We've all made it, now we just wait for the masses to catch up...

Hard to believe that stacks people are paying thousands for was a casual purchase for many of us a few months ago.

Attached: 1537716211779.png (1024x1365, 860K)

Not all bagholding is bad, you probably don't know the difference because you are heavy in the red, I feel bad for you, but its not too late to jump on the link

Attached: 1561828239175.jpg (638x676, 91K)

A 10k stack only costed $1,700 is now $35,000. That is a down payment on a house. Let that sink in.

More like a down payment on a garage.

I know thats what it looks like because for most of them it is. But if you look beneath and actually find out why people have been so bullish on link and why it is the best perfomer through the bear it all becomes clear to you.

This is a one of a kind, not like the gatrillion shitcoins out there. What link is proposing to do is to actually have a reason, non speculative, to be valued at ridiculously high prices to back the contracts they will be handling. So unlike cripple or bitcone or whatever really, link will get value from the contracts they will be handling. Link needs the high marketcap to provide the security for their contracts, otherwise node holders could be insentivised to provide false information to swindle the clients if the contract outvalues all nodes combined by a factor 10000

So if LINK never reaches a high market cap, it can’t provide security for the contracts?

Thanks, staying away. 90% of LIT holders literally don’t know what the product is used for and you seem to be one of the only ones who can come up with a coherent argument.

When things reach this level of delusion it’s a clear sell signal. $1000 EOY? That would put them at trillions of dollars in valuation. Microsoft and Oracle aren’t even close to that.

You're so dumb. How about you do some research instead of going based off Jow Forums shitposting.

So provide a reasonable argument?

There have only been two companies in the history of the world to reach 1 trillion in valuation. Apple and Amazon.

And you expect people to believe that this will reach 1 trillion?

2020 it is

>When things reach this level of delusion it’s a clear sell signal. $1000 EOY?
Holy shit you must be new here, lurk more.

if by "made it" you mean you've been scammed, you're absolutely correct.

Attached: chainlink is a scam.png (1200x1200, 238K)

You do realize that there are a decent portion of link holders who unironically believe this ?

as they should, we will reach $1000 eventually, you need to lurk more
This fud is so old why the fuck would anyone bother refuting it? you keep forgetting most have held since ICO or SIBOS we've been through any fud you can come up with

Attached: 1561813252089.png (250x250, 137K)

Im still under 1k by 680 LINK!
this sucks

I wish I had that Stack.
Do good with your Roches, user

I don't expect shit. 1k is a Jow Forums meme. You must be new here to take it that serious. How abouty research what they are trying to achieve here and realize the huge potential.

Refute it for the new bagholders

>This fud is so old why the fuck would anyone bother refuting it? you keep forgetting most have held since ICO or SIBOS we've been through any fud you can come up with
lie. I've been here for 3 years, this fud has never been refuted because anyone with the programming knowledge to refute it would actually agree with it.

Yeah user, if it’s so easy to refute then do it

keked

Oh no I'm not going to spoonfeed the likes of you, I don't care if you buy or not

Attached: sergeymoney.jpg (750x500, 204K)

The absolute state of linktards

>implying people who held ETH werent in the exact same position in 2016-2017.
I know you are too new to remember this, but LINK has been a play by play repeat of ETH so far. All of the “delusion” all of the shilling, all of the fud, the price action, the Russian founder, the devs cashing out before liftoff for some strange reason. This has been IDENTICAL to ETH in every way, and will likely reach a similar ATH. The only people who are delusional here are the ones who refuse to see this pattern.

This fills me with dread

And no company in the history of ever has ever gone after specifically the derivatives market in the way link is. Blockchain wasn't a "thing" in the early 2000s.

Honestly I know it sounds like the regurgitated bullshit half of these brainlets spout but I genuinely recommend you to read the link whitepaper yourself. Unlike the 9000 other pajeets coins there is actually coherent thought put into it and I don't want to spoonfeed the reddit brigades that have been frequenting these shores after link took off(yeah you dutch faggots I know some of you morons unironically bought pi"because its shilled on 4chin" lmfao).

IF they even succeed at getting 0.1% of what they're targeting, and it obviously will always be IF with a fresh company like this, the valuation of link will already be ridiculous. Add speculation to that and its even higher(again, do the math yourself, the numbers will make you say bruh tf?)

As it currently stands link is endorsed by google, oracle, swift and very very likely microsoft(see
At this very moment link is lightyears ahead of all the shitcoins out there with their oracle solution, which is why these giant companies are backing it this early. They see the potential it has. There's a reason google doesn't publish blogposts about integrating fucking verge or matic or whatever other shitcoins out there.
Oracle is not just bullish on link, they are so bullish they are footing the bill of integrating literal who companies with link to prove to the other corporations how amazing this new tech is.

Now the vast majority of brainlets on biz has no idea of all of this and the implications behind it and just get memed into buying shit, which is why they will sell early and probably lose the vast majority of this "wealth" within a short time due to getting shilled on some new shitcoin of the month and getting stuck with gigantic bags of some crap like peercoin.

This.... Saddens me

incorrect.

1. ETH had a full technical white paper for the final decentralized version of Ethereum 4 months after raising funds. Chainlink still has not released the specifications for the decentralized version.
2. Eth had 20+ devs working, spending most of its ICO money and released full working product (decentralized) after 1 year. Chainlink had 2.
3. Eth had hundreds (if not thousands) of developers using its test net, as soon as it came ot. Chainlink had none.
4. Eth foundation owns less than 1% of the supply. Chainlink owns 65%.

Based and linkpilled

This, I like this

I am so tired of all the reddit fags.

Yeah it's a terrible project.
Make sure you sell your whole stacks (if you have any.)
Also you can use the filter system on this sub to filter out a whole bunch of stuff. I'd recommend things like "linky" "chainlink" "sergey" etc. It stops you from being overloaded with this shit so that we can focus on the discussion of projects with an actual future like nano and vechain.

You can’t compare market cap calculated using a companies market equity value to cryptos such as link. Link tokens are going to be used in the network unlike shares which just sit in your portfolio.

ETH went to ATH cuz of ICO craze. They needed to buy ETH to get in. There may be a smartcontract craze, but the end users don't need to buy link token, they can pay for oracle service in fiat. Node Operators need to buy LINK, so unless we get a shit load of node operators onboard, and buying like there's no tomorrow.... price won't sling shot to 1K. I'd be happy if we can get over $100 based on speculating and some basic adaptation from the industry first.

Your only point that isnt a straight up lie is #4. Nice try though.

This is a complete lie.

Chainlink has captured 0 users. Who cares if they AIM at capturing 0.1% of 1 trillion users?

Their AIM is irrelevant to anything.

The only reason Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud are endorsing Chainlink is to shill their own cloud services. And it worked amazingly. They got tons of coverage. If you actually follow them, you'll see they literally release 5 articles a day, promoting their own services. They are a huge company, these articles talking about random shit like Chainlink is own they market themselves.

incorrect, they are all facts. I can see why that would make you salty though, because you're too low IQ to not get BTFO every time you talk

For you absolute cock suckers begging to be spoonfed so you can sleep better at night with your $300 investment

Go to GitHub.
Go to smartcontractkit.
Go to audits.
Go to reports.

There lies your answers. I'm not going to summarize these security audits but go ahead and read them yourselves for the answers to your questions.
Last time I ever spoon-feed retards

this thread is gay and you're a faggot OP shut the fuck up

msft was a trillion marketcap last month. kys you uninformed retard

If they are a huge company why would they feel the need to use some obscure “scam” company to promote their products?

Ok I missed a company. You’re telling me Sergey = Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or Jeff Bezos? HAHAHA

In fact he owns MORE of the company than any one of the people listed. If LINK ever got as big as you said, he would become the richest man in the world

B-but you didn't spoonfeed me

I bet you did as much research into chainlink as you did into answering the question "what companies have been valued over 1 trillion?"

Hey boomer they're not shares of a company. They're erc10 tokens

ETH only had to build one blockchain. Chainlink had to build a thing that connects all blockchains together.

All decentralized oracle solutions will run into the Sybil problem. Whichever one can get past the Sybil vulnerable time frame by having more and more nodes added to the network will be victorious. Chainlink has already made the first step.

Too much money on the line user
My hands are getting super weak

This assumes that more nodes increases reliability

To add to this, your arguments are valid. The ETH one is a bit retarded considering none of them are relevant. ETH and LINK are two completely different projects, and thus any information about the two should be viewed with a different mindset. However, everything you've said about Sybil attacks thus far is true. So there are a few ways of going about this as an investor:

1. You DON'T believe Chainlink will outlast Sybil vulnerabilities. You don't buy LINK.
2. You DO believe Chainlink will outlast Sybil vulnerabilities. You buy LINK early (now) and reap the gains if your prediction is correct.
3. You don't know if Chainlink will outlast Sybil vulnerabilities. Instead, you wait until Chainlink successfully outlasts the vulnerabilities, and purchase LINK at a higher price that reflects the security of the network.

No risk, no reward. This is one of the reasons LINK is still currently under $100.

As long as the nodes are not ran by the same party, then yes, it does increase reliability.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack
>In a Sybil attack, the attacker subverts the reputation system of a peer-to-peer network by creating a large number of pseudonymous identities and uses them to gain a disproportionately large influence.

Therefore, the solution to solving any issues regarding a Sybil attack is simply to have more nodes ran by different parties. I personally believe this is what the Chainlink team has been working on, and a reason why 65% of the supply is locked up. There want to get a fuck load of nodes up and running by different players before things start getting serious.

This is reassuring, thanks for taking the time user

Chainlink's strategy involves integration with high-trust nodes and providers first, so trust becomes axiomatic before sybil attackers have a chance

More information from wikipedia on Sybil attacks.
>A reputation system's vulnerability to a Sybil attack depends on how cheaply identities can be generated, the degree to which the reputation system accepts inputs from entities that do not have a chain of trust linking them to a trusted entity, and whether the reputation system treats all entities identically.

We know that the propsed reputation system will NOT treat all entities identically. This is where LINK comes in, and why it is so important. From what I understand, the more LINK staked and the more successful requests you've completed, the better your reputation on the network. Therefore, it would be very VERYexpensive for a large scale Sybil attack to take place on the Chainlink network. This cost increases as more nodes are created. And again, regarding the 65% locked supply of LINK. If they were to have released 100% or even just 90% of the supply, there would have been nothing stopping a few large buyers from completely controlling the network FOREVER. Yes, the fact that the supply is locked is a good thing. They are not going to allow this to happen. They have taken all of the right steps to ensure that a Sybil attack will be extremely unlikely. The team has their shit together, and they aren't going to give all of that up by releasing a ton of information regarding the locked supply.

Exactly. Anyone who actually believes that the team has not put countless days into figuring out how to solve the Sybil problem is too braindead to read between the lines.

Don't expect nolinkers to understand delayed gratification or planning. They're too busy going all in and grinding away their stack each time something catches their attention.