Post your stacks.
LINK stack thread
James Rivera
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtube.com
twitter.com
Mason Adams
1 Link
Brandon Gonzalez
Op why don't you post your stack. I of course have 100k the minimum making it amount.
Jonathan Cook
James Sanders
I always post fake but believable stacks on these data mining threads to throw scrappers off. We're all marines.
Cooper Fisher
Yawn
Sage
Charles Wright
650 mil
Ayy lmao how’d you guys like the podcast?
Chase Torres
Comfy 24k reporting in.
Samuel Bell
21k
Even if I don't "make it", I'll be substantially better off than I would have been without LINK.
Samuel Davis
got to 10k recently gunna be at 12,000 soon, praying for .30c link again or even .40 would br nice too
Jace Long
0, I sold the top, you are a fool if you are still holding this until after consolidation, it rose 150% on no news and a third of the supply still is in control of the team...
Robert Howard
Just bought 250, kinda poor so I don't have much money right now. But I'm planning to accumulate ETH-cost averaging-style from now. Anyway, at $1000 each $250,000 is plenty.
Daniel Price
It's a good speculative investment but there is litteraly no reason to think it is ever going to 1k kiddo
Gavin Garcia
lmao what an idiot
Brayden Rodriguez
20k. Not comfy. Will grab 5k more if it dips.
Jaxon Adams
58,880
Will add more next week
Ethan Gomez
1.25k
Gabriel Barnes
he glows
Grayson Stewart
You idiot. Now OP knows your wallet and he can hack you.
Ryder Howard
How much do you reckon you'll get with your stack for being that pessimistic?
Brody Rodriguez
21k
Mason Anderson
20k
Cooper Sanchez
Its not going to be $1000
$100 will be an absolutely incredible result
Ayden Thompson
72k
James Watson
o-one hundred and t-thirty five frens
Ayden Lee
Technically 50k, now at 30k because I want to ride the Zilliqa wave next. Will rebuy before EOM
Christian Harris
comfy 20k
William Lee
1285
Daniel Fisher
0
Jacob Cook
3k
Link would be better without the token bs and I expect it to get rekt by a tokenless copy 1-3 years from now. Detokenization is the next big thing, nobody wants the added complexity of having their contracts deal with acquiring yet another token. Screencap this.
Ryder Roberts
Ironic that Detokenization is something LINK will help with
Brody Campbell
"Taking Smart Contracts Beyond Tokenization" by Sergey Nazarov
Feb 19, 2018
Evan Wood
Linkpool did it right for this exact reason. Ownership via Smart contract, but no token, cos its not fucking necessary
Kayden Stewart
god tier
Justin Stewart
Different meaning of tokenization. I mean 0x without ZRX, Raiden without RDN, Brave ads without BAT, etc. Chainlink is cool but LINK isn't needed for it to work.
Tokens have their place as long as they represent some real value within the system and not simply fees/payment. Both the staking and the payment could use whatevertoken with no loss of functionality.
Ian Ward
It makes sense to have a separate token for collateral, as tokens locked in contracts are not in circulation.
Wouldnt want 10% of ETHs supply (as an example) locked in oracle contracts
Parker King
You're wrong bub and you're going to neck yourself soon
Easton Foster
Could simply have supported the ERC20 standard and let devs choose. There's something to be said for staking tokens being separate from the larger market as it would make attacks costly by destroying your own investment to attack, but as far as I understood LINK isn't staked in the PoS sense.
How so? Convince me I'm wrong and I'll literally 10x my stack today.
Isaac Torres
300k
Jacob Torres
It is essentially PoS. The tokens are locked in smart contracts, your can remove them at any time, but it will fuck with your reputation. Speaking of, reputation is another reason for the LINK token, and a measure of security.
Id say read the whitepaper token usage section.
Also think youve got it backward...half the other projects don't need tokens, and could be done with a contract. LINK is one of the useful ones
Eli Richardson
7000 stinks
Bentley Thomas
People need to realize that a monetary system is absolutely needed to keep nodes honest in this network, preventing sybil attacks. If there is no financial incentive on contracts, then there would be zero repercussions for trying to game contracts.
>but what about using ETH? Or Bitcoin? Or even a stable coin?
Then the network would be at mercy to the volatility of a multitude of assets. The token itself also has a the functionality of an erc677 token which provides and transfer and call function. Using a stable coin would remove that ability on the network.
That is not to say people cannot be paid out in fiat. You can easily set up an adapter to have yourself pay/payout in fiat but guess what? the actual network would still be operating payments under the token.
Ethan Hughes
Imma read the whitepaper more carefully, ctrl-f'd token yesterday and didn't get anything interesting about the staking.
ERC677 is not an argument though, it's trivial to wrap any token.
Eli Hill
This reaction image is everything.
Aaron Peterson
the tokens are locked it notes as collateral to high value contracts.
The purchase and sale of LINK by those desiring oracle function for their smart contracts will not need to interact with LINK directly at all, they put in money, and things re converted in the back end.
A token is absolutely necessary to ensure security and reputation of nodes, and to allow high value smart contracts.
In summary, BTFO dumblinker.
t.
93k
Camden Carter
>A token is absolutely necessary to ensure security and reputation of nodes, and to allow high value smart contracts.
Just why? They could use anything for collateral. I'll market buy if you just give a good reason for why it has to be the link token and not fucking dai or whatever.
Juan Walker
100K linkies and 100K coinmetro tokens
im gonna /MAKE/ it
Gabriel Flores
get out of my board you piece of shit
Leo Turner
Your question has already been answered above, but I'll provide some more details since you're being a cunt.
>why no other token other than LINK will be/can be used for the purposes of insurance (e.g. is there something at the protocol level that means LINK is the ONLY asset that can be used?)
Yes, the LINK token is required at the protocol level. The technical reason here is typical ERC20 tokens don't allow for the transfer and execution of a smart contract in a single transaction, ERC677 does, with transferAndCall. When a request is made, the payload of that request is sent along with the token transfer (payment for the node operators), so that the node operators know exactly how much they're being paid for that request and can respond immediately, knowing they'll be paid for their work.
>why LINK is the only token that can be used for the purposes of payment to node operators
It separates the security of the Chainlink network from market volatility of some other asset, unrelated to the network. If it were ETH, then the security of the network could be reduced if ETH's market volatility didn't work in our favor. That also wouldn't work out very well in multi-chain environments where the node operator would need different prices for the same amount of work on every supported chain. If it were some stable coin, then the security of the network would be based on the viability of that project. Further, we would lose the transferAndCall ability, which would add more complexity to our smart contracts, and more complexity usually means more expensive transactions.
Since you're pushing, why don't you tell us what the benefits would be of using, for example, Dai over the Link token.
Gabriel Campbell
>ERC677
Not an argument. Google token wrapping.
>If it were ETH, then the security of the network could be reduced if ETH's market volatility didn't work in our favor
Instead it's exposed to LINK volatility, no difference. Link could end up being more volatile.
>Since you're pushing, why don't you tell us what the benefits would be of using, for example, Dai over the Link token.
Being token agnostic would make it so that devs can pick what they'll use themselves. Different tokens could have properties that make devs prefer them, too many to predict. Staying agnostic is futureproofing. In the case of DAI that would be that they can set the required value of stake in USD.
Colton White
>Instead it's exposed to LINK volatility, no difference. Link could end up being more volatile.
listen up brainlet. LINK's volatility will be based on the viability and adoption of the oracle network. So it will match it's use when price becomes based on adoption and not speculation. Were it ETH or any other project, that would not be the case. The oracle network could be functioning fine, then ETH shits the bed due to some major vulnerability and the collateral values go all over the place.
Also LINK can be chain agnostic
Jace Bailey
> In the case of DAI that would be that they can set the required value of stake in USD.
the price will be set in fiat value, the purchase and number of tokens being staked for that particular oracle request will change depending on this. Those making requests won't be placing a 'LINK value', but a fiat denomination value, which the oracle will match or exceed in collateral LINK.
Jeremiah Lee
Huh, we chose the same filename.
Jace Russell
16k stink and 4k coinmetro reporting in
Hudson Brown
Consider that devs could use their own token as oracle stake if using link was not required, instead tying the viability of their calls to their own token's valuation which is better for them. Or their project depends on DAI so they want to use that, cutting their token dependencies from 2 to 1.
I get that it will work with link but I just don't see how it's REQUIRED to use a network token.
Any token can be chain agnostic with wrapping and cross chain transfers, there's no future where link is chain agnostic and other tokens are not.
Owen Stewart
The devs LINK is also there to promote staking (staking rewards in LINK) and to set up nodes/encourage enterprise to use the network/stake themselves and provide API data.
If you feel unconvinced that's fine, you've bet what you feel is appropriate given the risk you perceive.
Lucas Harris
>If you feel unconvinced that's fine, you've bet what you feel is appropriate given the risk you perceive.
Alright, thanks for taking the time. Maybe I'll get convinced with time seeing the market dynamics, invested what I feel comfortable with for now as you said.
Cooper Bell
except... even sergey agrees with youtube.com
listen from 1:12:49 and weep. linkies btfo
David Morris
Daniel Rivera
At the moment 0, I sold at 14,500, had about 30k. I will buy back around 6k sats.
Ian Clark
I hope you don't kill yourself in a few years
Gavin Jones
Go big or go home.
I'm confident enough. Cap this ffr
Cooper King
2k, i can get 3k soon!
Brandon Rogers
>im gonna /MAKE/ it
4k and 10k.
Ayden Cruz
I’m a top 500 holder baby
Grayson Butler
This. Link has a ton of promise, but its news and progress over the last few months doesn't warrant 3x-ing against a bearish BTC. The only reason it hasn't been sold down before is because all the fanatical Jow Forums autists just hold through everything
Jack Lee
>these data mining threads
How deluded a man can be?
James Ross
16k
Here is my trading plan
BTC has bottomed and will soon impulse to 5k followed by some sideways consolidation in the current range.
LINK will consolidate around .40 for a month or so while BTC moves up. LINK/BTC will fall to 8k sats, before the eventual move to $1.
Alexander Myers
Unlikely, plenty of 6 figure holders keep their shit on exchanges.
Noah Reed
And plenty of 6 figure holders keep their stacks split across multiple wallets. If it says your 500, your probably around 400.