/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7752900
>simultaneously loved and hated, revered and detested
>will literally usher in a new era of flourishing if it is successful
>will either cause a crypto-apocalypse by destroying 95%+ of shit-tokens, or a crypto-utopia that opens up legit projects to mass-adoption, or probably both
>4chan
>digits
>Sergey: "I'm going to make a meme about it, so people don't forget"
confirmed

>>7747299
>>7747977

>>7742325
I fucking love these threads. Godspeed, OP. Post screenshots please.

>>7737303
new AB bread marines:
>>7736231

>>7737553
>That is why Sergey has been working so hard and communicating so little, there is a very real race against the clock right now, if LINK successfully deploys a fundamentally useable product, it’s not only going to cement itself and increase in price, it is literally going to suck the life and value out of every vapourware ERC20 out there. It is interesting, and surely no coincidence, that the deployment timeline for LINK is right on schedule for the entrance of legacy corporations.

This is fucking intense. Are we effectively on a make-or-break path now?

>Follow people more than terms. I see too many people looking through documents for the exact word 'ChainLINK' instead look for names popping up across documents. This is a much harder web to untangle but it yields better answers.

Also, anons are starting to dig into any potential persons/people involved, but this looks very speculative:
>>7713919
>Guys. I have provided pieces of a larger puzzle. I ask that you respect these peoples privacy while at the same time figure out how involved they are with link.
>Is there another project that has so many large company / dev connections with 0 communication? WHY? The answer should come 3/20

Looks like it could a lot of wild goose-chasing
But is there any clues by doing this: >>7710707
>PDFS (cloudstorage) and docusign will play a huge role in smart contracts.

Are we looking in the right places, or do we need to go back to square one?

>>7733761
typical art fag. who the fuck uses a macbook for vr.

>>7724314
>he thinks the big guys that care about the oracle problem browse a chinese basket weaving forum

>>7715516
This makes sense. Will you be back at any point if any of this gets confirmed, with something we can recognize you by? Your insights may have made some anons escape wagekekking for the rest of their lives, and I'm happy to contribute where I can to the digging.

>>7713012
9K LINK at 25% of my portfolio
Got $8k in fait, ready to rock and roll, but I'm waiting to see what the fuck BTC is going to do.
The rest is in AMB, ICX, JNT and an insignificant amount in a handful of moonshots. I'll DCA into LINK no matter what. Unironically measuring all performance against LINK right now

>>7705931

Have the bogs met their match?

>>7682164
shit, ok wow. I'll keep my eyes out for sure. Holy shit. If things start unfolding as you're point out, fuuuuuuark

>>7676897
>starts 2015
>150k
>"made it"

kek

>$20 Trillion MC by 2020
100x of current MC of $200bn

>$1,000,000 BTC
>$100,000 ETH
>$1,000 LINK (10x BTC/ETH comparative)

it *is* in the realm of possibility

>>7670563
inverse bubble chart. To the moon lads.

>>7642998
NANI

>>7627108
>>7627148
This is decent-tier fud that at least stimulates some critical thinking, so I'll give it a shot to at least try sharpen my current perspective:

>Truth is, the decentralized oracle problem doesn't have a market yet, and won't for many years.
If you're going to use smart-contracts for data-driven unstoppable financial agreements, you're going to want to make sure as fuck the inputs/outputs are secured, making it as secure as possible end-to-end. A decentralized oracle network will give customers the choice of the level of security they want, and choice of using trusted hardware etc., depending on their contract size. If they rely on a centralized oracle service, they open themselves up to a much more vulnerable attack vector, as opposed to 51% of a decentralized oracle network.

>t. Babby's first attempt at a serious counter-argument here

>>7624329
the absolute state of /biz/
This is weaker FUD than ironic FUD threads. Does no one have legitimate arguments against LINK?

>>7622166
i guess we couldve solved it if the highres logos did not got stolen, damn.

WHAT ARE YOU READING ANONS?

>>7609379
nice id be happy with almost 80mil

>>7604172
>>7604220
>>7604224
>>7604240
DO YOU FEEL IT ANONS

>>7590182
>>7590623

>>7569944
oh SHIT