I literally went full Chainlink

> This will be the only use case

Imagine being this pajeet-tier streetshitter

chainlink just left the meme stage and just showed that its the real deal.
the two blogpost posted just show that the project is solid and that competition should be VERY AFRAID. sergey is niot launching with fireworks and announcement of announcements, he is betting on trust and reliability. the goal of this mainnet is to show that they can be trusted and have a bulletproof product.
there will be 21 node operators but for now only 3 have been launched on the 30th of may (mainnet day),
1 chainlink team node
1 linkpool node
1 fiews node

soon we will get a stream of other oracle providers announcing their node going live, and when they will add new apis, we will also get new announcements, pretty convinced the new apis added will be strategic to the partners they have, so they won't pick a random api. this will slowly create credibility and will get bigger players attention.

About the cost of transactions it's an issue that is right now being solved and have been addressed in this blogpost:

blog.chain.link/threshold-signatures-in-chainlink/

the threshold signatures will allow for cheap transacton costs when calling multiple nodes.

chainlink has officially left the meme stage. we are now officially the most serious project on the blockchain since ETH

buy chainlink sirs it has scability and trustesness

Is this pasta now or is the board just so dead posts are staying up forever

Docusign would never agree to kyc requirements. Boomer Tom plays an old school game of cat and mouse with the other boomers and they love their privacy.

4000 sats or worse by next month. The project is possibly dead in the water after this knowledge.

Sybil attacks are possible since sybil resistance requires KYC or "trustworthy" node operators. Most people won't KYC because it's antithetical to the idea of crypto itself being decentralized and "anonymous". Therefore, since most operators won't want to KYC, LINK will not be sybil resistant.

Now why does RLC make LINK obsolete in this regard? It's simple. The PoCo algorithm is so well designed that iExec's dOracles can rely on it instead of KYC for sybil resistance.

Boom. I sold all of my LINK at 1.40 because I knew after RLC v3 dumped, that even LINK would dump.

I will not be buying back after learning this. I am all in RLC at the price of 0.43$, about 0.7x ICO price.

Sorry gentlemen, I thought LINK was going to save me just like all of us did, but this is the nail in the coffin.

You’re not getting the price onto the blockchain just by looking at it on your monitor lmao.
Let alone trustlessly.

KYC is an option.
Your entire fud is now debunked.

You are missing the bigger picture of smart contracts. If smart contracts are to be trusted, then end to end reliability needs to be absolutely solid.

If CoinMarketCap goes down any associated Smart contracts fail. If someone influences coinmarket cap to report bad data the idea of a smart contract fails. In order for smart contracts to be used in a feasible manner they must have reliable inputs.

Chainlink solves this.

Thanks just sold 100,000k.

Idiot Alert. Give it a rest dumbass, you had 2 years to accumulate.

Attached: 1473882309729.jpg (194x250, 40K)

Which stocks are related to LINK in your opinion?

I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.

Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. Jow Forums hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.

'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.

The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit. Happy gambling though anons.

Boy, I'm sure glad that some LARPer on a racist degenerate forum took the time out of his day to tell us about his 200 IQ conclusions that are sure to be true.

Tahnks user, I.... I don't know what I'd do without you...