No.20822000]

>>20821933
Yeah, that's basically the gist of what I wrote.

[Anonymous No.20822077]

>>20821950
It's not really about Link. I just like 4chan discussions, and icing on the cake is I've made some money in crypto by being here. And I think Link is interesting, the community is horrific though.

[Anonymous No.20822084]

>>20821986
That’s what they’re literally trying to do

I would be more sympathetic to you if you were not intentionally intellectually dishonest, dismissing critique of your position as ad hominem and leaning heavily on feigned incredulity to ignore contravening evidence

[Anonymous No.20822093]

>>20821817
I’ll buy the insurance that runs on smart contract not the shit that won’t pay out

[Anonymous No.20822133]

>>20821986
The funny thing is you think we just invest in sure things. Ya it’s not a sure fucking thing great we all took that risk at 25 cents. Is self driving car a sure thing?

[Anonymous No.20822134]

>>20822077
>community
>biz
pick one

[Anonymous No.20822146]

>>20820684
based agitator baiting the answers from insecure linkies
you're a good man

[Anonymous No.20822158]

>>20822000
I have a serious problems with smart contracts though as a software developer
>cannot edit it once it's on the chain
this is a massive problem, how are you supposed to make contracts that are anything more than toy programs? What happens when you push a contract to the chain but find out there's a bug or exploit? Every user interfacing with the contract would need to have their client updated, there's no way to kill the old contract. I guess not too much of a problem if the contract address is coming from an API and you can update that once you have the new contract pushed to the chain. But still if there's an exploit on an old contract someone finds, you have no way to stop it from my current understanding.

[Anonymous No.20822176]

>>20822077
You're just bitter because you've missed out on the biggest gainer in the last 3 years and you're too much of a midwit to understand why.
You're the one who's horrific, at investing in crypto.
But ya, keep on not buying link, it's obviously working out great for you so far.
>It's not me that's wrong, it's the market!

[Anonymous No.20822203]

>>20821986
Think about the hundreds of millions VISA spends on lawyers, bullshit chargebacks, customer support. Crypto can get rid of that AND make visa obsolete once it can scale.

[Anonymous No.20822211]

>>20822158
>immutability is a weakness

[Anonymous No.20822228]

>>20822158
fork

[Anonymous No.20822314]

>>20822211
yes a huge one

>>20822228
that doesn't solve the issue. Say I create a contract that is supposed to send 50% to me and 50% to you. You find some exploit that will give you 100% of the eth. There is no way to fix it, you will get 100% of the eth in the contracts wallet no matter what. Yeah you can fix the bug and fork it for next time but the existing contract is still there

[Anonymous No.20822322]

>>20822158
As a fellow dev, read more

https://levelup.gitconnected.com/introduction-to-ethereum-smart-contract-upgradability-with-solidity-789cc497c56f

[Anonymous No.20822377]

>>20822084
>That’s what they’re literally trying to do
I don't know what to say to this. If you don't understand that blockchain is in its infancy when it comes to use case, and that no use case has been found as of yet, whatsoever, then we need to discuss how blockchain is used in the world today.

I think I've been extremely open to discussing any actual refutations given, and I hate using ad hominem as an argument, but it's impossible given the levels of it and needs to be addressed much more often on this board. I concede that Link *could* be the future, but great claims require great evidence.

[Anonymous No.20822397]

>>20822093
I, okay, whatever.
I'd actually prefer if an insurance company does their due diligence and addresses my policies via human reason and interaction.

[Anonymous No.20822408]

>>20822314
>what happens if I sign a contract and later find out there was a clause that screws me

Maybe you should get good

[Anonymous No.20822479]

>>20822322
that was helpful, thanks anon. So there are methods to deprecate the old contract, that was my main concern

>>20822408
actual contracts are not analogous to computer software in the slightest

[Anonymous No.20822501]

>>20822133
Agreed. And I have money in crypto. And I know it's the most volatile asset to ever exist. It's important to not get stuck in the crypto headspace where that's all you think about and are blind to external factors (like software). Not here to shit on Link, I'm here to learn/sharpen arguments.

[Anonymous No.20822547]

>>20822314
That’s why enterprise is starting with dlt instead of Ethereum. In a closed dlt system you can make changes to the ledger if you need to.

[Anonymous No.20822586]

>>20822547
>closed system with a ledger you can make changes to
damn I think that opens up more potential problems then it solves. I guess no more than any existing SaaS though

[Anonymous No.20822589]

>>20822397
I’m in a multimillion dollar lawsuit against my insurance company right now. The insurance adjuster is so much worse than a broken smart contract. I can promise you that. I’ve had to sue just to keep from walking away from my house and declaring bankruptcy

[Anonymous No.20822634]

>>20822586
Of course it’s problematic. They are starting there and figuring out the issues behind closed doors before moving onto a decentralized system. That’s literally the point of Corda

[Anonymous No.20822658]

>>20821817
Isn't it binary? In my mind most case of insurance are binary. Take life insurance for exemple, on of the most common, it's binary: dead or not dead.

[Anonymous No.20822687]

>>20821950
It's good to have well articulated contrarian opinions, don't throw him away

[Anonymous No.20822769]

>>20822397
>I'd actually prefer if an insurance company does their due diligence and addresses my policies via human reason and interaction.
That's not an argument, you might prefer that but that's not what they are doing, if smart contracts provide a better alternative to insurance as they actually work, not as how you think they could work, then smart contract will take over

[Anonymous No.20822776]

>>20821258
Yes, you can (so you’re right) BUUUT it costs.
They’re called clearing houses but they are not plugged into ubiquitous data and a universal finance system so even if two parties agree to use clearing house X to broker a deal and X has some people and software to monitor 100 data sources in real time for certain conditions to be met and takes in escrow the goods from party A and the USD from party B, this is still nowhere as awesome for their clients as an automated contract.

The dream case and point of all this shit is that two parties do the above without paying the middle man, while using potentially unlimited data and not requiring the goods and funds to be tied up until the absolute point of contract execution.
Like the other anons said the money saved by not precomitting resources, not needing lawyers/middle-men and having access to all the knowledge needed to satisfy two entities that previously would have had no common dat bridge let alone BI/decision making etc

[Anonymous No.20822899]

>>20821258
>You can program this via code. You can protect it with encryption.
Are people doing this?

[Anonymous No.20822910]

>>20822687
I just try and put myself in his shoes and think of what a complete and utter pud I would have to be to make a thread about an asset I don't own and use retarded arguments about why it's no good.
Calling it "this fucking thing" and belittling studying "the archives".
He's either just trying to con the less intelligent bizraelis out of their linkies or just likes to stir shit, either way he can go fuck himself.
Like wow, thanks so much OP for being concerned for my financial well being, what a guy.

[Anonymous No.20822928]

>>20820684
youre so fucking stupid lmao stop trying to ponzi peoplep

[Anonymous No.20822952]

>>20822658
Sure life insurance is a good example. But even life insurance isn't that simple. What about in uncertain circumstances? Plenty of shady activity (and murder) is done with regards to it.

A decade ago I was in a car accident, an estimator came to my door to inspect the damage.

Ten years later, I used an app on my phone to take pictures of the damage, and it was most likely sent to an estimator that can process many more claims now because of the app.

In the future, I'm sure mostly a computer program will do most of the estimating, and more accurately than a human can.

This was solved with software/code. It doesn't need this system of blockchain. I'm not saying it couldn't have it. But think about the future of computing/AI.

The best adage for this board is being able to see the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous No.20822971]

>>20822158
Pretty sure you can use a redirect contract that works like a redirect website. Points you to the most current contract - you just update the variable.

[Anonymous No.20822988]

every time i think im not early, someone like OP posts

[Anonymous No.20823002]

>>20822910
Never said I don't own it. Anyways good night and may all of your bags be plentiful and good.

[Anonymous No.20823054]

>>20823002
Suck my dick.

[Anonymous No.20823094]

>>20822952
Man you're really overthinking this. Uncertain circumstances?

[Anonymous No.20823097]

>>20822377
We're figuring out the use-cases. All of this is highly speculative, but not so speculative that businesses aren't interested. Ultimately, the blockchain is a record access & retrieval standard with a lot of really interesting potential features. This doesn't sound sexy, but every time we got better at keeping records there has been a large shift in economic activity accompanied by large amounts of growth.

[Anonymous No.20823139]

>>20822988
Checked.
Also we're still 5 years ahead of the curve.

[Anonymous No.20823413]

To me it basically boils down to one thing. Either:
1. smart contracts become adopted an link succeeds
2. only bitcoin survives
3. A centralized stable coin becomes adopted reducing transfer costs
4. blockchain is found to be useless and every single coins burns to the ground time and time again

Honestly I don’t quite see blockchain succeeding without communicating with the legacy world so I’m betting on 1.

To get to a point where 3. Is fully functional, you need a bridge with the real world during initial adoption.

[Anonymous No.20823521]

>>20823002
this whole thread has been elaborate bait right? you’re just larping as an insufferable faggot right?

[Anonymous No.20823554]

>>20820958
This

[Anonymous No.20823597]

>>20822952
>Sure life insurance is a good example. But even life insurance isn't that simple. What about in uncertain circumstances? Plenty of shady activity (and murder) is done with regards to it.
Is that a problem in the grand scheme of things? If life insurance gets simplified to the maximum it can get away with a few suicide and murders cheating the system. Insurance are trying to hunt them right now with more or less efficacity but if everything becomes a smart contract it might be less costly to tolerate them than to hunt them down.

[Anonymous No.20823639]

>>20823413
>2. only bitcoin survives
It's the less likely possibility desu, I have an easier time seeing btc dying

[Anonymous No.20823926]

>>20820684
>And that's really just the tip of the iceberg
>I'm going to let you in on a mystery of the universe
>You're counting your chickens before they've hatched
Anyone who says this kind of shit is a certified homo