He thought it was FUD

Who the fuck cares if it's true or not ? Not having 1k link just in case it's true would make you suicide later.

yes, yes it did. and notice how link was being shilled at a fever pitch during that time? That's because when you do a pump and dump you can only get it to work if people fomo in and people aren't going to fomo into a piece of shit like LINK unless you are meming 24/7. once you suckers bought in, the dump happened and now it's just going to bleed out until next time

> tfw sold LINK for ETH instead of BTC
Eh, silly me.

Dumping ETH 2015-2016 FUD for my linkies so they can see how eerily similar it was back then.

Just take a step back, look at the big picture instead of reacting to the day to day price. You just said yourself it's being manipulated by PhD groups. This will go out the window once the product is actually finished and they start marketing and announce partnerships. You are either extremely dense or FUDing

>posting a picture from 4 days ago like it means anything
>past performances indicate the future

lol you must hold link

...

...

>he bought stinky linkies
oh sweetie...

...

...

>comparing a token (LINK) to anything with it's own network
You can't be this retarded

fynestuff.com/why-ethereum-needs-chainlink/

People fudding eth in those screenshots are probably the same adhd kids who get impatient if something doesn't go 3000% within 5 months.

>old posts from an anonymous image board about a blockchain project prove that this other blockchain project (with no working product, 2 person team) is gonna MOOOOOON!!!!!

LINK holders remind me of Hillary/DNC supporters. You just can't let go. It's Sergey's turn!!!!

Ive been around Veeky Forums 2015-16-17-18. Seen it all. The only market sentiment that is close to ETH then is currently LINK. Your FUD only makes this belief stronger. Stay dumb.

Oh, I think you're forgetting a few projects that didn't do so hot captain selective memory

this is nice new SPICY fud

Early Ethereum fanboyism was essentially seeing a problem with how hard DAPPS and other applications where to build on the Bitcoin blockchain. So there was a problem and Ethereum was the solution.

Now with Ethereum, LINK fanboyism is starting to see how hard it is to get decentralized information onto Ethereums blockchain for use of smart contracts. There is a problem, and LINK is the solution.

I can remember VERY CLEARLY the FUD around Vitalik and his team back when Ethereum was sub $5
>Russian scammer
>Literal Autsit
>PnD shitcoin vaporware
>the money has already left bitcoin and there is no market for Ethereum.

All soooo sooo similair to LINK. Ive seen it come and go and I'm not missing another opportunity when I see it so clearly.

Good luck.

Examples?

If you say DGB, ill give you an explanation as to why its not similar to the market sentiment of LINK.

I really hope this guy HODL'ed

DGB. im interested to hear your explanation

> Link = network of nodes.

lol

it will be a good weekend

ETH had a large team of developers though, LINK only has two people with no background in this type of tech

>what can Ethereum do that Fiat can't

top kek

It's LINKs turn

Am I wrong?

yes, very.

Did you people not see the reddit post about the guy being paid to shill LINK on here and reddit? You guys are delusional.

Ethereum took off because Core killed scaling on BTC.
BTC had icos and tokens too (colored coins on counterparty and mastercoin) but it died. Tether is literally the only thing that remains.

LINK is a solution in search of a problem. Oracles are _inherently_ centralized. Link 'solves' this in a completely absurd way: oracles that vote different than majority are punished. Which means if majority lies correct oracles are punished. It's idiotic.
There's no replacement to enforcing oracle validity with LAW because it's inherently external.

How so?

Just sold 1 billion

Notice how pepe baller doesn't even show his face here anymore? Link is cancer

Guys 20k LINK here. Am i gona make it?

So, many new blockchain projects came and went between the years of 2015-2017 and the few that showed it had a place in the market addressed real issues that King Bitcoin showed during its climb. two examples of tech that have showed dominance are:
ETH
XMR

ETH- the problem it addressed was discussed above. Developers saw a big issue with the difficulty of coding any decentralized application onto Bitcoins blockchain. It was just too stubborn to work with. So Ethereum came to address that issue. There was a problem and Ethereum was the fix.

XMR- There was a problem with bitcoin being used as a cryptographic currency because people began to realize its transparency in transactions. There was a problem, and XMR was the solution.

Now, here where we get to DGB. When taking a look at DGB, it really offered no big solution to any problems Bitcoin experienced. One could argue that it had much faster transaction speeds, safer network with multi-algorithm mining, and more coins as to prevent seemingly jumbled .00057384 etc. coin amounts. In reality, these never fixed any real issues and where just shiny bells and whistles that got people excited. The truth is, no one cared about fast transaction speeds. No one cared about multi-algorithm mining, considering 51% attacks where nearing levels of impossibility, even at the time. No one cared about the jumbled mess of satoshi as they where sending Bitcoin. In short, Digibyte never directly solved any issues, and was a fancy coin the offered no real utility beyond useless features that dont give a coin/token any real value.

When looking at a value of a crypto, there are only Two main properties, that being:
1. Nodes generetated
2.adoption rate

DGB had neither on Bitcoin so it was near useless.

hope that interested you enough.

there's more than 2 devs, and theyre all very competent.

it will be a good weekend. that's all im saying

kek, trying to shill link on biz will fail. you can't get biz to fomo into link because biztards are the only people bagholding link

Just buy a small stack and forget about it

you'll thank me later

I Remember similar FUD to ETH. Memes about the creator and people fudding:
>Vitalik is a russian scammer
>How could you trust a literal autist with your money?

same shit, different toilet. Good luck.

Insider info?

pepe baller is on vacation he posted the other day. allegedly in hawaii.

it did. I appreciate you taking the time to type all that out.

haha this does work, till mainnet is out and all the pump n dumpers get btfo

>me lik money
>eth grow big money
>LINK like eth bcuz mems

link will be

Exactly people refuse to believe that it may actually not pan out for them. Sadly they are to far gone to be helped.

sure

Do you think RLC or ENG are also valid projects that offer solutions for smart contracts?

1000 eoy!!!!!!!!!!!

Q predicted this

RLC is a WAAAAY better project, I don't know enough about ENG

>LINK is a solution in search of a problem.
Not true. Smart contracts don't have much of a use as of now. They have a future, but the current point of failure is data being altered by the oracle. The thing that is so tantalizing about smart contracts is the fact that the data on it cannot be altered or change by any party, but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link....

>Oracles are _inherently_ centralized.
True

> Link 'solves' this in a completely absurd way: oracles that vote different than majority are punished. Which means if majority lies correct oracles are punished. It's idiotic

Wrong. This is not idiotic. I have seen an idea similar to this work beautifully. If there is an incentive to give correct answers, 99% of the time a correct answer will be given from a group consensus.

So, for example, there is this computer game called "Counter strike: Global offensive". Its a shooter game, and like many online games, there is a problem with people using programs to hack/cheat the game by seeing people through walls and giving them computer-like aim. A system was put in place to help quell cheaters. If someone is reported for cheating in the game, a demo is sent out to a group of playing willing to review it and decide if the player was cheating or not. Instead of the system selecting one answer from one individual, it grabs an answer from a group consensus. Are there false positives? I'm sure there are. Does it mean this system gives more false positives the true? Nope. Id say conservatively the rate of false positives would be 1%. I would dare say .01% but for the sake of argument, ill give it a nice 1%.

>mfw when LINKies are boomer Q user posters

seriously, they sound EXACTLY the same. It's a fucking cult

You are welcome.

see these posts that I took the time to write out. I most certainly did not write them out for my health.

you seem intelligent enough so ill bug you for another thing. Do you plan on setting up your own node or are you going to use something like linkpool (which i have this feeling that its going to be bitconnect-like).

>shilling to like 50 people max who will listen compared to a place like reddit that has an immensely larger reach
I have to say, if this actually is a shill plan, it's not a very smart one.

You seem very well versed on this so I have to ask, what other projects do you think have real use cases? Opinions on RLC and ENG?

>Do you plan on setting up your own node or are you going to use something like linkpool
I haven't decided. I'm most likely going to wait and see how the network reacts for a couple weeks.

Where do you think reddit gets it's material from? You plant the seed on Veeky Forums if you want it to eventually end up going anywhere

>ENG
>RLC
I'm sorry but I'm not informed enough on either of those to give you solid advice. Id have to take the time and sit and research them to come to any conclusion on it. I have some free time today so if this thread is still up in a couple hours ill come back and respond.

>what other projects do you think have real use cases?

I like Vechain a lot. Keeping my eye on it closely.

>Wrong. This is not idiotic. I have seen an idea similar to this work beautifully. If there is an incentive to give correct answers, 99% of the time a correct answer will be given from a group consensus.

That's the point - there's no incentive to be correct. The only incentive is to agree with the majority.

>If someone is reported for cheating in the game, a demo is sent out to a group of playing willing to review it and decide if the player was cheating or not.

There's no financial incentive here. In Link nodes are publicly known are interested party could easily bribe the majority to provide false answers.
The total failure of link is that correct nodes would get punished and there's no way to fix that.

There's no alternative to legally binding contracts in which you can sue for damages.

>Id say conservatively the rate of false positives would be 1%. I would dare say .01% but for the sake of argument, ill give it a nice 1%.

Smart contracts either need 0% or insurance/penalties in case of errors. Reporting a wrong price could result in millions of derivative contracts liquidating. For these contracts to even exist people need an assurance that if a wrong answer fucks them they can demand money from the faulty oracle.

>are interested
*and an interested

No problem, thank you for taking the time to type up your responses, it gave me new insight and I will probably buy some LINK as a result.

Dont fall for the FUD the conference is going to be huge. Sergey has some big announcements planned that are generating lots of hype. There is enough interest they upgraded his speech location. He will now be speaking from the handicap stall in the men's room instead of one of the regular sized stalls.

Look for the Id 9b5Z4oIQ and go through those. Pretty informative

Lol nvm just click the link

Guys if you are losing on LINK do not hold on to it. We welcome everyone to DigiByte community, come join us on telegram channels you can find on digibyte.io

Dang, I'll definitely be getting some LINK now, it just has so much potential.

>there's no incentive to be correct. The only incentive is to agree with the majority.

There is incentive to provide correct information. Nodes are given reputation scores based on a validation system that takes into account
1. availability: how fast an oracle can respond
2. correctness: The system records incorrect responses measured by deviation from group consensus.

>The only incentive is to agree with the majority.
The node will be given no information on what the majority answer is. If you are talking about majority as in "node majority" or majority in the sense of available information, you will have to specify your reply. Not to mention, there is a financial incentive to give correct information, as as penalty payments are locked in. If you would like to learn more about the reputation system in LINK, read page 16-17 on chainlinks whitepaper (link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper)

>There's no financial incentive here. In Link nodes are publicly known are interested party could easily bribe the majority to provide false answers.
>The total failure of link is that correct nodes would get punished and there's no way to fix that.

>There's no alternative to legally binding contracts in which you can sue for damages.

There is a validation system in place for LINK to help prevent and act as form of insurance. Also, LINK was built in mind to fix any problems that may arise. Will it have a 100% success rate? I think it would be foolish to say anything in life has a success rate of 100%. Believing that any system can reach a success rate of 100% is naive, in my opinion.

>correctness: The system records incorrect responses measured by deviation from group consensus.

You are restating what I already wrote.

>Not to mention, there is a financial incentive to give correct information,

You are contradicting yourself. The incentive is to agree with other nodes.

>The node will be given no information on what the majority answer is.

What kind of logic is that? If nodes are colluding they are going to know that they are colluding.

>There is a validation system in place for LINK to help prevent and act as form of insurance.

Who decides in that 'validation system'? Sergey? So the security of link reduces to Sergey being the ultimate oracle? That's it?

>Believing that any system can reach a success rate of 100% is naive, in my opinion.

That's why companies are insured from accidents and they use that insurance to pay damages to harmed parties.

What? You need to have an understanding of how the token works. You're asking me "how will this work and how can this work?" And before I can be bothered to sit and explain every little detail you should go and read up on it. You had concerns on it about the incentives and the security and I did my best to explain how there're systems put in place to help/prevent those above and it just seemed like it went through one ear and out the other.

Go to the Chainlinks whitepaper, start at page 16, and read from there. link.smartcontract.com/whitepaper

No no no noNO NONONONONONONON
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>I did my best to explain how there're systems put in place to help/prevent those above

All you did was restate in different ways the fact that the only incentive is to agree with other nodes.

This fundamental flaw can't be hidden with intentional obfuscation. "Deviation from group consensus"...

>Go to the Chainlinks whitepaper, start at page 16

Did you mean "Certification Service design"? That's literally ChainLink acting as the ultimate oracle, although a very weak one, as they can't punish any nodes for bad answers, they just can give them 'bad reputation' _after_ the fact. Very reassuring.

The inescapable conclusion is that link is worthless. If majority of internet nodes was always honest we wouldn't even need PoW or PoS, just a simple majority vote. Yet Link assumes majority is honest and self-destructs if they aren't.

>Chainlink is just like eth was huur!
Whenever I see this I instantly think shit coin. The lowest of the low shill tactic there is.
Facebook ads saying this is the next bitcoin, no different.
Pathetic.

I don't know how else I could possibly explain to you that there is a personal incentive for nodes to generate correct information. There is a financial incentive, as penalty payments are locked in, and there is a network reputation incentive.

I completely understand what you are trying to say. There is no direct incentive for correct information, as the incentives are awarded based off group consensus, so therefore the only objective would be to give the same answer as the majority.

This is not a valid argument. If Nodes can simply receive rewards by giving correct information, they would not got through the trouble of colluding. It would be too much work. Too hard.

A similar argument would be for 51% of nodes on the Bitcoin blockchain colluding to steal bitcoins because of a group majority. Yes, theoretically possible, but in reality it would be to tough to really make it worthwhile.

Hope that clears it up for you.

i really wish i had more questions for you but i cant think of anything. Been on Veeky Forums for a little over 7 months and probably one of the more helpful anons. Do you have any opinions on REQ? that is if you care to answer another random persons question

REQ is a strong market contender. With the speculative bubble on crypto starting to correct itself, its very important now more then ever to look towards tech that offer solutions to real world monetary/commerce adoption problems.

>A similar argument would be for 51% of nodes on the Bitcoin blockchain colluding to steal bitcoins because of a group majority. Yes, theoretically possible, but in reality it would be to tough to really make it worthwhile.

The fuck? Are you trolling or genuinely have no idea how proof of work works? Nodes in bitcoin decide nothing, the valid chain is the one with 51% of hashpower. A successful attack would require profits higher than future block rewards and value of mining hardware.

A successful attack in bitcoin would cost hundreds of millions with uncertain outcome.

i 100% agree. thats basically my strategy. i swing trade stuff that isnt actually useful and then store the profits into actual useful stuff. I know you mentioned VEN being something to look into but i was wondering if you had any others to look towards. I like QSP for the sole fact that projects need auditing to gain any traction, especially if the market becomes somewhat regulated.

You missed the point completely. I cannot be bothered to reply to you any longer because it is going nowhere at all.

You literally wrote that 51% of colluding NODES can steal bitcoins brainlet. Thus proving you have absolutely zero idea about how anything works.

>PhD groups
kek

>don't tell me you fell for the meme?
"LINK is a meme" is a meme

Its worth noting that with tokens like QSP/LINK/VEN/REQ are low cap, higher risk. While they all sound great on paper, the true test is really how the network will function.

for my lowcaps, VEN and LINK are the two I will stick with. I try not to throw my money around too much in these. Especially with LINK. The technology described in its whitepaper is amazing. I love it. But do not be fooled, buying LINK today is very very speculative.

Midcaps-NEO is very promising

Highcap- you really cant go wrong with ETH. If you want the safest bet, stick your money there.

low risk isnt really in my eye at the moment. Ive got stocks for that so i gamble a little bit in this market. thanks though

people

im brainlet link holder and i dont understad which of those two posters are winninng the argument. should i sell or buy more????