Shill me on LINK

>Taragui yerba is a primary necessity
kek

New pajeet tactic. Pretend to be a whale, then bash a coin indirectly with no justification/basis and use the myth of whaleness to get newfags to panic. The pajeets are getting crafty everyone.

100btc is almost 700,000 right now, user. That's more than most people make in their life.

LARPer get out or give lambo.

Unlike most projects Link could be starting at the top with it's vision rather than the bottom. They are in serious talks with Swift which handles financial transfers & communications for 11k banks. The lack of news on this front could mean non-disclosure. Ripple is becoming a growing threat to Swift so partnership could soon be necesary. This and the other day Link was randomly endorsed by HCL: banking software development company worth billions.

> Shill me on LINK
Not gonna do that.
Your 50btc might pull the price up and I want it cheap as long as possible

That image tho, didn't people make a lot less money back then? My dad used to make 300 GLD a month back then.

Smart contracts were envisioned in the 90s.
They're basically agreements that are executed automatically, instantly, and without a third party to officiate and record it (like a notary or attorney).

This requires ENORMOUS amounts of confidence, or absolutely no-one would trust smart contracts.
Thus, they remained a theory.

Until Bitcoin came along.
Suddenly there was a decentralized (!) network of independent nodes that owned a full version of all proofs ever generated.
This means that whatever is recorded onto the blockchain is about as "trustless" as it gets.

So with the blockchain, there is now a basis that is trustless enough for smart contracts.

HOWEVER
The blockchain is a very specific animal, and outside sources cannot communicate with it without oracles.
Thus, smart contracts remained a crypto thing ("you will receive X amount of Y if conditions Z are met").

Oracles do allow external data to communicate with the blockchain.
BUT they also have to be decentralized, or it defeats the purpose of the blockchain.

Chainlink is the first truly decentralized oracle solution.
And even for very simple transactions where decentralization does not apply, Chainlink oracles are going to be vastly more robust and secure than any in-house oracle (and cheaper).

So that's the theory, go read the white paper for the details (the only peer-reviewed wP in crypto btw).

But that's not all, sports fans.

Link/Smartcontract.com also enjoys massive industry exposure.
For several years now, the project has been mentioned BY NAME by the likes of the World Economic Forum, Capgemini, Gartner, ...
It has also seen direct involvement from Sony, AXA, BNP Paribas, Barclays, Santander (who all provably used/are using Chainlink).
And of course then there's SWIFT; who invited Chainlink/Smartcontract as the ONLY external crypto dev to showcase a proof-of-concept at this year's SIBOS.

To be clear SmartContract being mentioned in WEF had nothing to do with Link. It was about Smart Contracts and their importance in the future which is what ETH did. The turning point they were talking about ended up being ETH.

>To be clear SmartContract being mentioned in WEF had nothing to do with Link.
Wrong.

The name mentioned in that WEF document was "smartcontracts.com" (plural), a domain name which is also owned by Sergey (look it up).
And Sergey's "smartcontract.com" project was ALWAYS intended to be decentralized, it was ALWAYS going to include a decentralized node network (which eventually became the Chainlink network).

These are the replies I am looking for.
Very informative thank you.

Do you think that CL is undervalued at this price and what do you see it’s price at in 3 years?

Reading comprehension. It mentions the website and their goal which is what ETH did. Actually read the article.

The stated reason for it being a turning point is something ETH achieved.

lmao
When WEF talks about smart contracts, it's talking about mainstream smart contracts. Not crypto token distributions.
That's why they were talking about smartcontract.com specifically, because the goal was always mainstream smart contracts.

>So that's the theory, go read the white paper for the details (the only peer-reviewed wP in crypto btw).
this is a pretty big deal that everyone has forgotten. it shows they mean business. this isn't some baby shit.

I went all in on link
I haven't slept in 2 weeks
I haven't eaten
I haven't washed

If crypto and smart contracts are still a thing in 3 years LINK will be like the new ETH, probably goes to $50-70. I only say that because there is nothing comparable on the market yet. Oracles have existed for a while but they are not end-to-end secure and decentralised like LINK which makes them kind of useless.

How hard is it for a competitor to make something comparable to link?

If LINK takes off, wont there be tons of devs trying to leech off their success?

hello user

i would like you to read through this to perhaps peak your interest - it has all the links and examples and explanations you will need for link

if you found it helpful please help a fellow user :)

pastebin.com/6xcsc2jR

1Ni7vZspcPDGwTg6epkmMdPQRrafu7LUTh

sauce:

pastebin.com/6xcsc2jR

1Ni7vZspcPDGwTg6epkmMdPQRrafu7LUTh

You mean like all the wildly successful bitcoin and eth ripoffs?

exactly, its not like the technology is patented. LINK brands itself as new technology for smart contracts instead of just being an alternative currency to bitcoin. When others start copying this technology, what will stop LINK from being worthless?

Same thing that's stopping Bitcoin from being worthless despite the many "bitcoin but better" coins out there.

This game is all about reputation.
And Chainlink is already a firmly reputable name (especially for a project still in its infancy).

Can anyone explain this? Is it Binance or a whale group keeping LINK from dumping or what?