When is it going to fucking recover

Someone tell that rory fag that they have 33m of ICO money. Surely they can hire someone to handle exchange listings. Fuck even a minimum wage pajeet will do.

>he fell for the pump and dump

What happened to all the hodl till lambo? 2018 2019 talk? Can we all agree the technology behind this could possibly open the floodgates and have wall street money pouring in?

this is my safe haven coin that can x10 to 20x in a year...all my short day trades is just to collect more LINK :)

News that makes it hit $1 will make it hit $5.

Ahhhhhhh, it's dumping again.

new exchanges and hiring marketing within this year alone will make it go $1+

companies and fintech companies, insurance, gambling, among others will start to buy link tokens...just one hedge fund can bring this to $1 anytime. with adoption next year...this is easy $5+ and in 2019...this is gonna be $20+

Yeah but let's not forget the acceleration of crypto

Link will be $200

Screencap this

t. Whiteowl

Jesus after that huge green candle it's right back to where it started.

Fuck.

Christ, I'm glad I dumped this. Will rebuy sub 4K after Nov fork.

This is painfully naive. A large portion of the coin supply is meant to be GIVEN for FREE to organizations so that they can adopt the tech a little or no cost. Something like 30% I believe.

nah its nots. if this gets adopted big style like paypal and shit, everyone uses it. like every damn onlineshop etc. they cant give everyone free tokens. ofc this wont happen by 2019, but long term its possible, keep in mind crypto is booming the next years, mindless idiots are going to buy everything thats in the upper charts, just for the sake of it.

Yeah it is. Read the white paper section on token allocation.

Its for node operators

none of them have to buy link to use smart contracts
you need to do some research

LINK will be 1k in 2020
Cap this

Yes u do. Did u even read the whitepaper. Tokens are paid to node operators. Node operators will be given link as an incentive to set up nodes. Im assuming big partners will be given some link. But eventually everyone who wants to use the network will need to buy tokens. Come on man. Think.

>Tokens are paid to node operators
from sergeys massive reserve. and a very tiny portion is paid out to node operators.

>But eventually everyone who wants to use the network will need to buy tokens
you dont need to be a node operator to use the network.

do some fucking research and stop believing bottom of the barrel pajeet shilling

So what makes the token have any value then? Why even bother investing in LINK?

You are retarded. Seriously. Ofc you dont need to be anode operator. But you need to pay tokens to the node operator. Do you get it? No one is going to use the network for free. Think man. Use your brain

exactly. the only cryptos worth a shit are ones used as a currency. link is not a currency.

going by your logic, assets and commodities have no value either because they aren't currencies

This guy is dumb. He thinks sergey is going to give free tokens away forever. Lol. And companies are just going to use chainlink for free. No bro. You need to buy tokens and pay them. How hard is it to understand that.

I think he knows the answer and is being retarded on purpose

you don't need LINK to run a node.
It's supposed to make your node more trustworthy or whatever.

This is the kind of retarded thinking that makes you faggots poor

show me some crypto assets and commodities?
your logic is retarded.

sergey is going to give 650m tokens away for free
deal with it

Umm it's up right now.

25 cents will be the new norm, from analysis

>show me some crypto assets and commodities?
Tokens.
>your logic is retarded.
No u

you clearly dont understand how this whole chainlink thing works.

How does it work then?

So ist this a good point to invest for a newcoiner? Or should i wait till its sub 0.20 again?

If you want to hold for a year, then yes. This is pretty much the best thing you can buy. If you want fast returns then no.

>sergey is going to give 650m tokens away for free
>deal with it

Yes, they'll likely incentivise businesses to use ChainLink by giving them some for free. At some point in the future, there will be 1 billion tokens in circulation.

But at that point, with so many businesses using ChainLink, the ecosystem will be unbelievably robust, and therefore incredibly valuable.

You seem to be suggesting that Sergey is going to give out so many coins he tanks his own project. I think you have to give him a bit more credit than that...

yeah, I mean if all those banks actually adopt ChainLink, and use it on a fucking daily basis, this shit is going way past the moon, and you'll need way more than 1B tokens to stop it

3 things need to happen. First, new exchange. Second, segwit2x fork. Third, good news from the Serge. Hopefully in that order, so that #2 doesn't kill any momentum from #3.
Aside from a few outliers, BTC's bullshit has been kicking the market's ass, and LINK doesn't have the record or fundamentals to stay stable while that's happening. Late November will be its first chance to really grow hard. Hopefully the team is sitting on announcements until then.

It's not limited to banks, though. It's any business that wants to use smart contracts and needs data inputted into those smart contracts in a trustless way. Lots of organisations will want to keep things in house, sure, but there is a very strong argument for decentralised oracles. They allow a business that is using them to demonstrate that they are not unduly influencing or manipulating the data. All they are doing is setting the terms of the contract, and then a trustless system is both filling out the conditions (with ChainLink) then executing the smart contract (with Ethereum or whatever).

The thing about this is that it applies to so many industries and business types that the sky is honestly the limit. And as if that wasn't enough, you look at the entities that have supplied data to ChainLink and you realise the huge end of town is already all over this. BNP Paribas alone has 2 TRILLION dollars in assets.

Even if BNP et al want their own discrete in house system, the market for a trustless service will be absolutely massive.

You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline. Longer, even.

>You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline

NO, I NEED GAINS NOW. IF I DONT GET WHAT I WANT I'M PREPARED TO CRASH BINANCE WITH NO SURVIVORS!!!

but seriously, i agree with you completely. people keep saying we're deluded for thinking this is the next ethereum, but it fucking is. it is the next step in the evolution of smart contracts, if you don't realize how big that is you deserve to be poor.

when you finally capitulatr and sell. that's when the reversal will happen.
Impatient cucks like you never make money

>You have to look at this over a 10 year timeline. Longer, even.
In 10 years if adoption is as widespread as youd like to wish, a bandaid solution wouldnt be needed.
Link isnt the only player in smart contracts and oracles, and there will be more to come.

first mover advantage. And banks wont hop to other projects once they settle on one.

It's the first mover when it comes to the decentralisation of oracles. Yes the ecosystem will grow, yes other players will emerge. But in terms of long term holds I honestly can't think of a single other token that comes anywhere close to this one.

It's use case is so broad and its barrier to entry is so low that I honestly can't even get my head around just how big this could be.

>Chainlink
>a bandaid solution

Confirmed for not knowing the first thing about this.

In order to have decentralized oracles, you NEED two distinct decentralized networks:
1) the decentralized blockchain node network (= trustless backbone)
2) the decentralized oracle node network (= connection between real-world data and the blockchain)

If you think this is a band-aid situation, then you probably think that the ideal solution is a combination of these 2 elements. Which would make very little sense.

You see, blockchain nodes and oracle nodes would be doing two completely distinct tasks; one would be creating blocks, the other doing oracle computations.
These tasks are so different, and the backgrounds and requirements for these two purposes so different, that it would make no sense for these two networks to be combined.

Just like it would make no sense for road construction companies to start building cars.

>2019
>chainlink is an extreme success, more and more institutions start using it
>one link is now $20
>suddenly, out of nowhere vitalik releases news that smart oracles are now integrated in ethereum itself, making chainlink obsolete
>LINK price instantly crashes to 1 cent as every client immediately terminate their partnerships
>vitalik tweets: "I told you fucking faggots that oracles aren't worth that much money. Suffer, you filthy capitalist pigs"

I really enjoyed user posting some year old ETH threads last week. More than a few anons were saying "Bitcoin will just implement smart contracts".

>"Ethereum will simply teleport behind LINK" the post

See All Vitalik could do, is rip off LINK and create his own decentralized oracle network add-on.

Integrating the decentralized oracle network into ETH would make zero sense.
Ethereum was always meant to be an all-purpose blockchain, and making the oracle network native to that blockchain would defeat the purpose of an all-purpose blockchain.
Also, that would mean that ETH nodes would become oracles as well. It would stop being Ethereum.

Here's Vitalik himself explaining how oracle solutions would be "built on top" of the base layer that is ETH: blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/22/ethereum-and-oracles/

Since all in all this seems a nice thread with reasonable people, I'm gonna ask you guys what do you think of universa.io
I'm pretty new to ICOs an crypto as a whole, and that seems pretty interesting, especially since it's endorsed by McAffee, but I'm sure I'm missing something.
I'm not even sure if I understood correctly that it wants to replace Bitcoin blockchain.

Same applies to every token. They can implement every feature tokens provide but they won't because that's not the goal of Ethereum.

it was satire, guys

this, everyone is spoiled

The fork was priced in

LINK has ruined my life.

I'm from the future
don't sell

No BS, link won't recover.
After SegWit2x, you'll see a little surge, but there's still no good reason to invest.

-LINK needs swift, swift doesn't need link. SWIFT has a working service and said they're looking into a bunch of new technologies- not going all in on LINK

-Banks won't adopt LINK, middleware services like SWIFT might

-LINK's too complex for normies. E.g in future where LINK catches on, an insurance company is setting up Oracles to monitor alarm/firewall status- relying on Intel's trusted computing platform which is ludicrous b/c:
A- Not out yet.
B- Expensive - banks run 20 year old pc's for a reason
C- Computers are inherently UNtrustworthy (points of failure)
D- You trust a rinkydink website spitting out flight times is well secured/maintained for the pennies it earns? Fuck off.
E- Insurance companies will hire and train a bunch of LINKsperts for oracles?

-This is a crypto board (now), yet most people don't realise how revolutionary LINK could be. Too complex, and when things are too complex people buy Apple. Your aunt Helen who works in the bank bought an iPhone because Android is too complex. Serge can't explain for shit either..

-Separate LINK/ETH tokens + gas charges. Messy. Make a single block chain, with USD backing (like tether). Add Oracles on top, paid for from a single address, in USD based currency. Tokens don't stay in the system long so you don't needa monstrous pile of money to back it, operators work in dollars, oracles monitored in dollars, SWIFT takes a fee, releases a block exporer, sends each bank one cheap dell to act as a node... fucking done. Already better chances..

-For day to day use there's instant domestic transfers, for end users there's paypal.
(when was the last time you did a SWIFT transfer outside of a business setting? You probs used paypal or charged it to a VISA/MasterCard). E.g: Ring company, give own card number. Done. No looking up SWIFT/IBAN numbers, insurance, traceable.

Best meme

This nigger gets it. A well written FUD post to BTFO linkies. Too bad they’re too stupid to understand LINK let alone you’re explanation of why it won’t work out.

t. Someone who also doesn’t understand

Its BS because normies dont have to understand it, also they wont use it, only the banks have to. As an investor only ROI is interesting.

>getting paid to run a node is also interesting

Fucktard, normies have to operate the thing.... while working for banks/swift/insurance companies.

If you ignore the actual user base, you're fucked. The world doesn't run on enthusiast platforms.

Yeah it might be a little early.

> SGX intel is needed

Oracles are still useful without that. Why?

Identical data is pulled from multiple sources => reduces risk that data was tampered with at the at the source

You pull data from several oracles => reduces risk that data was intercepted and changed (man-in-the-middle attack)

> Expensive - banks run 20 year old pc's for a reason

ChainLink will use their existing APIs, they don't have to change anything.

> Computers are inherently UNtrustworthy (points of failure)

A decentralized network reduces risk because there are no longer single points of failure

> You trust a rinkydink website spitting out flight times is well secured/maintained for the pennies it earns? Fuck off.

Oracles pull the same data from mutiple sources.
Several oracles does the same task. This is then compared.

> Insurance companies will hire and train a bunch of LINKsperts for oracles?

It is not particularly hard to set up an oracle. Just rent a server in the could and set up the instance. It is not like bitcoin mining where you need absurd amounts of graphics power. Just let it run and receive your passive income.

> SWIFT takes a fee, releases a block exporer, sends each bank one cheap dell to act as a node... fucking done. Already better chances..

Why ChainLink has a chance to succeed is because it is decentralized. You don't have trust a single entity like Swift, that is why ChainLink is a more trustworthy option.

And also, Swift is not in the oracle business anyway. Swift does banking data. They don't do shipping data, car data or any other countless types of data that ChainLink will be able to handle.

> For day to day use there's instant domestic transfers, for end users there's paypal.

Using ChainLink to aid in payments is just one use case.

not fud, just someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

No it won’t. If people wanted to buy it they would have made a binance account, it’s not hard to make an account and takes less than a minute. No one wants to buy it.

I have to agree, it being on a fairly unknown exchange like binance might play a role in it not mooning, but the biggest reason is that it's still under the radar. It has huge potential, but it all depends on news/ good marketing now.

So how do linkies actually answer to this? We all know the old institutions are a bunch of technologically retarded boomers, we can't expect them to start using some obscure tech shilled by Veeky Forums autists, no matter how good the tech itself may be.

The whole point of Chainlink is to connect their legacy systems to the blockchain so these retarded boomers will never have to understand blockchain tech at all.

> decentralised oracles

In a perfect world. In reality, you'll have 10k people as data sources for stupid shit like 'time' (not profitable), a few who could be legit sources for e.g. 'flight times'. meaning they could absolutely be calculated on different criteria (do we have 5 guys at heathrow hammering in flight times 24/7?), and single point of failure for data sources like firewall stats & alarms. E.g. 1 oracle monitoring the state of each alarm in a public building. Is it one central computer that handles this, or are there multiple SGX PCs monitoring each? At what point does routing cables around the building, setting up machines, guaranteeing uptimes and having the insurance company audit it, etc... make it any cheaper for the customer?

> uses existing API's

No two banks use the same APIS... one bank will use sometimes 3-4 different sets of APIs for the one product. A new service comes in and is only partially compatible. Go ask someone working in the back end how many systems are they use. How many are old POSIX dumb terminals being emulated on IE6. Again though, banks themselves won't use chainlink. Not worth time/effort.

> decentralised, no point of failure

A device monitoring the lock status on a cargo container...which needs power, needs to be 'trusted', needs to spit out data *somewhere* - either requiring (unmanageable) always-on connection or SD card to dump data to. That's a point of failure. Cargo container gets robbed, owner destroys the device to cash in. Single point of failure. "They took the monitor, officers".

> not hard to set up an oracle.

in most cases, there's no need, not worth while.

> swift isn't about oracles.

nope, LINK has 2 use cases now- not living up to either.

...continued

my suggestion is a fast alternative to SWIFT + LINK, don't think for a second they haven't realised this.
swift don't need more layers for this case.

-the oracle side of things is half baked
-the money transfer side of things is half baked.

.....

hardcore FUD man 10/10. You must be accumulating a shit ton of LINK

Why do people assume manipulating link means it's being held down? It's clearly manipulated to be higher than it's worth.

Nah, I made my cash and got the fuck out.
Will buy back in around 2 cents. Lmao.

>Again though, banks themselves won't use chainlink. Not worth time/effort.

Not just banks. Literally any business or organisation that wants to use smart contracts and wants to demonstrate to customers/clients that the data being entered into the smart contracts is trustless.

You're also overstating the reliance of LINK on SWIFT. Swift is a huge launchpad and an excellent opportunity, but LINK doesn't live or die on SWIFT alone.

>A device monitoring the lock status on a cargo container...

This is an IoT issue not an oracle issue.

FWIW thanks for making considered criticisms. I'm always happy to read legitimate criticisms instead of the 99% completely retarded FUD that gets propagated around here.

This guy fucking gets it

You have been visited by Nia "Kangz of crypto" Babialoonia.
You have 100 ETH blocks to reply with : "Baboolina, don't steal my gainz and go away." Otherwise, you will be cursed with eternal post-dump bags.

Yeah I'm done with this coin desu. I'd advise everyone else to drop this before it goes back to 3k.

Putting it into ARK.

The valuation is a totally different discussion to the technology. Is anything in crypto appropriately valued at the moment? Do you really think LINK is going to go to 1/6th ICO?

>Companies being able to sell their information directly to people via nodes
>Not literally printing money
What is big data?

>It's clearly manipulated to be higher than it's worth.

explain

Baboolina, don't steal my gainz and go away.

Not just banks. Literally any business or organisation that wants to use smart contracts and wants to demonstrate to customers/clients that the data being entered into the smart contracts is trustless.

What I'm saying is, it's too expensive to set up the infraastructure in most cases that aren't "2 separate machines monitoring the security devices which protect the crown jewels". But they've already got cameras, and guards, and infrared cams and laser beams and blah blah. The insurance companies are happy to deal with that level of evidence.

>This is an IoT issue not an oracle issue.
It's impossible in some situations to maintain a constant connection, otherwise tampering is almost guaranteed. Thus we're basically reliant on the machines which do the monitoring.. being monitored. And that becomes an oracle problem!

Obviously exaggerating but it's not going up at all is it, and the LINK token's value is only loosely bound to its real world applications

>it's not going up at all is it

I think even if I was to take an extremely cynical view of the utility and future value of ChainLink tokens (which I don't), then you'd still have to believe that it has not reached anything like its ATH.

No hype, few announcements, no partnerships, one exchange, only just recruiting new team members...

Even if I had no faith in this project at all, I would consider it a worthwhile medium term hold, considering it is maintaining top 50 volume with almost no hype.

And in terms of your other criticism you seem to be focussing in on specific banking use cases, but the ChainLink system is not limited to banking. The execution of any contract that can be automated that needs trustless external data feeds falls within the purview of ChainLink. I find it hard to even imagine the scope of possibilities that accompany that. And you're fixating on the cost of setting up infrastructure when the whole point of ChainLink is that it's adaptive to any existing technology.

this guy likes it
youtube.com/watch?v=yNRv_fNZJTU

>LINK needs swift, swift doesn't need link
Other way around.

If Swift does not adapt to the blockchain, they will get left behind.
And Chainlink is a very low-threshold way of connecting external data to the blockchain, whichever one they would be using.

LINK on the other hand is at its core a peer-to-peer contract system. Its purpose is to connect external data to the blockchain for smart contracts.
This use case is just as viable in an all-crypto world as it is in legacy finance.

LINK really is best of both worlds: at one a low-threshold blockchain connection for legacy finance (i.e. without having to redo their entire systems), AND at the same time a peer-to-peer contract solution for an all-crypto world.

> What I'm saying is, it's too expensive to set up the infraastructure in most cases that aren't "2 separate machines monitoring the security devices which protect the crown jewels". But they've already got cameras, and guards, and infrared cams and laser beams and blah blah. The insurance companies are happy to deal with that level of evidence.

Aren't you ignoring the value of smart contracts? Smart contracts make it so that we can build a safe decentralized trustless technology infrastructure that we no longer need positions such as security guards and likewise anymore. Now security guards may be the last to go as they supervise things physically, but you have a lot of people working in areas where all they do is supervising things like contracts. Everything becomes cheaper when you don't have to pay humans.

I'll say that again. Everything becomes cheaper when you don't have to pay humans. And this is only possible when we can fully trust our machines.

Nope, go watch everything from Sibos again. SWIFT is not putting a lot of faith in chainlink specifically, they're looking into a bunch of blockchain based solutions.

SWIFT doesn't need a decentralised solution in the sense that lots of people are verifying transactions. SWIFT can set up a bunch of data centres around the world, backed by US dollars and maintain their own block chain, which they can charge for readonly access to to monitor transactions. They have the money, the APIs the clients the infrastructure, they don't need the oracles, and they can still tell clueless banks that it's bleeding edge blockchain technology and decentralised in that it's cloud based.
Sounding a lot like Sibos already...

I'm not ignoring the value of smart contracts. (BTW all the smart contracts in use currently use OmiseGO, check out smartcontracts.com and follow their public addresses)
This is all possible *in theory* but in practice, we need trusted computing (which is a big ask and in its infancy), an always-on connection, someone to monitor and audit the machines, upgrades of existing systems.
Cleaner, simpler, more proprietary systems will come along, in this time because once we *have* trusted computing, this oracle shit won't be so necessary, and simpler systems that insurance company employees can use without much training will be the norm. block chain or otherwise.

bɹıɔǝp ıu

ㄗ尺工匚モ刀 工れ

>"there's only one source of data for flight times and device lock status"
... which is in no way a fault of Chainlink.

The point here is that if there ever is a dispute, the only "point of failure" you ever have to worry about is the flight time and lock status monitor.
Never the middleman (Chainlink).

The point is also that the process for handling the aftermath of a flight delay or lock break is automated.
No need to fill out, process, file, ... a bunch of paperwork just to get the relevant parties to even acknowledge that it happened.

If it happens, it's easily verifiable in the blockchain that the relevant monitoring service reported it.
Is there a problem with it? You immediately know the source.

Also, these are just simple examples. There are countless instances where you would have a whole bunch of APIs signalling the same data, and a whole bunch of Oracles processing that data in order to achieve consensus.
Like market interest rates for instance.

Also also, even this simple flight time example is no "pie in the sky".
Go look up Axa fizzy.
If your flight is delayed, you get a refund through a smart contract.
This is only a test, and they supposedly built the oracle "from the ground up", but it's very possible that this specific project will simply use Chainlink to process the Utocat API used by fizzy.

man you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and sure are trying real hard to make it look like you do. just stfu and stop guessing the future you retard.

>SWIFT is not putting a lot of faith in chainlink specifically, they're looking into a bunch of blockchain based solutions.
What are you talking about?
They have a bunch of blockchain projects, yes. And Chainlink was the only external crypto they showcased at SIBOS.

>SWIFT can set up a bunch of data centres around the world
Literally "they'll put supercomputes on each city", the post.

>They have the money, the APIs the clients the infrastructure, they don't need the oracles
Right.
And how exactly would SWIFT translate this external data from these sources into blockchain-ready data without oracles?