Anyone bought link without any research and is falling for weak FUD?

[Anonymous No.9034381]

[Anonymous No.9034409]

ITT we post fud that scares us, ill start:

>Assuming you guys get your moon due to wild speculation on 'partnerships'; is a legit company that doesn't have access to OTC LINK really going to buy a highly volatile asset from an unregulated exchange, to be held for X amount of time to pay future fees to node operators? How could a business even accurately budget the amount of LINK they require if the price fluctuates like most crypto?
They would need a dedicated, de-centralized, automated, instant, secure and regulated way of exchanging fiat for LINK at the time of fee payment to nodes for any future enterprise adoption after the first round of companies get their link in OTC deals (probably for free).
If fees are based in fiat corporate customers will only want to be exposed to LINK price movements for a split-second when they pay operators, not hoard a stack of it. There is no practical way of doing this, especially without incurring even more overall fees for a simple data request.
There's a reason SirGay nervously said 'for the time being' when asked if node operators would be paid in LINK and not some other currency like ETH. Sorry stinkies, i just don't see it. $0.1 EOY

[Anonymous No.9034435]

>>9034409
you call that FUD?, that's like literally the FUD saying that nodes won't use chainlink to run, except its reworded with buzzwords and 0.1$ EOY

[Anonymous No.9034448]

why do we even need a decentralized oracle?
they're all just going to get their data from the same centralized oracles
:^)

[Anonymous No.9034578]

>>9034448
>>9034448
chainlink is not responsible for the datacyou give your smart contracts you dumb nigger if you don't want a single source of data, you can input multiple sources and average down the results. that's the whole point.

for example if you don't trust binance price of LINK, you can easily create multiple sources from multiple exchanges and either average down the results or simply consider the sources with the biggest standard deviation to be erroneous, and then you don't trust the source. it's up to the people who use smart contracts to use trustworthy sources.

that's like you nigger create a contract basing the data it uses from reference a nigger found on the streets. it's your fault for trusting that nigger. you just don't soign that contract if the source is not trustworthy.

also chainlink is aiming at banks and huge corporations, so that fud is kinda saying off chainlink sux because bloomberg might be wrong, or the down jones might give fake price values or google lies on some data they gave you . smart contracts have a legal value, if one of the party cheats, that legal measure can be taken.

[Anonymous No.9034608]

>>9034578
>google lies on some data they gave you
Woah cant ever imagine that!

[Anonymous No.9034638]

DELUDED

[Anonymous No.9034650]

>>9034638
>Comparing Ethereum to LINK

[Anonymous No.9034661]

>>9034608
thats why legal measures can be taken, smart contracts are being recognized by the law, so if a source is not trusworthy or cheats, than the smart contract can be cancelled or even, it can be handled automatically by the smart contract. it's up to both parties to decide on what the source should do, and what actions should be taken if X happens.

chainlink is a tool, it's an automated contract on a decentralized network.

if your contract is shit than its your fault for signing it.

that's like signing a contract with your employer and the contract says you have no holidays, and then you complain that the employer cheated... NO you ARE the brainlet whi signed that contract. and satying that it's the contracts fault, THE PAPERS fault is completely retarded. because chainlink is the paper equivalent of a contract, you can't blame the paper, you only blame ther contractor or the contractee

[Anonymous No.9034712]

>>9034650
t. not gullible as fuck
>>9034661
why are you bothering? we had this discussion already lmao. these people are either newfags getting in on the fud bandwagon or dumbass fudders who want to regurgitate material because they know the attention span of the average biztard is close to nil.

[Anonymous No.9034762]

>>9034712
>>9034712
yeah u're right, but i hate it when i make a thread and fudders join the party, with like shit tier FUD, also i've seen that now they don't attach the chainlink technology but rather the ddata providers wich is completely retarded, that's like they can't attack the tech itself now they either resort to attacking the data providers wich are not chainlinks concern. or the link horders by calling brainlets without any valid arguments.

[Anonymous No.9035089]

has anyone fell for FUD really?

[Anonymous No.9035216]

>>9035089
Yeah, me. I got scared when I saw the exact same copy paste dog shit text wall posted 100 times and started to think maybe an anonymous retard on an anime website was smarter than the ChainLink team.

[Anonymous No.9035267]

The team is shit and they will be beaten by more competent teams with the experience to get the job done. That’s the easiest most convincing fud, they straight up suck nigger dicks and code like pajeet monkeys

[Anonymous No.9035292]

>>9035267
im pretty sure i have a pasta saying exactly what you are saying except its in 2015 and it was about ETH... you guys never learn