So just read about chain link holy fuck what a hidden gem im all in

It's the big third.

Bitcoin, Eth, and Link are unironically the big three of crypto

>

They hired another dev last week

github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/commits/master

>60k link
>shitload

top kek

4me

Sergey developed this little coin named bitcoin

what's so special about it and how do you know they'll ever implement any of it? right now it's just a shitty erc20 token that you can't do anything with

What is that?

1. Eth and smartcontracts. We all know smartcontracts are revolutoinary, but their use cases are limited. Smartcontracts are awesome, but they are confined within the blockchain and data on the blockchain. In otherwords, right now smartcontracts are "you send 1 eth and I'll send back 1000 McTokens", and this contract is verifiable/trustless/amazing but its stuck within the universe of Ethereum and the data Ethereum understands

2. It is possible to use external data to inform these contracts, but right now that process is centralized. This is a problem. Lets say the external data is a transaction of Dollars for ETH. So you send 300$ to bank account X, and then I send one Eth to your address. Right now you either do that through a third party (CoinBase), OTC (LocalBitcoins) or whatever else centrlized system you want to use.

Knocking out that centralization, where you have to trust someone, is THE key to SmartContracts having a real world use case. But how do you get that information -- the fact that the $300 has been sent -- onto the blockchain using data that the smartcontract understands?

3. Oracles. Right now the answer is "hey we can hire Oracle X to do the translation to represent this bank dollar transaction on the blockchain." The "oracle problem" with this is that you are 100% TRUSTING that oracle to act prudently. That they don't tamper with the data. So we can kill coinbase but now we have to trust the oracle instead of coinbase .This is a HUGE problem for Banks who want to get into blockchain but have to trust a centralized oracle to translate data. This Oracle can be hacked, falsified or defrauded.

1/2

4. ChainLink - this service DECENTRALIZES that translation process of the Oracle. Now, the translation is trustless, and you have a trustless data feed that informs the trustless smart contract.

Multibillion dollar institutions can rely on distributed blockchain technology and know the data that informs their smart contracts is tamperproof.

So Thats what ChainLink does. ChainLink is the first decentralized Oracle that allows anyone to securely provide smart contracts with access to external data, off-chain payments, and really literally any other API you can dream up. Confirmation of delivery of an items (RFID, like Walton), confirmation of a wire being sent or received, interest rates from any central bank, sports scores, product/machine uptime, price of Eth/BTC in real time, weather patterns etc. Right now smart contracts are simple if/then functions where you go and manually do the if so the then comes back. Now with Oracles smartcontracts can automatically confirm or deny if then statements without any human interaction. Transactional automation for agreed upon terms on steroids.

Anyone can now engrain off-chain data directly onto the blockchain in an actually decentralized way and use that data to directly inform trustless smart contracts, and since the Oracle is decentralized you know the data feed is secure and you’re not concerned with tampering on the Oracle’s part. This is like a skeleton key to actualize the data on the blockchain and apply that data to real world use cases.

2/2

>github.com/smartcontractkit/chainlink/commits/master

Yup, linkies don't realize this is an exit scam. They stopped working a few weeks ago .

what, lol are you retarded?

sorry I didn't take a new screencap, but you'll see they still haven't made any progress since 11/17

Taking into account that www.smartcontract.com has been working on this project since 2008 who cares about their most recent work.

So you decentralize the Oracle, cool. But those decentralised Oracles are fed with a centralised API again. You are talking weather patterns, who verifies decentralised I am not hugging the thermometer?

>the oracle is decentralized
So the oracles are verifying data without knowing what the data is? Or is it multiple oracles verifying your data? You're delusional if you think this will scale or if you think the chainlink token will in any way be used in this process.

Thanx for tending my bags the coming weeks stinky linkies. I come recollect them at 17cent.

>So you decentralize the Oracle, cool. But those decentralised Oracles are fed with a centralised API again. You are talking weather patterns, who verifies decentralised I am not hugging the thermometer?

If your data is desirable and there is demand for the data that you, as a node, provide you will be paid in Link. The better behaviour and the more reliable your data is, the more Link you receive and the more reputation/priority you get. If it's obvious you are falsifying data there won't be the same demand for your node, therefore your node will be flagged with bad reputation.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you. The white paper explains very clearly how the reputation system and its relationship with the tokens works. I encourage you to read it.

Maybe you should've read about the team as well, not only their hopes and dreams?

Bancor 2.0

Evidently Signal Capital doesn't think it's a scam and the tokens will be worth more than they currently are. Also if you read into Sergey he really seems aware of the fact that he could have just gotten money straight from VCs and angel investors but he consciously likes ICOs and crypto because it lets the regular Joe buy into investments they otherwise can't. Sergey isn't the kind of guy who would sell people bags he knew were going to be worthless, I'm not going to say it will pan out but it's pretty obvious he thinks they will be worth something.

SHOO SHOO STINKY LINKY POO POO

It's not even on Bittrex

Soon(TM)

but the node operators are not the api providers. Maybe some would be, but you as a node operator have nothing to do with the information thats being fed into it.

Chainlink isn't trying to solve the problem of apis providing accurate data themselves it's trying to ensure that the data that comes off the api isn't altered en route from the api provider by having many different people provide it.

Also for something like weather or interest rates presumably you'd have multiple apis providing the same information so you decentralize it further, or will some contracts involve only one api provider?

it will be soon tho la

its on binance atm

>reputation system
So basically trust.
>If your data is desirable and there is demand for the data that you, as a node, provide you will be paid in Link
What you delusional bagholders don't get is that nobody wants to use a specific token or coin for each specific action they want to take on a blockchain.
There isn't even a streamlined wallet to hold all of these tokens, fucking chainlink for your oracles, ethereum for escrow, bitcoin for speculation, litecoin for sending money, monero for sending money anonymously, iota for muh internet of things, ark for whatever the fuck, ripple for being stupid and thinking banks actually use the ripple coin for anything, binance coin for your trading fees, golem for bruteforcing your sister's laptop login, BAT for tipping alt right camwhores, edgeless for when you're feeling lucky etc. etc. etc.
>Sergey isn't the kind of guy who would sell people bags he knew were going to be worthless
This is trust again, the exact thing your shitcoin is trying to eliminate the need for.

Yeah but it isn't the 3rd biggest if it isn't already on bittrex

Cringe

>or will some contracts involve only one api provider?
Of course.

And in such cases, using Chainlink will be vastly preferable to using an in-house or centralized oracle solution because Chainlink will be the most developed oracle solution by far.

It's gonna be, is what I meant by that.

The big three exists in many things, including nature, etc.

>nobody wants to use a specific token or coin for each specific action they want to take on a blockchain
We are talking about smartcontract.com here.

Odds are most users will never even know they just paid someone in Link instead of $.

>There isn't even a streamlined wallet to hold all of these tokens
How to broadcast your ignorance in one (1) easy step.

>This is trust again, the exact thing your shitcoin is trying to eliminate the need for.
You seriously need to do at least some basic research on cryptos my dude.

A basic cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is as trustless as it gets; that's what it's famous for. But investors still have to "trust" that its price will go up. And you still have to "trust" that you won't get hacked. And you still have to "trust" that you won't lose your private keys. etc.
Does that mean Bitcoin isn't inherently "trustless" anymore?

>We are talking about smartcontract.com here.
Okay so they own a .com domain of smartcontract. How will this affect adoption and why would normies care?
>How to broadcast your ignorance in one (1) easy step.
Where's that wallet? And if you link me to some coinbaseesque site that fucks you with 1% fees on transactions and holds your private keys, or is a multisig wallet where one of the signatures is the operator I'm going to laugh at you really loudly.

>implying a free market of data and reputation among data providers is equivalent in security to a centralized api and data system
wew

The user I replied to was clearly saying that he thinks the price will go down, because he trusts this one man not to scam him. It wasn't even an argument that he trusts the technology, he literally just said "nah good old Sergey wouldn't sell me worthless bags and dump his coins on my ass".

>Okay so they own a .com domain of smartcontract. How will this affect adoption and why would normies care?
Lol. The point is they deal in smart contracts.
Users could decide to pay nodes in Zimbabwean fertility rocks, and the node operator would still receive the equivalent amount of Link in the blink of an eye.

>Where's that wallet?
Lmao.

Kill yourself birch nigger faggot

And you countered by saying this type of trust negates the trustlessness of decentralization.
Hence

>Where's that wallet?
Holy shit dude how did you find this place? what are you doing here? lmfao

You missed the main example to demonstrate the absurdity of saying "it requires trust"
.
Miners not mining your specific transaction

Looking at the team and what they've written is one factor in determining if a coin is not a scam at the very least. If people had bothered to do that with Confido they wouldn't have gotten exit scammed. Not sure why you're so salty. you didn't pick up your chainlink bags at 38 cents did you?

Go check the gitter they are active and hired more devs Steve codes 19 hrs a day

>trusting "Sergey" to know what he's doing and being a good guy is the same as trusting the open source bitcoin network to work as advertised
>Users could decide to pay nodes in Zimbabwean fertility rocks, and the node operator would still receive the equivalent amount of Link in the blink of an eye
This sounds good but where does the conversion happen? Someone at some point has to agree to receive those Zimbabwean fertility rocks unless there's some kind of automatic trade on an exchange with buy orders on the Zimbabwean fertility rock/LINK pair.
>lmao
So it doesn't exist.
>lmfao
You sound awfully similar to your friend over here, no argument not showing me in any way that I was wrong or ignorant, just spewing normie phrases. Normies will never manage all the private keys to their 20 different token wallets. Not every token is an erc20 running on the ethereum network just because those are the only ones you invest in. Most of the ones I listed were not eth tokens, I'm asking if there's a wallet that has one login phrase or private key and manages all your coins/tokens.
The likelyhood of Citibank stealing your money is significantly less than xxxPussyslayer1999xxx node operator building up a decent reputation in a couple of months and then stealing your money.

user over here bringing some decent heat. I wonder if any Linkie who's at least semi-coherent is able to address these issues.

>>trusting "Sergey" to know what he's doing and being a good guy is the same as trusting the open source bitcoin network to work as advertised
Lol that's what you were saying.
Some user said he "trusts" Sergey not to scam, and you claimed this negated the trustlessness of decentralization.

Are you feeling ok?

>This sounds good but where does the conversion happen?
Smart contract.
Etherdelta for instance is an exchange that runs completely on smart contracts.

>You sound awfully similar to your friend over here, no argument not showing me in any way that I was wrong or ignorant, just spewing normie phrases. Normies will never manage all the private keys to their 20 different token wallets. Not every token is an erc20 running on the ethereum network just because those are the only ones you invest in. Most of the ones I listed were not eth tokens, I'm asking if there's a wallet that has one login phrase or private key and manages all your coins/tokens.
Bert himself couldn't Bertstare hard enough at this whole thing.

>So it doesn't exist.
You're totally right. There is no wallet for ERC20 tokens.

>The likelyhood of Citibank stealing your money is significantly less than xxxPussyslayer1999xxx node operator building up a decent reputation in a couple of months and then stealing your money.
Lmao, how would nodes steal anyone's money?

Only thing Sergay developed in his life is obesity

nice shilling, just bought 100k

You forgot about the shitcoin he made to milk retards out of their money

I’ve lost entire bitcoins twice on this shit coin

Can someone explain to me why every Link thread I go into is either full of larping shills or retarded fudders?

>Some user said he "trusts" Sergey not to scam, and you claimed this negated the trustlessness of decentralization.
You're right user, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I'm wrong in this and how this is in any way similar to "trusting" bitcoin.
>are you ok
This was actually really predictable, nervous bagholders who don't actually understand what they're investing in tend to lash out like this and try to make it seem like you're mad or angry so they can dismiss an argument without actually refuting it.
>smart contract
Stop treating "smart contracts" as this magical black box that fixes everything. Etherdelta is called etherdelta because it exclusively deals in fucking ethereum tokens. How dense are you user? You can make a smart contract where depositing 200 chanlink will release 10 req, but you need both people to agree to the transaction. Who's going to agree to the Zimbabwean fertility rock/LINK transaction? This was my original point it only works if someone wants that fertility rock, and the more obscure currency pairs you have (not to mention chainlink doesn't actually bridge together fiat currencies and crypto) the less volume each is going to have. I'm arguing that this will never gain mainstream traction because of this inherent flaw.
>wallet for erc20 tokens
user, I just told you not every cryptocurrency or token is an erc20 ethereum token. The question still stands: Where's the wallet for every coin and token you'll ever use, including non-erc20 ethereum tokens?
>why would a node steal money?
Gee user, I have no idea. Why would anyone ever steal money?
>reddit spacing
just get out

>fucking cats kill the eth network
>you idiots think swift with millions of transactions wont ?
DELUDED STINIKES

Yeah, but he didn't code it, Steve Ellis did.

Actually I want to correct myself, I never said the user trusting Sergey negated the trustlessness of decentralization, I said it was stupid and hypocritical to base an investment on Sergey appearing trustworthy. The user I replied to didn't say anything other than he thought Sergey was a good guy and this was enough for him to invest in chainlink.
I didn't bother reading what you wrote thoroughly because I assumed you understood what I said and just repeated it. It seemed like something you'd do in light of how incoherent and factually wrong the rest of your post was.

Like really can someone please explain why there are so many threads and they are all filled with the same non-sense.

You people either act like Link is some some god-coin that is the future or some shitcoin that is a worse investment than DGB.

Both sides are so fucking dishonest it hurts. It's average. It has moderate potential. It doesn't deserve 80 threads on the goddamned board.

>I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I'm wrong in this
I already did.

>Stop treating "smart contracts" as this magical black box that fixes everything.
All I said was smart contracts are the perfect tool for exchanging assets lmao.

>Etherdelta is called etherdelta because it exclusively deals in fucking ethereum tokens. How dense are you user?
Yeah, if only there were a decentralized system for inputting external data into the blockchain...

>Where's the wallet for every coin and token you'll ever use, including non-erc20 ethereum tokens?
Why would there need to be?

>Why would anyone ever steal money?
I didn't say "why" you troll. I said "how".
How would a node steal money, user?

Bullshit.
The guy said he trusted Sergey not to scam, and you literally replied "This is trust again, the exact thing your shitcoin is trying to eliminate the need for."

You said trust in a developer negates the trustlessness of decentralization.
You retard.

That's actually yet ANOTHER problem with Link. The dependency on the ETH network. What if the financial institutions actually implement the platform... and then some faggot starts trading digital cats. BOOM. The whole swift platform gets rekt, because ETH is trash with garbage scaling lead by a possible pedophille communist, Shitalik.

(now watch Linkies run out of excuses)

>Implying ethereum doesn’t have a massive 2018 road map with Casper, sharding, plasma to make it be able to handle millions of transactions per second and BTFO every other crypto in existence

The Wright brothers only flew a couple of yards.

>Sergey won't get far and get surpassed by someone implementing his idea on a platform that doesn't suck a thousand bags of dicks

Yeah, I can agree with that.

>someone will teleport behind Chainlink

LOL this idiot fuck nolinker faggot. GTFO

Yep, probably some tech giant kike smelling big profits, who'll spend obscene amounts of money to hire autists, who'll create a platform not dependent on that trash ETH, while Sergey's pooper gets clogged by digital cats.

>create a platform not dependent on that trash ETH
What would be the benefit?

Isn't that self explanatory? To not be dependent upon ETH, which will run thousands of shittokens taking up the bandwidth. Not to mention Vitalik and his unpredictable control freak power trips.

>The guy said he trusted Sergey not to scam

If you go back and read my post you'll see this is all I said and your inability to recognize that and willingness to twist that statement into an argument about the trustlessness of blockchain just shows you're arguing in bad faith and there is no reason to continue talking to you. You're just a retarded fudder.

if you think the most promising cryptoproject of all time is "average" then you're retarded

There is ZERO reason for CL to build its own blockchain, so long as ETH keeps up the pace. And it sure looks like ETH is keeping up the pace, see

>Yeah, if only there were a decentralized system for inputting external data into the blockchain
This was not my point. You said someone could pay in an obscure Zimbabwean currency and everything would still work because the oracle would still get paid in LINK. I'm saying this will never work in real life and only a handful of currency pairs are viable.
>Why would there need to be?
>Normies will never manage all the private keys to their 20 different token wallets
I don't understand which part of this you don't get user. You're saying LINK will be used to run the chainlink network, and I'm saying this type of token startup where a specific token has one specific function is never going to be mainstream. If you think people will hold LINK to use the chainlink that should also mean that they are going to hold all the other coins and tokens I listed for other applications. Even if they were all erc20 it gets way too obfuscated and confusing for normies, and most of them don't even run on the ethereum network so you'd need that wallet I'm talking about. There would still be problems even if it existed and it would still be too confusing for normies, but at least it would be a start. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
Jesus christ how retarded can you get?
Trust is an idea. Chainlink and ethereum are trying to eliminate the need for trust because they are arguing that trust in general should not have a center role in finance. And then user goes around and says "Sergey isn't not the kind of guy to exploit me and abuse my trust and this is one of the reasons why I'm investing in his project". Which part of this is too difficult for you to understand?
I did not twist this into an argument about the trustlesness of decentralization. That was your bagholder friend a few posts above. I'm saying that you shouldn't base investments on trust, and that this is also exactly what both Sergey and Vitalik are saying.

>I'm saying this will never work in real life
Not until Chainlink goes online, at least.

>If you think people will hold LINK to use the chainlink
I pretty much said the opposite of this.
I said users will likely never know they just paid someone in Link.

>Jesus christ how retarded can you get?
>Trust is an idea. Chainlink and ethereum are trying to eliminate the need for trust because they are arguing that trust in general should not have a center role in finance. And then user goes around and says "Sergey isn't not the kind of guy to exploit me and abuse my trust and this is one of the reasons why I'm investing in his project". Which part of this is too difficult for you to understand?
See The guy simply said he trusts Sergey not to scam, and your reply was that this negates the trustlessness of decentralization.
You retard.

Comfy since presale boyz

Damn thats deep from the archives

>People will not hold LINK
So why exactly is it going to up? Why would someone want to be paid in a token that isn't wanted by anyone else?
>your reply was that this negates the trustlessness of decentralization
Lol when the fuck did I say that?
>I trust Sergey
>dude trust shouldn't be enough, this is the exact mentality smart contracts are trying to eliminate
And then your spastic ass comes out and starts trying to put words in my mouth because you have no argument. Link shills should be required to disclose how much money they've lost on Link so far.

>So why exactly is it going to up?
That's just the market man.

>People will not hold LINK
I said people will not necessarily hold Link to use Chainlink.
People will be holding Link though, lmao.

>Lol when the fuck did I say that?
See your post "This is trust again, the exact thing your shitcoin is trying to eliminate the need for."
In response to the guy saying "Sergey isn't the kind of guy who would sell people bags he knew were going to be worthless".

>"This is trust again, the exact thing your shitcoin is trying to eliminate the need for."
Yeah my bad for thinking you'd understand what it meant. Here's a more elaborate rewording to really drive the point home because you clearly can't think in abstract terms: "trust shouldn't be enough, this is the exact mentality smart contracts are trying to eliminate"
>people will be holding Link though, lmao
So basically it's gonna go up because people expect it to go up and hold it, not because people are going to want to use their Link tokens in their day to day lives. That reminds me of another cryptocurrency where the tokens are not actually used by the end clients: coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ripple/

>"trust shouldn't be enough, this is the exact mentality smart contracts are trying to eliminate"
You seriously need to do at least some basic research on cryptos my dude.

A basic cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is as trustless as it gets; that's what it's famous for. But investors still have to "trust" that its price will go up. And you still have to "trust" that you won't get hacked. And you still have to "trust" that you won't lose your private keys. etc.
Does that mean Bitcoin isn't inherently "trustless" anymore?

>So basically it's gonna go up because people expect it to go up and hold it
It's going to go up because there will be demand for it.
Even the people who think they are paying a node in $ (while a smart contract converts that $ to Link) are obviously generating demand.
And then there's the demand generated by the node staking and contract staking.

>That reminds me of another cryptocurrency where the tokens are not actually used by the end clients
But Link is actually used by end clients.
They simply might not be aware of it.

>t. poorfag

Yeah you sound very intelligent lol

tl;dr smart contracts can't communicate with external data without something called an oracle and ChainLink is an oracle

welcome

Are we really going to just start the argument from the beginning? I already told you why your analogy was bad, trusting some guy not to be bullshitting is not the same as assuming an asset is going to be valued higher than it is right now or "trusting" yourself not to lose your private keys (this one is really forced user, I hope you realize this).
also
>bitcoin
>hacked
It's open source and verifyably unhackable. Trusting exchanges is a different thing entirely.
>there's a demand for it and people will use it without knowing they use it
How does this work though? My understanding is this
>person 1 wants the network to verify something
>person 1 is willing to pay $5 for the verification
>person 2 has a good reputation so he gets the job dealt to him by the network
>person 2 wants to get paid in LINK for whatever reason, and accepts the condition that he gets 500 link upon completion of the job
>person 3 has 500 LINK which he's willing to sell for $5 fiat money
>person 1 sends $5 to a smart contract that releases the $5 to person 3 when the network verifies that person 2 has completed the job and person 3 has sent the 500 LINK to person 2
This seems like a mess. I haven't read the whitepaper though, let me know if it works differently. And I'm also curious how this generates demand for LINK. To me it seems like the only reason why person 2 would want to be paid in LINK as opposed to fiat or bitcoin is because the network doesn't let him get paid in anything else.

>Are we really going to just start the argument from the beginning? I already told you why your analogy was bad, trusting some guy not to be bullshitting is not the same as assuming an asset is going to be valued higher than it is right now or "trusting" yourself not to lose your private keys (this one is really forced user, I hope you realize this).
Keep squirming.

>It's open source and verifyably unhackable.
I said YOU might get hacked, not "Bitcoin".

>How does this work though?
User pays a node in $ > that $ is automatically converted into Link > node receives Link.

>I haven't read the whitepaper though
Obviously.

>User pays a node in $ > that $ is automatically converted into Link > node receives Link
So you do think smart contracts are like a magic black box where you put something in on one end and something else comes out on the other. You would have spared me a lot of time if you just admitted it the first time I asked

>So you do think smart contracts are like a magic black box where you put something in on one end and something else comes out on the other.
Pretty much.

How I buy?

But how will USD get directly converted to Link? There's no USD blockchain, is there?

Smart contract.