LINKCELS ON SUICIDE WATCH

Not sure if bait but here goes

So the data provider still has to use the link network to transfer their data to smart contracts on the block chain, therefore the middle-ware is needed. One node operator isn't secure and defeats the purpose of trying to decentralize oracles. There will be competition between data providers probably as people will want security for their contracts with multiple nodes

you don't know what toilets are either, street shitter.

Attached: itwaspajeet.png (1280x688, 883K)

Funny how you didn't mention that he literally says, that he wants them to use chainlink 20 seconds after the directely statement.

HAHAHAHA OP BTFO HAHAHAHA

You see how stupid these caps are. Just kill yourself right now.

This is probably the most retarded conclusion someone could make about what was said. This post should be an example of how the average nolinker actually thinks. Amazing.

this has been debunked so many times it's practically a meme at this point. literally all rory has to do is paginate the dubnium SGX enclaves so that they are idempotent across all CBOR integer nodes.

Someone realllllllly wants LINK to go down. Faggot swinglinker

t. stinky linky

Its ok bro I know you are bored waiting for the singularity and its fun to shitpost in the meantime

Did you guys even listen to what he's saying?

He's saying that there currently is only demand for centralized sources. Data providers don't yet have enough demand to sell their data directly to smartcontracts outside of their own individual company needs, so that's what Sergey's company (smartcontract.com) has been doing: helping companies set up centralized data feeds into their own smart contracts like oraclize does.

Attached: 1515033220226.gif (549x534, 123K)

Why do you care so much about a project that's dumping OP?

How could we have missed this. We are doomed

you only need decentralization when the on chain agents are mr neckbeard and mr dorito mtn dew. if the agents on chain are the already reliable off chain data providers, then only 1 node is necessary to have tamper proof data delivered to the blockchain. if only 1 node is necessary, then the network isn't even getting used. data providers will use chainlinks OPEN SOURCE code and implement their node into the blockchain, from which contract makers can get their data. i dont know why this is being so hard to wrap your head around.

>there will be competition between data providers
just like there is in the real world atm, it wont change shit just because it is on the blockchain. people will pick the providers with the best reliability to price ratio and connect to their node. thats it

Lol how exactly will data providers sell their data directly to a smart contract without a oracle to convert that data into usable Blockchain data. Pretty sure Sergey is bullish asf by saying their open source solution will allow that to happen?

You literally just left out the entire oracle problem. If we could connect data directly in the first place we wouldn't need chainlink. But because of their OPEN SOURCE SOLUTION we now have the ABILITY to directly feed data into a correct WITHOUT a third party by using MIDDLEWEAR.

Again. Fucking brainlets can read or comprehend this whole topic and I'll likely get retarded replies.

Good, it's what those biggots deserve! Remember: It's ok to punch a linkcel

Kek

Pretty much this

It doesen't make sense making a lenghty thread about a project you are not invested in.
I suspect OP is heavily invested in Link and wants to keep the price as low as possible.

So I just attack the one node still and fuck up their smart contracts. Doesn't matter who the data provider or contract requestors are, they could be Apple or user, still gonna fuck up their contract so then they have to go and fix it.

can the fat man hurry tf up because I want to move out of my parents house seriously lard ass just release your kraken sized revolutionary dump already

Dude you cant just throw big words around like that wtf

I'm heavily invested in LINK and OP is totally correct. Sergey clearly says that he expects eventually data sources will directly send data on chain. No need for neet nodes. No need for stinky tokens.
Smartcontract.com (renamed to chainlink so it sounds like the token) will make money through consultation services.
That might be the reason this video wasnt released for so long.

So the LINK token is literally worthless then.
Why the fuck haven't you sold?

Team is quality, project is useful, chart is great. The thing making the token worthless is so complex that people dont realise it even when sergey bluntly states it.
I WAS going to set up a node too but fuck that shit now lol

Thanks for writing this out because I couldn’t fucking understand his language. Sergey the only one speaking fantastic English and trust me when I tell you the Americana folk aren’t trusting someone they can’t understand

FUD only works on people that don't know what they've invested on

so im not gonna say shit about this even though it's utterly retarded

I made a post about this a few days ago, and no one listened lol. While I own some link, some of these people are so completely delusional because of the past few months of shilling. They tend to trust Jow Forums more than themselves, as gaining a proper understanding of this all by yourself isn't easy.

Pretty sure this will be dismissed as FUD, but I'm just here to have a conversation.

I'm all ears. Sergey literally says they are already serving data to smart contracts directly and eventually (his exact word: "terminally") he expects all data providers will offer direct data. Smartcontract.com will make bank as consultants.
Neets not needed.

>thinking link fud works on a chainlink board
Absolute waste of time fellas

are you baiting me because you geniunely don't know the answer?
we always knew CL was open source

never hit $2, but now it'll get to $50? $200?

kek

I don't think you understand the point.
Sergey is literally saying he expects all major providers to eventually serve data directly, just like smartcontract.com is already helping companies to do right now.
Already. Right now. With no middlewear "nodes" and no lambos for neets.

are you pretending to be retarded? sorry if it comes as an ad homnem but fuck

He's not. But you might be retarded.

Imagine being this mad. You nolinks are incredible.

I'm sorry that's as well as I can explain it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree or whatever.

Read this post 3 times and ask questions if you didn't understand any part of it

lol

companies will be willing to pay a good fortune to ensure that they are getting a secure nodes. chainlink has the nodes. therefore when all these big players start using the chainlink network, there will be huge demand for the token.

you just had to bait

Attached: Untitled.png (575x829, 84K)

>SUPER COMPUTERS ON EVERY CITY
>MUH SHADOW FORK
>ITS JUST A JASON PARSER
>ITS OPEN SOURCE THEY WENT THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF MAKING A TOKEN THEYRE NEVER GOING TO USE
I can't wait to see what these 5k LINK holding discord swing traders come up with next to try and get the pajeets who have less than 1k each to sell.

lmao

Without shilling decentralization in the white paper, how the fuck are you gonna get funding to build a product and more importantly, shill it to big businesses?

Money for marketing I mean

ooh so you ARE baiting for info

there's plenty of info out there man, DYOR

>dyor
Lol. You dont even understand what the conversation is about here

Let's make this easier for you.
You own a business, and want to use smart contracts. You have data, and want to connect to the blockchain, what will you do?

You use chainlink's code to set up an in house node that delivers data to the blockchain

Or

Resell it to some neet nodes who connect to you data source?

Which one do you think will be cheaper eventually?

...

LOL
Sent from my iPhone.

Your question neglects to consider the value of distributed risk and redundancy in transmitting data to the blockchain.

youtu.be/vn2D7QQRhSo?t=2459
41:00

Who the fuck let Barkevious D’quell into the building, Jesus fucking christ. Like holy shit.

Attached: whatthefuckdidyoujustsay.png (1436x707, 1.81M)

:))))

Hi OP.
Afraid your little thread was falling off page 10?

Pls post it on Reddit. 10/10 would sell 100k again

how the fuck are linkies invested in this bs for 13 months? Link has never mooned and was never supposed to moon, Sergey himself says there's no purpose.

How come link, considering all of this, has the longest surviving support on biz? It literally has no reason to be so.

But then what is stopping a major player like a bank from investing in and creating their own decentralized network of their own nodes? Most major banks have access to major amounts of real estate, computing power, and software monkeys, so it is not out of the question...

>It literally has no reason to be so.
You're right.
Don't look into it, just move on.

Attached: erfgrfg.png (270x440, 185K)

>But then what is stopping a major player like a bank from investing in and creating their own decentralized network of their own nodes?
coindesk.com/ibm-blockchain-maersk-shipping-struggling/

this sounds more like a suggestion, what is the question

Then anyone has to trust a bank to not game the system. Hows that gone recently?

Well that seems like Sergey is really only for smartcontract adoption and nothing more. Owning 70% of the supply he will sell it OTC to anyone who will support his network, there wont be partners and clients buying LINK, caring about nodes, transfering to fiat etc...zero tokenomic, everything will work from "closed environment" of those 70% tokens he own. Of course there will be moonboys pumping link price to couple of dollars but not huge adoption/coinbase/fiatrelay trading with huuge volumes like we all expected. Partners will have enought OTC LINKs to pay node operators for decades and node operators cashing out their profit and creating enormous sell pressure on the market.

Sergey is not after money, he is after ADOPTION and will give his open sourced "know-how" code DIRECTLY to anyone who will support it. What do you think is his desire ? To have 1k per LINK or fully adopted smartcontracts ? To have 19,000 memeing basement faggots getting rich from their nodes or huge data providers being able to directly use chainlink code and network to provide their apis for smartcontracts ? hint: he dont need to pump his bags, he is early bitcoin miner and a 32mil. ico startup creator, he is well secured.

TLDR : Sergey will give his code directly to any roumored API provider (swift,banks,bloomberg,reuters,salesforce,docusign,asx etc...) to be able to use his code and make their own smartcontract imputs, because he is desired for adoption and not crypto moons, he doesnt care about link tokenomic and your 1k expectations from the start... why do you think he holds 70% of circulating supply and cant even answer what are their plans to "incintevize the ecosystem"... its been ignored for months...yeah, go and try to ask that on telegram.

I think your last part is especially true. Even at Devcon there was some user who asked Sergey something price related and he said Sergey got angry at him. Sergey doesn't care about price, he never has, it's why he didn't shill it during the bullrun. He only cares about adoption, but he cares about adoption to the detriment of price.

Oh no, you’re saying the token will never moon and I won’t be able to dump my bags for millions of dollars? Because all we can hope for is actual adoption? Oh no, we can’t possibly hope actual utility will drive up the price.
You seriously believe that LINK will never reach top 10, 5, or even 3 position on cmc? Even when it becomes the most widely used project in the whole of crypto, fundamentally altering the way business is done, ushering in the new era of smart contracts? Seriously think about what you’re saying.
Even if it were true and price never changes, you mean that I’ll just have to settle with staking my LINK with Linkpool and making passive income for the rest of my life?
You mean that no normies will see me making this passive income, want to also stake LINK thus also push up the price?
You don’t think that, even with all 1 billion tokens in circulation (meaning being used on the network as node collateral and payment) the price might actually rise to facilitate high value smart contracts, based on the idea that the mcap has to equal the collateral needed to secure very high value smart contracts such as those from the financial world?

Yeah, Sergey will give away the tokens they’ve reserved to “incentivise the network” but it will speed up the adoption, thus utility, and actual value based on real world use. I’d rather Sergey give these tokens to data providers so that they will actual adopt the network. It will speed up adoption. Price action will come from utility via the requirements of collateral (token price must rise to meet collateral requirements) and income from staking (people will want to set up NEET nodes so will buy).

> I heard that an user asked sergey a question and he got angry about price because they dont want a high price (sources: dude trust me)
> that's why the team holds 1/3 of the supply for themselves
> that's why token worth is directly tied to the value and collateral offered on the network as well as supply throttling through staking

I wish you imbeciles would just shut up and lurk with your bags instead of trying to fud with low iq concern trolling.

Adoption equals money. You don't understand the tokenomics.

Attached: 1536011454553.jpg (500x500, 54K)

>links price will magically reflect collateral

This was disproved a few days ago. The collateral only needs to account for the cost of the API call.

>making passive income for the rest of my life?

Link will be obsolete by 2030 user. You've got maybe 10 years of passive income even if Link takes off. You better be taking profits and selling that entire time and putting the money into real dividend stocks. Links passive income staking shit is the same crap as Neo Gas.

>This was disproved a few days ago. The collateral only needs to account for the cost of the API call.

No, collateral is required to incentivise node operators to behave. It is based on game theory. If you have more to gain from fucking up a smart contract (say by collusion with one of the parties in the contract) than you have to lose in collateral, you would do it. By ensuring that the risk is shifted onto the node operators by forcing them to put a large collateral stake on the line, the smart contract creator can be sure they have a secure smart contract and are not risking much.

The cost of the API call will be reflected in the reward for completing the job, this is more likely to be within the cents range (Oraclize charges 5c for example). This is a separate issue.

>Link will be obsolete by 2030 user
Says who? If I do see a superior technology start developing I’d obviously jump ship. But smart contracts haven’t even got started yet, they will reach maturity sometime in the 2020s, from there we will be able to see if they’ll be replaced. It’s too far in the future to know and anyone who thinks “muh AI” will replace everything seriously knows fuck all about AI.

In order to be effective and put the node operators at risk as in having a stake in the game Link needs to be at a fairly high value, correct?

Correct

Not necessarily. Link could be worth 50c and you would still be able to provide sufficient collateral for most cases. The point is this:
The mainnet will not be able to serve giantic financial markets without a high token price.

There are many reasons why LINK will succeed but the one that really seals the deal for me is the notion of collateral. The token price will be proportional to the amount of collateral needed across the system. A simplified example would be, say there are only 50,000 LINK tokens in existence (forget the 1 billion tokens, this is a simplification), each worth $1. There are 100 smart contracts each worth $10,000 each on mainnet, so $1,000,000. They want 10% of that as collateral, so that's $100,000. But the total mcap of Chainlink is only $50,000 in this example. The token value must rise to $2 to make up the difference.

Now if you consider the kind of numbers financial markets are dealing with, in the trillions and quadrillions, even tiny fractions of a percent of that being shifted onto a smart contract system, and thus requiring collateral in LINK, gives insane valuations to the LINK token.

Pre-empting responses I've seen to this reasoning before, you might say "but how would the price rise to meet the demand? what mechanism?" it's a stupid question because it's exactly the same as any other coin, simply supply and demand.
Pre-empting another question, yes, it's simplified because we're not taking into account different time frames, but that's the kind of thing you would need to build a mathematical model to account for, and that doesn't make the simplified model invalid at all.
Pre-empting the reply “they won’t ask for 100% the value of the smart contract collateral” - there are two responses. 1) yes they will in some cases where the contract creator wants zero risk. 2) even if they don’t, even 10% or 1% still requires high token price when you’re dealing with billions overall.
Pic related.

Attached: D2F50FD3-7952-40A0-9ECA-2108B781DA48.png (756x1012, 135K)

Thanks, feeling comfy with my investment, but do believe will need to Hodl a couple years to have gains of significance. I am good with that.

>Pre-empting responses I've seen to this reasoning before, you might say "but how would the price rise to meet the demand? what mechanism?" it's a stupid question because it's exactly the same as any other coin, simply supply and demand.
Hold your horses. Let's say I want to collateralise an api call triggering a 1 billion dollar smart contract. So I start buying link until I have 1 billion worth in my node. Price goes up. Others are doing the same. I sell because I don't need more than 1 billion worth... We reach price equilibrium at the value of total collateral. Checks out
Lads, we're gonna make it

Attached: 1539966651797.jpg (1500x1000, 432K)

You likely wouldn’t buy and sell link to top up and scrape off your node repeatedly... Afaik you need to leave it there to accumulate reputation. If you keep taking your node down (selling links) you’ll lose your rep. I’m not 100% sure on this so correct me if I’m wrong.
But yeah I have seen retards say “the price will *magically* rise to meet collateral?” But consider the alternative scenario
>mcap of LINK is 1 billion
>collateral requirement for ONE contract is 2 billion
>oh shit! not enough collateral even exists to match this collateral requirement, EVEN if I buy 100% of the supply!
>welp I guess that’s it
>no possible way to remedy this
>system fails
>unironically ogre
Will this happen?

Nah you can def pancake your gains

Retaining reward linkies isnt a reputation metric

it's unlikely for leaps of this magnitude to happen. price volatility and lack of trust prohibit serious users from relying on chainlink at that point. It's like calling your local pizza hut to supply pizzas to a stadium full of people.

What does happen is that people will keep buying link until they can collateralise the requested contracts. Demand drives the price.
And you drive a Lambo.

Attached: sergey_of_nazarov.png (768x960, 1.46M)

>tries to buy up supply to meet demand
>price increases per basic elementary rules of supply and demand
>market cap increases

>You likely wouldn’t buy and sell link to top up and scrape off your node repeatedly... Afaik you need to leave it there to accumulate reputation. If you keep taking your node down (selling links) you’ll lose your rep.

this is where there's some confusion on this board. There's two kinds of "staking," one of which isn't really staking at all, but there's no better word.
1. is link held on the node. Contract writers can choose to offer jobs to nodes who only hold a minimum amount of link that the contract writer decides. This amount cannot be lost from doing a job incorrectly (so nothing is at "stake"), and is a binary thing, i.e., you either have enough link to accept the job or not, having more doesn't increase your reputation.
2. is contract staking, which is the collateral concept that is being talked about here, which you can lose if you do the job incorrectly, and is held for the duration of the contract (or released periodically in chunks according to thomas).

What is the purpose of number 1 though? Why would they want nodes with huge stacks if not for collateral?

yea i don't really know, i could see it not being terribly important to contract writers. if you're going to attack the network it makes it more expensive on the front end to assemble the money to run enough nodes to try and have 51% of the randomly selected nodes.

perhaps unreliable or questionable contract writers just starting out may not have the "reputation" (not from the chainlink system) needed to get node operators to accept jobs where they feel comfortable risking their link, i.e., is this a scam?, so they would have to start using only 1. to prevent attacks.

Can you rephrase that? I don’t understand
>t. Brainlet

Quality FUD but the numbers in my ID will be the price of 1 chainlink token in US Dollar EOY 2019

Attached: 1430067844347.gif (305x360, 1.03M)

You guys are the fucking worst, I hope you lose all your LINKs swing trading.

Chainlink being open source is where the big money is at, the fact that their software is being used to define the standard for decentralized data fetching for Oracles is incredibly valuable.

The reason it's open source is to remain open and improve the protocol, something Sergey advertises as a benefit over closed source providers such as Oraclize.

I really hope you fuckers don't get to buy back in, none of you FUDsters deserve it.

Hold strong LINK marines, deploy your FUD barriers and laugh at their pathetic attempt to steal your money.

7

Being this stupid. No wonder some people are poor forever.

Attached: 1540242657329.jpg (486x309, 29K)

haha i like computer too!

It’s going to be fucking hilarious when singularity begins and they are unable to justify a decent re-entry resulting in less and less LINK each time

I’m all ears as well. I’m pretty sure I heard Sergey say this as well. In 10 years down the road. That’s why chainlink is often referred to as a band aid solution. I’m not scared though still money to be made.

Sell an API subscription to NEETs who facilitate connection between your data and smart contracts.

What risk? fi you're trusting an entity to give you valid data, you don't have to use a decentralized network of nodes to function as an oracle, you can trust that entity with the oracle as well. Redundancy is totally different and doesn't require decentralization, it requires distributed computing which already every organization uses, there are several servers, sure, but all of them are owned by the single entity.

Well actually the decentralization and the oracle problem as a whole has less to do with trusting the source data as much as trusting the data integrity in its path to the blockchain.