Bank-to-Bank CCIP

[Anonymous No.56150421]

How can CCIP between two private bank chains be positive the price of LINK?

There is no "gas" fee on either chain, the chains are "private" so no DONs. Just private Chainlink nodes operated by each bank side, nothing out in the open.

Am I missing something? The only CCIP revenue will be from public chains and eventually private to/from public chain whenever that happens.

[Anonymous No.56150434]

>>56150421
>Am I missing something
Yeah, you missed everything. You're fucking dumb.

[Anonymous No.56150443]

>>56150421
>SpamShit thread
herbs applied as per usual

[Anonymous No.56150445]

>>56150434
Then enlighten me. I don't see how and why privately operated Chainlink bank-nodes will have to market buy LINK.

[Anonymous No.56150451]

private chains have to have the wrapped link token on it, I guess they have to get some link from a public chain, CCIP it onto their private chain and pay with that.

Then sergey can CCIP back to public blockchains

[Anonymous No.56150463]

Meta transactions. Bank pays a transaction fee in whatever currency they want and it gets converted to LINK on thr backend to pay nodes.

[Anonymous No.56150476]

>>56150451
Why? There are no gas fees on either side and the bank operates the chain and the Chainlink node.

>>56150463
So theyre going to pay their own private Chainlink nodes with LINK? It doesn't make sense as there arent any DONs involved. The DON cant have any view of the private chain, as it is... private.

[Anonymous No.56150536]

>>56150421
You think link is to cover the gas cost of a native chain currency? Are you retarded? It’s to the payment required for cross chain comms of any kind and can, CAN, have cost of service in LINK impacted by native chain costs of gas but in no way is this the only fee. Again; are you retarded? You think nodes perform high value work for free?

[Anonymous No.56150565]

>>56150421
>shut it down, the goyim are noticing

one day you will wake up and realize your purchase of link tokens was only to illegally subsidize (aka security) the building of a globohomo 2030-infrastructure that will further distance the jews from the gentiles

tldr: token not needed, thanks for the money
t. sirgay

[Anonymous No.56150575]

>>56150476
they have to pay the CCIP nodes they're using, fuckwit

[Anonymous No.56150655]

>>56150421
CCIP charges a fee plus the cost of the gas required for settlement. The fee is a percentage of the value bridged between chains. Doesn’t matter if there is no gas costs on the private chain, the fee still gets charged for the messaging/bridging

[Anonymous No.56150693]

>>56150536
>>56150575
>>56150655
How the fuck will we know tho? There is no CCIP-chain, both private chains are private.

I find it hard to believe that they will pay each other LINK to send each other messages.

Youre implying that the public Chainlink nodes will handle bank-to-bank CCIP. So the KYCd nodes will also have to be approved by the banks?

If the private bankchains are publicly viewable, then sure, I can see how this works. Publicly viewable private chain -> DON network -> another publicly viewable private chain

[Anonymous No.56150700]

>>56150421
No feedback

[Anonymous No.56150701]

>>56150476
There are 11000 banks which make up Swift and every single bank will run their own cl node. They all write messages whenever a command is sent, this could be whenever someone buys something using their credit card, etc etc. Each of these messages will use a CCIP fee to process the message onto the blockchain, just as they do today when facilitating the trading and settlement of traditional assets, there is a fee involved.

[Anonymous No.56150713]

>>56150655
>the fee is a percentage of the value bridged
eh, as far as i know, NOPs set their fees. So if a bank has a high value service agreement with a NOP that (upon the full release of staking) requires a high amount of collateral to maintain, that NOP will damn sure charge more than a NOP bridging some rando's token from one public chain to another.

>>56150421
i'm constantly in awe that anons (mostly fud trannies, but certainly some innocents get caught in there too) still don't get the tokenomics of LINK. it's really not that complicated.

[Anonymous No.56150726]

>>56150693
>There is no CCIP-chain
https://ccip.chain.link/

[Anonymous No.56150729]

>>56150693
>how the fuck will we know, though?
https://ccip.chain.link/

click any transaction ID, and scroll down to the field "Destination Gas and CCIP Fee"

[Anonymous No.56150740]

>>56150726
retard

>>56150729
so the whole world will be able to view txs on private bank chains?

[Anonymous No.56150744]

>>56150445
Anon means you missed all of the pump and dump scams. It's over.

[Anonymous No.56150748]

>>56150701
they won't use *their own* nodes, they'll use a selection of independent nodes with a long history of flawless SC service that both parties can be assured aren't in the control of the counterparty.

[Anonymous No.56150754]

>>56150740
Ccip is not the only thing they are working on..

[Anonymous No.56150760]

>>56150740
they'll be able to see that they swapped X token for Y token, yes

[Anonymous No.56150762]

>>56150740
yes, we'll be able to see assets between chains basically in real-time. there are ways to obscure this, though. remember mixicles?

[Anonymous No.56150777]

>>56150748
so theyll let KYCd DONs to view & write to their private chain and pay them with LINK, then it makes sense

>>56150760
>>56150762
insane that this type of information will be somewhat publicly available

[Anonymous No.56150778]

>>56150729
>future of finance
>Half the transactions are just people dumping their avax bags
Woa, so in the future banks can use CCIP to use their private chains to also dump AVAX? That's so crazy.

[Anonymous No.56150794]

>>56150778
Banks will stake AVAX to run their Subnets

[Anonymous No.56150806]

>>56150777
nobody knows for sure what the full implementation of the mature network will look like, but the roadmap from both whitepapers lead me to believe that yes, what we've discussed is generally how it will work. don't forget about DECO too, which will allow NOPs to service customers without actually knowing the specifics of the smart contracts they're servicing. LINK is currently the only web3 project that has a shot at taking just about the whole pie.

[Anonymous No.56150814]

>>56150778
That
<--
Is asking for an accident

Common now!

[Anonymous No.56150816]

>>56150806
absolutely insane if the LINK token ends up securing "private" economic activity between banks in the SWIFT network

[Anonymous No.56150820]

>>56150777
oh, and you can be damn sure banks will KYC the nodes they work with. There will definitely be a place for anonymity in web3, but it sure as hell won't be in the banking sector

[Anonymous No.56150824]

>>56150754
the ol' BBC

[Anonymous No.56150836]

>>56150816
this is why we're so bullish on the project. if they accomplish their goals, which they're making consistent progress toward, it doesn't matter what the rest of crypto does -- LINK will have a piece of it.

[Anonymous No.56150893]

>>56150816
"private" doesn't mean the chain is a complete black box that nobody can see or know anything about. it just means the banks have total control over the nodes.

[Anonymous No.56150905]

>>56150748
Zero chance of this happening.

Also, to back up, outside of faster cross border settlements, how does any of this improve the current system? Is using Link substantially cheaper than current wire fees? What % of the total transfer would the cost be? I think currently it's like somewhere between 1-10% depending on the amount

[Anonymous No.56150913]

>>56150905
>Zero chance of this happening.
it's literally what's happening though

[Anonymous No.56150918]

>>56150905
Focus on counterparty risk, guaranteed execution and Payment/Delivery rather than speed.

[Anonymous No.56150933]

>>56150913
they ran an experiment

[Anonymous No.56150984]

>>56150905
yes, costs will go asymptotically to zero. i don't understand people who think their LINK will yield them 10% in perpetuity. the true value of LINK now is the rise in price once the network is securing QUADRILLIONS of today's dollars worth of assets and supply/demand push the price through the roof as everyone using the network needs to buy LINK to do so and everyone servicing the network will have to lock LINK into smart contracts to service customers. i'm stoked about staking now because i'm yielding thousands of LINK tokens basically risk-free at the moment. Once the network is fully mature (say, 10-20 years), i doubt my whole stack will yield me more than a few LINK every year, which will be enough to live lavishly off of.

did you listen to the talk Serg had with the ANZ guy? The ANZ guy literally said CCIP made their eyes widen once they realized you could effect the transfer ALONG WITH instructions for what those tokens are to do once they reach the destination chain. the possibilities are endless. the example he used was an employer contribution to an employees retirement plan can take FIFTEEN DAYS to actually make it into the asset the employee wants it invested in. CCIP demonstrated it can be done in minutes.

[Anonymous No.56151050]

>>56150933
just for shits n giggles

[Anonymous No.56151055]

>>56150984
Nigger low cost doesn’t mean it’s free. It’s FASTER because it took only 15 mins for finality while 15 days in current system and it’s more efficient. I smell quantard in this thread kek

[Anonymous No.56151067]

>>56150421
>There is no "gas" fee on either chain
But there is a node fee.

[Anonymous No.56151068]

>>56150984
if the APY goes down such that you only make 1 link a year, it'll be because that 1 link is worth $81,000. so who cares

[Anonymous No.56151112]

>>56151068
exactly
>>56151055
do you know what asymptotically means? it never actually reaches zero, so no, it will never be free. game-theory must be satisfied, NOPS must be incentivized to act appropriately. but the sheer volume of transactions flowing through the LINK network will ensure that NOPs make bank even though they're only charging 0.01% of the value they're transferring.

[Anonymous No.56151159]

>>56150726
Sergey repeatedly said CCIP is not a blockchain you absolute retard.
>I find it hard to believe that they will pay each other LINK to send each other messages.
I find it hard to believe you're this stupid. Any use of CCIP requires payment either in Link / if a different token is used, it is converted to Link. Go find something to think about that is within the realm of your IQ, this ain't it.

[Anonymous No.56151172]

>>56150476
>So theyre going to pay their own private Chainlink nodes with LINK?

Anon, DONs are supporting the private blockchains. That's how the Chainlink network works.

[Anonymous No.56151189]

>>56150726
This is possibly the dumbest post I’ve ever seen here

[Anonymous No.56151400]

>>56150740
The private chains will still want/need to interact with public ones. You can't avoid the blockchain showing transactions publicly, but what you can do is make it impossible for anyone to know what those tx are doing via encryption and various privacy preservation methods.

You might see a tx on CCIP and have no fucking clue what chains were involved or what happened in the tx. All this for a nominal fee, of course.

[Anonymous No.56151457]

>>56151172
Apparently only 5% of biz anons, after 5 fucking years of daily spoon feeding, still comprehend that Link is a network of networks(to achieve decentralized security standards) or that Link is not a blockchain. Once Link realizes a proper valuation I will never look back on this place, I used to think I had a debt owed but no longer.

[Anonymous No.56151478]

>>56151159
never said it was a blockchain

[Anonymous No.56151499]

>>56151457
you sound very angry fren

[Anonymous No.56151517]

>>56151400
>You might see a tx on CCIP and have no fucking clue what chains were involved or what happened in the tx. All this for a nominal fee, of course.
yes there's plenty of ways to obfuscate information, just like with crypto today
all this is is a new FUD angle, and not a very good one

[Anonymous No.56151548]

>>56151478
>>56151499
>>56151517
Are you functionally retarded? Who takes care of you?

[Anonymous No.56151584]

>>56151457
>Link is a network of networks to achieve decentralized security standards
lmaoing at deluded bagholders delivering word salads right in your face in the most condescending tone possible

[Anonymous No.56151603]

>>56151548
he asked "how the fuck will we know". I answered him with the CCIP explorer. this isn't complicated, anon. I think your anger is clouding your judgement.

[Anonymous No.56151646]

>>56151584

> Node -> someone/dev ops team running a server hosting the Chainlink node application (ignoring the redundancies in case that one server goes down)
> group of Nodes = DON aka Decentralized Oracle Network where participating nodes facilitate in delivering data/messages to and from a specific dapp
> DONs => All the DON in existence make up the Chainlink network

makes sense?

[Anonymous No.56151660]

>>56151603
You quoted the "there's no CCIP chain". Don't be a ding dong, acknowledged you fucked up your messaging.

[Anonymous No.56151696]

>>56151660
or maybe you need to take a step back before jumping down people's throats over some dumb "gotcha"

[Anonymous No.56151727]

>>56151584
lmao'ing that you're too dumb to get it
>>56151603
you're actually just stupid and that's not my problem, don't answer questions you don't fucking understand, nitwit.
>>56151696
No, you need to step back and realize that anonymous img boards are used for routing out stupidity to get to valuable information, guess which side of that you're on?

[Anonymous No.56151778]

Chainlink can't even integrate all the scam ghost chains like cardano and rose but you think they can integrate hundreds of obscure bank chains?

[Anonymous No.56151787]

>>56151646
what decentralized security standard is being achieved through this network of networks, midwit?

[Anonymous No.56151815]

>>56151727
nothing I said in this thread was inaccurate
you just assumed I thought CCIP was like a bitcoin blockchain or something, because you want to rage against someone on the internet. it's not healthy.

[Anonymous No.56151856]

>>56150476
Nigger are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.56151892]

>>56150421
>private nodes
>decentralized

[Anonymous No.56151895]

I literally still don't get it.

Can someone draw me a crudely made diagram on mspaint?

[Anonymous No.56151966]

>>56151787
>bitcoin blockchain
you're just feigning stupidity for (you)'s right?

[Anonymous No.56151979]

>>56151966
who are you quoting, schizo?

[Anonymous No.56151987]

>>56151979
he is insane with anger kek

[Anonymous No.56152041]

>>56151787
A leading standard given their history.

[Anonymous No.56152131]

[Anonymous No.56152726]

second tier nodes will involve the banks at different jurisdictions/countries. 1) they will keep their own record of the rwa/money in and out 2) if the first tiers try to fake a transaction, the staked links on these nodes will be confiscated.

[Anonymous No.56153475]

>>56150984
10-20 years,

ok lol
tell you what ill buy 100 link tokens and forget about it.

and in the short term gamble in other coins that will moon before link ever will .

anyone who invested into link the past 3 years is down bad.

im so thankful i have been buying other coins.

anything but link is the name of the game.

i figure we still have a 2-5 years to get cheap link.

[Anonymous No.56153720]

>>56153475
You pull the shitcoin slots all you want, bro

[Anonymous No.56153860]

linkies just starting to realize private chains literally wont be allowed to use any public token or public network
kek

[Anonymous No.56153906]

>>56150726
Udderly based

[Anonymous No.56153924]

>>56153475
>and in the short term gamble in other coins that will moon before link ever will .
alternatively: you lose money like a retard

[Anonymous No.56154291]

>>56153924
i invested in kas heavy in november last year. im good. without link.

the only diffenerce is i wont marry my bags like you salty retards still having to wage 6 years holding link lol

[Anonymous No.56154304]

>>56153720
and you just hold link and conitnue to wage for 20 more years bro.

i like link its a good project but im here to make money. im going to buy link but its still too early.

[Anonymous No.56154318]

>>56153924
>15 posts by this ID

[Anonymous No.56154334]

>>56150421
>CCIP between two private bank chains
there is no reason to use crypto bullshit for this, especially not public crypto bullshit

[Anonymous No.56154977]

>>56154334
>PLEASE DONT USE LINK PLEASE THAT WILL MEAN I WASTED 6 YEARS OF MY LIFE TRYING TO CONVINCE EVERYONE IT WAS A WASTE
Sorry pal I think I’m just gonna use Link.

[Anonymous No.56154978]

>>56154334
>t. midwit

[Anonymous No.56155135]

>>56154334
What about a thousand private bank chains, retard?

[Anonymous No.56155142]

>>56150421
>Am I missing something?
yes but i'm not going to tell you what it is

[Anonymous No.56155378]

>>56154334
>there is no reason to use crypto bullshit for this, especially not public crypto bullshit

Private bank chains are crypto…. Also it’s not about 1 private chain to 1 private chain. Every bank will need to operate with every other bank. Some maybe hyperledger implementations, some cords, etc. having a single connector to speak to all other chain types both public and private will make their lives immensely simpler