Australian banks join to test chainlink

[Anonymous No.3786649]

Do you guys know about this????

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/westpac-joins-swift-blockchain-test-467746

[Anonymous No.3786661]

>>3786649
KEK, now I do.
Time to put another lock on my LINK stack.

[Anonymous No.3786668]

>>3786649
Interesting.

[Anonymous No.3786669]

These are big banks folks, they are some of the most profitable banks in the world

[Anonymous No.3786675]

>>3786649
>that one fag commenting that ripple is better

[Anonymous No.3786682]

>>3786675
i saw that hahaha... i dnt think we know how big this is going to get

[Anonymous No.3786685]

This isn't chainlink it's the banks own blockchain has nothing to do with any of the shitcoins been traded. Source: knew about this POC ages ago as I work for a bank.

[Anonymous No.3786689]

>>3786649
FAKE NEWS.

Just google search "westpac" and "chainlink" find me one reputable news source. No Reuters, Australian Financial Review, Bloomberg, no The Australian.

NOTHING FROM WESTPAC'S OWN WEBSITE!

Nothing again Chainlink, it's an interesting solution. But fuck you dirty pajeet OP

[Anonymous No.3786692]

im quite shocked no-one mentions this, this is going to be massive, fucking massive there. it costs these banks money and time to even trial something like this. there is no way they would do this if they were not serious about it.

[Anonymous No.3786697]

>>3786685
>source
>no source
H-ha-hha guys, I knew about this all along guys, this isn't about chainlink at all guys, no way.

[Anonymous No.3786699]

>>3786689
this is not fake news you fucknut. im pretty sure this has to do with chainlink

[Anonymous No.3786704]

Article says literally nothing about ChainLink Kek. This is starting to be OMG 2.0 for fake partnerships and DGB for shit conferences which mean nothing.

Sell

[Anonymous No.3786711]

>>3786685
You stupid fuck, its a test between swift and blockchain. chainlink is the only solution to that atm. fucking idiot. The banks do have their own blockchain yes, but this is about SWIFT to the BANKs blockchain... and to do that they are testing it with chainlink you fucking nub....

[Anonymous No.3786720]

>>3786704
no, but even an idiot can join the dots.. im 100% this is

[Anonymous No.3786727]

Chainlink is the only thing i know of that swift is using for testing with blockchain...

[Anonymous No.3786733]

>>3786689

https://www.westpac.com.au/about-westpac/media/media-releases/2017/10-july-1/

[Anonymous No.3786734]

>>3786711
exactly. No way the bank even know that chainlink is being used to do this for them , they just know swift is making it possible.

[Anonymous No.3786737]

>>3786704
chainlink is SWIFTS blockchain you dumb cunt

https://www.coindesk.com/swift-completes-blockchain-smart-contracts-trial/

idk why i even bother replying to these braindead posts i should just FUD like the americans to buy in cheap

[Anonymous No.3786739]

>All the Pajeets screaming even though it's the bank's own blockchain and Link is not mentioned ANYWHERE

Get ready to be dumped on after the uneventful conference. This is literally EGG.

[Anonymous No.3786746]

>but it's a rumor!
>but it's fake
>but you can't be sure they're talking about chainlink!

and this is why you idiots will stay poor...you buy the fucking rumor as cheap as possible, if it's a letdown, oh well, you can probably get out with a minimal loss. the moment it becomes a fact that chainlink is partnered with a big player you can't buy anymore, the price will skyrocket so hard it'll make your head spin.

[Anonymous No.3786751]

>>3786733
GUYS? When did Chainlink release the whitepaper?

[Anonymous No.3786754]

>>3786733
exactly.... there is even more clues on that link: https://www.westpac.com.au/about-westpac/media/media-releases/2017/10-july-1/

definitely not fake...

"The trial used Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to" any guess as to what this is all about....

[Anonymous No.3786761]

>>3786711
Hahahahahahahahaah...

Here is a source from early his year ( lnotice no mention of chainlink)
https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/14321/swift-blockchain-poc-enhanced-cross-border-payments

[Anonymous No.3786765]

>>3786737
Chainlink's parent company is SmartContract not swift you fuckhead

[Anonymous No.3786768]

>>3786751
>The partners involved in the trial have today released a *whitepaper* detailing how the solution worked and how it could be used in other situations that rely on bank guarantees.

>article publiahed 10th of July 17

[Anonymous No.3786783]

>>3786761
"Moving forward, the SWIFT PoC Blockchain application will undergo testing, with the results scheduled to be published in September and presented at Sibos in Toronto in October. Working independently of the founding banks, the 22 institutions will act as a validation group to test in a deeper way the PoC’s Blockchain application, that is currently under development by SWIFT and the group of six founding banks. They will evaluate how the technology scales and performs."

Yep it's chainlink alright, that's straight from the article you posted.

[Anonymous No.3786785]

>>3786765
of which is OWNED BY THE DEVELOPERS OF CHAINLINK

fucking kill yourself with immediate effect

[Anonymous No.3786794]

Fucking link bag holders thinking banks will ever use it. google swift GPI blockchain and you will notice it was long before link was even a thought.

[Anonymous No.3786798]

ALL THE DELUDED CHAINKEKS WILL BE ON SUICIDE WATCH WHEN THEIR STUTTERING POTHEAD COIN MADE BY TWO HEROIN ADDICTED SLAVS GOES TO BELOW ICO LEVELS

CHAINLINK IS OVER

[Anonymous No.3786824]

>b-but they won some shit show and tell competition and get to present at SIBOS in a tiny side room which will probably be half empty
Fucking Kek. CHAINKEKS BTFO FOREVER.

[Anonymous No.3786825]

>>3786785
exactly not swift you nub, you have effectively argued against yourself and then answered your own question. do you even know who swift is?

[Anonymous No.3786828]

>>3786783
holy fuck ill be rich

[Anonymous No.3786835]

>>3786733
>ctrl + f "chainlink"
>"no results"

Why wouldn't they mention it? What do they gain with hiding it... I mean wouldn't that mean that Westpac and IBM and ANZ are unsure if they will use Chainlink and so don't want to be publicly associated with it until it works... wait? So why are you guys so sure of it's success if these big companies who know more about the technology than you are too scared to mention the coin publicly?

Unless... Ooooooh... you sneaky fuckers are just claiming Chainlink is the technology in question.
But no... no... there's no way this is all just a pnd from one of the discords.
No way... nope.

>>3786754
>>3786783
Citation needed it's chainlink
I'll wait...

>>3786739
this

>in B4 Pajeets rage at me because I dare question their precarious inference, all 100 dollars of their gains lost in a blitz of reasonable doubt.
>Chainlink actually seems like a interesting technology, I just fucking hate the shilling

[Anonymous No.3786836]

>>3786794
Link itself is brand new that is just the blockchain spinoff from smartcontract which has been around for a long time... this has been in the making for a while, all under our noses. I bet you at the sibos conf, they will announce the test was successful and you know what that means from there... implementation.

[Anonymous No.3786842]

>>3786798
i bet your hold link right now trying to buy it cheap before next monday hahaha good luck

[Anonymous No.3786850]

>>3786824
not quite, much of the conference is centered around blockchian... go look at the time table and see for yourself

[Anonymous No.3786856]

>>3786835
because chainlink is just the name of the blockchain you cocksucker... it's smartcontracts... chainlink is still new, but smartcontracts isnt... cant you figure this out

[Anonymous No.3786862]

>>3786824

How many have you accumulated so far?

[Anonymous No.3786873]

cant wait to laugh at the cry babies when it turns out to be link... its so fucking obvious to me... the salty cunts hating that fact

[Anonymous No.3786890]

What we know for certain so far:

>SWIFT wants blockchain technology to handle smart oracles in a decentralized manner (Exactly what ChainLink is designed to do)
>ChainLink is a product of SmartContract, who have been developing it for years, longer than their partnership with SWIFT and longer than SWIFT's plans to integrate blockchain technology
>SWIFT is partnered with SmartContract
>ChainLink is an answer to the problem SWIFT is trying to solve
>SmartContract will be attending SIBOS to demonstrate a presentation involving an ISO 20022-aware Smart Contract handling payments

Do you really think SmartContract would spend 3 years developing a product, only to partner with SWIFT and say "Oh, we've spent 3 years to develop this product, which is perfectly functioning and is exactly what you're looking for, but we'll build something else for you which serves the exact same purpose in the exact same manner. Oh and I know we've only just announced our partnership, but we'll have a working demonstration ready in 2 months time, even though it took 3 years to develop in the first place"

[Anonymous No.3786899]

I recently switched to Westpac because my bank stopped supporting the payment system one of the big Australian bitcoin exchanges uses. I think this is a sign I made the right choice buying in.
This is one of the biggest banks here and the others will all follow suit soon enough.

[Anonymous No.3786901]

>>3786768
Same date as ChainLink whitepaper release? Buge if hig

[Anonymous No.3786919]

Even if the partnerships are happening, there are too many LINKS in circulation for it to go much higher than 2 or 3 dollars a coin.

Meh.

[Anonymous No.3786945]

>>3786919
bullshit... at the same mcap as ripple this would be $20 - $25

[Anonymous No.3786958]

>>3786945
My dick can only get so hard, Anon.

[Anonymous No.3786961]

>>3786890
Also I forgot this:

>Sergey has specifically mentioned their intent to use ChainLink to connect SWIFT's messaging services to Ethereum smart contracts

source is here https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6lg6kr/swift_completes_smart_contracts_trial_with/dju2mlt/

[Anonymous No.3786968]

>>3786856
There's no need for harsh name calling, but I called it like clockwork.

I just went to Smartcontracts website. All I see is a single slideshow presentation that says that they are "sponsored" by SWIFT.
Now, the Westpac Blockchain is in conjuction with IBM... why is there no mention of IBM, Westpac, ANZ or any other companies affiliated with that particular project?

No I can't figure out how the two are related because it seems so tenuous. Why would Chainlink want to hide such a heavyweight connection as IBM? And, and answer this, why would Westpac, IBM et. al. hide the name of this brand-name technology?

And the real question - if they are hiding it? Then why is it worth investing in?

[Anonymous No.3786969]

>>3786919
>Looking at supply without considering market cap
You aren't gonna make it

[Anonymous No.3786982]

>>3786890
yeah, nah, SWIFT just funded chainlink for lulz, in the meantime they apparently created their own version of chainlink, so they won't be using the one from smartcontract.com, but for some reason they still allow them to present their own "useless" version on SIBOS.

[Anonymous No.3786993]

>>3786890
no you tool, they develop a solution to a problem they foresee... in this case swift has become the idea candidate

[Anonymous No.3787004]

>>3786899
you are right, westpac is always the one making the first move the rest then follow. same with the interest rates.

[Anonymous No.3787030]

>>3786968
the reason is they are clever to be quiet about it. for obvious reasons of competition. I think the fact they are so quiet means they are careful and rightly so

[Anonymous No.3787038]

>>3786739
Of course it's the bank's own blockchain you fucking idiot. ChainLink is not a banking blockchain.
They will use ChainLink for THEIR blockchain for receiving off-chain data.


>>3786919
Ahh, the infamous high supply argument.
Kindly stop posting and lurk more.

[Anonymous No.3787047]

>>3786968
See this article
https://www.medianet.com.au/releases/137251/
They leave out the name, but it's clear what they are talking about. "Moving forward, the PoC blockchain application will undergo testing over the summer months, with the results scheduled to be published in September and presented at Sibos in Toronto in October.The PoC is being undertaken as part of SWIFT gpi, a new service that is revolutionising the cross-border payments industry by combining real-time payments tracking with the speed and certainty of same-day settlement for international payments. Since it became available in January 2017, 20 global transaction banks have begun actively using or implementing the SWIFT gpi service, with another 50 in the implementation pipeline."

Now see this article
https://www.coindesk.com/boston-fed-vp-blockchain-will-wake-swift-middlemen/
"Specifically as it relates to Swift, though, Cunha noted the CLS consortium's work on a project designed to work in harmony with the payments messaging system, and even the work done by Swift itself, using both as examples of how blockchain is pushing financial incumbents to become more cutting edge... The partnerships will be where the ultimate success is."

They avoid naming LINK so (((they))) can accumulate. SIBOS is when they release the dragon.

[Anonymous No.3787051]

>>3786982
nice try you are dreaming, their own version of chainlink hahaha such poor quality fud

[Anonymous No.3787069]

>>3787051
>22 posts by this ID

[Anonymous No.3787078]

>>3787051
i was being sarcastic....the scenario i posted is ridiculous, and yet some people seem to think exactly that.

[Anonymous No.3787079]

>>3787047
They probably are not allowed to mention any names before the deal is signed on the paper.
It's very obvious that it's ChainLink and autists that can't read between the lines are going to stay poor.
There's no point in convincing them because they've been saying the same shit since presale.

[Anonymous No.3787080]

>>3786945
>>3786969
>>3787038

Guys I was just FUDDING so you could spoon feed me what I wanted to know.

THANKYOU
t: link holder

[Anonymous No.3787083]

>>3787069
because this is my threat you nub haha

[Anonymous No.3787097]

>>3787079
very true likely signed confidentiality and agreements

[Anonymous No.3787104]

>>3787030
That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
You're literally saying it's clever they keep it quiet, and yet you and other posters on 4chan somehow also found out about it. This, supposedly industry rattling revolution... I mean I might be dumb, but this is male-feminist dumb doublethink you're spouting.

How about instead of spinning this fairy tale based off of a single power-point presentation - how about you actually discuss the market uptake of Chainlink? Not unsubstantiated possibilities, years in the future applications: now.

Next week, a month from now: what is going to cause uptake and increase in circulation of this coin?

Who knows, maybe I'll buy some if you can stop being a terrible bullshitter for a single post.

[Anonymous No.3787118]

>>3787104
they have "been" quiet. did you read?

[Anonymous No.3787119]

>>3787104
>doesn't know what a non-disclosure agreement is

[Anonymous No.3787124]

>>3787104
currently they are quiet about the details.which is a good thing

[Anonymous No.3787138]

>>3787104
i hope you dont buy any link. really, dont buy any link

[Anonymous No.3787154]

>>3787047
>They leave out the name, but it's clear what they are talking about
Why? How do you draw that conclusion. It says in what you quote:
> with another 50 in the implementation pipeline
Chainlink is 1 of 50 implementations?

But you know what's really funny:
www.swift.com/our-solutions/global-financial-messaging/payments-cash-management/swift-gpi/join-swift-gpi

ANYONE CAN JOIN SWIFT GPI!!

>They avoid naming LINK so (((they))) can accumulate. SIBOS is when they release the dragon.
No, it's because there are multiple technologies they were testing.

>>3787079
>any names before the deal is signed on the paper.
Why haven't they signed the deal? Does that mean that a bureaucratic or personal beef could cause the deal to fall through and Chainlink not get adopted? Why haven't they signed it if it's such a sure thing?

>>3787119
So how come you know about it? Then they did a pretty shit job of keeping it a secret.

>>3787124
Why?

[Anonymous No.3787184]

>>3786901
It was two months before the chainlink white paper.

[Anonymous No.3787198]

>>3787154
>Why haven't they signed the deal?
Because they've been testing it this entire time? Banks are not gonna implement something unless they're 100% sure it's been tested and safe for business.

>ANYONE CAN JOIN SWIFT GPI!!
Sure, but who else is doing a demo/presentation this year at SIBOS?
SWIFT probably needs many solutions for many things. ChainLink might only be one of those many technologies they hope to implement.

[Anonymous No.3787200]

>>3787154

Are you fucking retarded? Swift and ChainLink moving on to second Phase development now: https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/70428/smartcontractcom-unveils-chainlink-plans-adds-to-advisory-board

[Anonymous No.3787210]

>>3787154
>with another 50 in the implementation pipeline
They are talking about banks implementing Chainlink.
>No, it's because there are multiple technologies they were testing.
This is from the previously linked article: "Included in that work are at least two previously unrevealed proofs-of-concept being built using Hyperledger Fabric and ethereum... Cunha noted the CLS consortium's work on a project designed to work in harmony with the payments messaging system"

Now from the SIBOS site
"In this session we hear how the 2016 Innotribe Industry Challenge winner proposes to bridge DLT platforms with ISO 20022-compliant SWIFT messaging"

Who else would they be talking about?

[Anonymous No.3787212]

>>3787154
not anyone can join, anyone can fill in the form... but not anyone can join. unless your a corporate or a bank etc then you probably could join the collaboration... this further strengthens link because they are the one with the solution

[Anonymous No.3787216]

>>3787154
>So how come you know about it? Then they did a pretty shit job of keeping it a secret.

connecting the dots and rumors. there are numerous research reports available on the SWIFT website that talk about smart contracts and oracles. of course smartcontract.com nor chainlink is literally named in any documents, so you can't be 100% sure. literally buy the rumor, sell the news....

[Anonymous No.3787244]

>>3787210
straight up... i think he wants you to spell it to him because he doesn't seem to understand how this infers chainlink

[Anonymous No.3787259]

>>3787216
>tfw bought the rumor but not planning to sell the news

[Anonymous No.3787276]

>>3787259
i dont think ill sell the news either, it will be fomo to the max over the following weeks or even months

[Anonymous No.3787284]

Link price prediction oct 17?

[Anonymous No.3787295]

>>3787198
Where is the link to that pic?
>Because they've been testing it this entire time? Banks are not gonna implement something unless they're 100% sure it's been tested and safe for business.
So it doesn't even work? Wait... why would the coin be out if they are still testing the technology?
>Sure, but who else is doing a demo/presentation this year at SIBOS?
This guy: https://www.sibos.com/conference/speakers/tom-jessop

>>3787200
What the fuck does "advisory board" mean? A lot of these people seem to be technical advisors as well, I mean... That doesn't make sense to me. Surely they already have all the technical stuff worked out. And none of those people are from the banking sector as far as I can tell.

>>3787212
That still doesn't mean Chainlink or Smartcontracts are special

>>3787216
>>3787259
kek

>>3787244
I just like seeing your precarious explanations.

So far I've been told you can't be 100% sure, that there are other blockchain companies presenting at SIBOS, which means nothinng by the way. But most importantly, I've seen no proof to confirm that the Westpac et. al. implementation has ANYTHING to do with Chainlink/Smartcontracts.

[Anonymous No.3787299]

>>3787210
Look I really like Link but Banks and Swift may be using Chainlink but they won't be using the version that REQUIRES the token. It makes no sense for them to.

[Anonymous No.3787324]

>>3787276
Once big money is done pumping the price will consolidate. Never forget that after ETH had a legendary run, it consolidated from $400 to $150. Holding through that is no longer iron hands, it's retard hands

[Anonymous No.3787334]

>>3787295
>Where is the link to that pic?
>>3787200

It's ok though, you can still buy the news.

>>3787299
I remember people saying the same thing about Ripple and then it hit $12 billion market cap.

[Anonymous No.3787336]

>>3787295
if you want to be 100% sure, then you shouldnt be investing in anything. you should rather put your money in a savings account

[Anonymous No.3787348]

>>3786649
This has nothing to do with chainlink, for the last time SWIFT will not be using chainlink..
Check the date on the article,

There was no Chainlink when that article was written numnuts.

Chainlink, no.. gtfo.

[Anonymous No.3787354]

>>3787324
last time i checked, it eth is over $300

[Anonymous No.3787357]

>>3787295
>But most importantly, I've seen no proof to confirm that the Westpac et. al. implementation has ANYTHING to do with Chainlink/Smartcontracts.
kek
don't buy then, motherfucker. It's not like we give one fuck about your well being

[Anonymous No.3787359]

chainlink spam has been the biggest coordinated shitposting and shilling on 4chan since its creation. do not fall for chainllink shill threads. these are all fake news.

[Anonymous No.3787365]

>>3787348
there was smartcontract using blockchian tech, which now has a name... chainlink.

[Anonymous No.3787373]

>>3787244
you would have to be dumb to think its chainlink. The date on the article pre-dates any chainlink.

It will be their own private blockchain (just blockchain, no publicly owned coins), this is going to signal the end of crypto. shhh.

[Anonymous No.3787379]

>>3787357
i agree they shouldn't buy it, makes it more pleasurable when you can rub it in their fuckfaces when link passes a dollar.

[Anonymous No.3787381]

>>3787359
>chainlink
>biggest coordinated shitposting and shilling on 4chan since its creation
is this newfag serious?

[Anonymous No.3787392]

>>3787299
Keep in mind I'm investing in Chainlink for what it will do for Ethereum, not the banks. SWIFT messaging is just one use case and will be done on Hyperledger I believe, but this kind of institutional backing is as good as it gets. I keep telling people, Chainlink is how you make Ethereum actually useful. It is bigger and better than just banking applications.

[Anonymous No.3787394]

>>3787373
yes, their own private blockchain will need chainlink... otherwise it is useless. Each bank will have a private blockchain fuck head. you should be scalped.

[Anonymous No.3787395]

>>3787359
Good thing I didn't fall for Ethereum shilling at $9. Those goddamn shills lost me so much money.

>>3787373
It predates ChainLink because that name didn't exist at that time. The company called SmartContract made ChainLink as a blockchain version of the tech.
We already established they have their own blockchain, you obviously don't understand ChainLink's role in all this. Do more research before talking about something you know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.3787404]

>>3787365

heavy bags bro huh? lol

[Anonymous No.3787440]

why are normies so slow to buy link ?
is it too complex ? too much research ?

are they waiting for some big confirmation written in red by swift telling : yes chainlink will be used by 11'000 big fucking banks, and now we wish them luck for their other projects ?

what scares me is that with a team so small they won't be able to adapt the tech to other big clients quick

[Anonymous No.3787489]

>>3787440
They have nothing to adapt. Banks can go ahead and use link on their own. In these beginning stages though the devs probably helped bank devs set it up and understand it so they can use it properly.
I work for the post office. We often have people come and explain new tech being implemented to the workers and overseers so that they can use it.

[Anonymous No.3787490]

>>3787394
Why would they want to use it?
They will develop their own solution, they will not use chainlink.
don't kys when you realize the truth behind what im saying. Blockchain tech will take off with corporations making their own solutions for their own needs. They will not use existing 'coins'.
There is maybe a year or 2 before crypto as we know it is dead, and very few coins will survive.

[Anonymous No.3787505]

>>3787395
You will learn the hard way then.

[Anonymous No.3787567]

>>3787490
they will develop their own solution right... they are banks not fucking blockchain experts. Why dont they develop their own microsot, their own samsung, their own fucking mazda. you stupid fuck

[Anonymous No.3787574]

>>3787505
you will learn the hard way in 2 weeks time when it's too expensive for you to buy 1 link

[Anonymous No.3787607]

>>3786649
big if huge

[Anonymous No.3787622]

>>3787607
hahahaha you cock you mean

[Anonymous No.3787623]

>>3787489
Yes for the banks, swift is a given now anyway.
I'm thinking about other kind of data and domains.
Some big companies will want to have Sergei making them a specific blockchain-oracle-smartcontracts product that's already finished before trying to implement the tech themselves.

>>3787490
It took years to develop. They can just use link and pay the fees instead of spending hundreds of thousands.

[Anonymous No.3787632]

Will literally call them in the morning, got you, anons

[Anonymous No.3787758]

>>3787490
>They will develop their own solution

Am ITT if anyone needs help understanding why this is not an outcome

[Anonymous No.3787829]

>>3786649
WTF ALL MY LINKS ARE GONE

[Anonymous No.3787867]

>>3787829
oh please you stupid fuck, the desperation to prevent link holders is a clear indication of how threatened people are. this is just a link to a genuine news article with highly interesting info which is probably important for link holders. Guys, just type in the address source or search for the article if youre not sure, you'll see its just a news article but one you should read!! to the fucking moon.

[Anonymous No.3787921]

>>3787867
It's meaningless. Like I said I'll speak with them tomorrow, if it's worth a dime I'll tell you faggots after I buy

[Anonymous No.3787968]

The FUD in this thread really says a lot about the state of /biz/.

[Anonymous No.3787999]

>>3787373
You do realize they have been working on this for years before it was called chainlink don't you?

[Anonymous No.3788069]

says nothing about chainlink in that article. nice try though.

[Anonymous No.3788115]

>>3787867
https://www.westpac.com.au/about-westpac/media/media-releases/2017/10-july-1/

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/anz-and-westpac-just-successfully-used-blockchain-on-commercial-property-deals-2017-7

Whitepaper:
https://bluenotes.anz.com/content/dam/bluenotes/documents/whitepaper%20_bank_guarantees_dlt_poc.pdf

Seems their platform was devoloped by IBM.

Straight from the banks themselves.
There will be no chainlink, they have done their testing and they will use their own platform.
You realize, once mainstream adapt blockchain technology the games up and theres no more crypto because they simply wont use our coins, they will make their own platforms.

[Anonymous No.3788130]

>>3787999
see my above reply, moran.

[Anonymous No.3788151]

>>3788115

You dumb fuck of course each company will have their own system. ChainLink is going to bring them all together with their Oracles. FFS.

[Anonymous No.3788157]

>>3787284
Sibos successful $ 0.7 - 1
Sibos massive failure 0.15 - 0.2.
Even then I doubt if you got into pre-sale you would go at a loss if you Hodl. Chain link potential doesn't rely solely on being partnered with swift.
It may be a huge moon mission or a slow trek uphill but I doubt it will get below ico in the next year

[Anonymous No.3788168]

This shilling is making me cringe. I bought a decent chunk of LINK because I think it has potential without this vague SWIFT connection.

All you fucking retards shillfagging this SWIFT "connection' is going to cause a bag sale like you've never seen. No announcement short of SWIFT using this for all their transactions will stop this sale.

inb4 read between the lines

[Anonymous No.3788198]

>>3788157
what defines success at SIBOS for chainlink?

[Anonymous No.3788224]

>>3788115
you stupid fuck, this proves even more they will use chainlink. the fact that they are developing their own blockchians means they will probably use them with chainlink. Fucking idiot, if they dont have blockchians then we should worry because that means they dont intend to use chainlink. do you even know what chainlink cocksucker

[Anonymous No.3788229]

Fuck guys all the FUD today is really getting to me, what the fuck happened? When I went to bed this board was 100% on board with Link and now it's like 90% against.

Either this shit is about to double or drop 50% tomorrow. I'm still all in.

[Anonymous No.3788254]

>>3788168
they are releasing the results of their testing at sibos... if the results indicate a pass...then this is significant. I doubt they will be hosting a talking explaining the test was a fail. if it failed, they would have announced this before the conference...we know its a pass because the team is preparing for sibos as we speak. meaning, they are preparing to tell the audience the test was successful among other things.

[Anonymous No.3788260]

>>3788229
hopefully drop, so i can accumulate

i think thats the whole point here desu

[Anonymous No.3788285]

>>3788198
Real live demonstration that chain link can integrate external data to the blockchain with no issues.
Swift announces partnership.
Or at least gives a small nod that swift will continue to work with Link for the time being.

Failure
Sergey waves his dick in front of the Sibos crowd.
Sergey fucks a 5 yo in front of the crowd.
Presentation canceled.
Pat in the back after the conference. Thanks for coming. Silence...

[Anonymous No.3788293]

>>3788229
dont worry, they are only fudding to try push down the price so they can buy in.. or they are just threatened, why else would they try so hard? all the holders are quiet, whales are accumulating... look at their wallets... getting fatter buy the day and the greedy fucks want to fud everyone so they can get more for themselves. they can suck my iron cock because im not selling a fucking dime.

[Anonymous No.3788319]

notice the whales buying more as we speak greedy cunts

[Anonymous No.3788321]

>>3788224
How would they have used chainlink for their tests when chainlink didn't even exist then? you retard.

[Anonymous No.3788361]

>>3788151
No you dumb fuck, 2 different banks completed the same test, so they did interbanking.. so they already have what they need to make it work, they don't need chainlink you fucktard READ THE FUCKING WHITEPAPER.

[Anonymous No.3788380]

>>3788168
prepare to get fucked in the ass >>3788115

[Anonymous No.3788398]

>>3788321
fucknut, its called smartcontract... get your school fees back

[Anonymous No.3788425]

>>3788361
you stupid cock, chainlink was the test you fuckhead

[Anonymous No.3788429]

>>3788293
this
that's how fud works
They are salty fuckers who either
>sold low and regret
>are scared it's gonna keep growin and they don't have the balls buy in the first place
think about it, they must have some interest in LInk doing poorly, otherwise why would they put so much effort in convincing random people on a lithuanian origami board that it's a bad investment? If you don't believe in a coin/idea do you put so much time and emotion into it or just pass by?

I'm not shilling anything, buy or not, it's not my interest, but those salty fucks will either post pink wojacks of regret or keep very quiet in the next couple of weeks

[Anonymous No.3788542]

>>3788293
>>3788429
How can I check the whales wallets? Are they really increasing?

I was looking at the charts...it does look like this is set to break out to $1 next week.

[Anonymous No.3788640]

>>3788429
We are not beinh manipulated by a third, we're being manipulated by our own emotions collectively

Link might be good but your argument is stupid
Il still not buying it though, but because I dont believe in the project (ans I hate ED/binance)

[Anonymous No.3788664]

>>3788640
>hates Binance

confirmed retard

this is LITERALLY the type of person that doesn't own link

[Anonymous No.3788684]

>>3788542
search etherscan check out the fucking whale right now with over 100k order at 0.0014 eth. i bet you that cocksucker is in this thread right now fudding

[Anonymous No.3788692]

>>3788664
that just says it all lol fucking nub will cry when link hits bittrex

[Anonymous No.3788727]

>>3788684
Whales dont fud
Thats my point
Whales manipulate prices by playing with offers
Poor fags and PnD groups use fud/fomo to try to manipulate the price (short term)

>>3788664
>he types literally in capital letters so people know he means literally and not figuretively
>I LITERALLY said I dont own Link, great analysis Sherlock

[Anonymous No.3788801]

>>3788727
There's a whale right now with 200k plus link, buying in there at 0.001426 fucking greedy bitch wanting cheap link... cocksucker has enough but wants it as cheap as possible. then retires when link is $10.

[Anonymous No.3788820]

stupid nubs feeding these whales can't believe it hahahhaa

[Anonymous No.3788917]

>>3788820
>stupid nubs taking profit and moving on
Unless you think this is the bottom, which you dont believe or else you wouldnt be panicking, the "nubs" selling now will not only have profit on hand, but a chance to enter back cheaper to get bigger bags

[Anonymous No.3788932]

>>3788151
>You dumb fuck
>>3788224
>you stupid fuck
>>3788398
>fucknut,

Insulting anyone who dares ask relevant questions.
It's almost like you're not trying to hide your shillery.

>>3787357
>t's not like we give one fuck about your well being
then why is OP 47 posts deep and resulting to

>>3787440
>is it too complex ? too much research ?
I'm dumb and I still get it: Chainlink provides Oracles by decentralizing the "testing" process of Smart Contracts. That makes it virtually impossible to cheat on a contract because unless you can control all of the nodes that make up the Oracle's decision (I forgot if it was Chainlink or another solution where they use randomized weightings... or was Chainlink based on a 'trustworthiness' rating? I can't remember and don't care)

It doesn't solve anything though - you still need trustworthy APIs since not all the data is native to the Chainlink blockchain.

However in this entire thread no one, NOT ANY SHILL has explained anything to show how this solution would work or in anyway improve interbank transfers.

Nor provided any shred of proof or even 'between the lines' to link OP's article with Chainlink (yes, SWIFT sponsors Chainlink... but that doesn't mean the Hyperleger or whatever the fuck it says in the article IS Chainlink).

And they are literally relying on "dude, trust me" as their reasoning behind this SWIFT partnership, which after questioning has been toned down to "SIBOS announcement". That's a huge downgrade from changing the way Banks record transactions between one another!

If I was gonna buy Link because it's an interesting coin with a Oracle solution, I've been shilled away.

[Anonymous No.3789484]

>>3788932
well said. that shut them up.

[Anonymous No.3789860]

>>3788361
2 banks connected by swift using smartcontracts technology "ChainLink" its not difficult to wrap your head around this concept just do research