/biz/ - Business & Finance

who the fuck are you, shitbag?

>>OP

So the news I offer today, I was talking to someone about LINK, and long story short the main reason Sergey has been so absent lately is because of the upgrade to Go. It was totally unexpected and is a serious curveball for him. It's really putting a big delay on everything. So now you're wondering, 'Why upgrade to go?' and the reason lies in Native Client, a Google sandbox that ChainLink hopes to incorporate into their product. I am not a CS guy so I don't know how exactly Google sandbox works, you can read about it here:

http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/34913.pdf

Anyways the rumour is Google in general is slowly pushing forward an entire ecosystem around data APIs in the future, basically Google wants to monopolise data and they see this potential ecosystem as the next 'evolutionary step' in the Google platform. Think of like GPS, weather, transporation, space etc all at a military level of precision. Go somehow ties into all this, again not a CS guy so Go might not be suitable necessarily for the actual analysis of this data, but it is important.

>>4940282

What evidence do I have of this? Ripple once used a Smart Oracle technology called Codius, the white paper is not unlike ChainLinks, albeit lacking in the decentralisation/node concept, anyways Codius was deployed using Chain (https://chain.com) an enterprise level blockchain deployment software that is ACTIVELY working with Visa, Nasdaq, Citigroup, Capital One, Orange, State Street, etc. This is the Goliath that Sergey needs to slay. Sergey needs to prove to these megacorps that the idea of Oracles built on decentralised tokens shared between NEETs on 4chan is actually worthwhile in the long run. Corporations much prefer exclusive/enterprise grade software, than participating in something that will make other people rich. It’s also why Sergey needs to reinforce them that LINK is *not* a speculative asset, pumping the price and marketing his product like OMG will actively undo everything he’s been working on.

So here’s the final kicker, check Chain.com’s github: https://github.com/chain/chain

Notice anything?

Chain.com has been built on Go, but as everyone here said Go is a pos language, so why would they build an enterprise blockchain on it/

Enjoy your shit software. Go is a piece of shit.

>>4940312

Then just explain why an Enteprise blockchain company like Chain.com, is built on Go? Chain openly works for/with Visa and all the companies I mentioned above.

sooooo
I should buy LINK

>>4940309
IS THIS GOOD OR BAD FOR DELUDED LINKIES?

>>OP

Bump

>>4940394

I'm actually hoping to have a discussion about this information. I trust the source but he is a second hand source himself, so it would be nice to have a discussion of where the reasoning might be wrong etc. I want to be refuted if possible but the logic checks out.

Look at ING and Req, corporations are *very* skittish about anything from an ICO, not just because of insider trading laws but because they don't feel comfortable working with a company that deploys tokens to millions of nobodies before developing a product. They prefer tailor made enterprise grade software, which is why Sergey is doing everything he can to be taken seriously, i.e. not constantly reaching out to the community (i.e. us).

>>4940353
because they employ monkeys incapable to develop in a better way

no offense go is a shitlanguage

>>4940312

Why? I’m a software engineer and I’ve literally seen people who get involved with Go refuse to write anything else. They love it.

What is, technically speaking, insufficient about the language?

>>4940470

So we went from 'ChainLink is a joke and won't be taken seriously because they're using Go' to 'lots of serious firms with partnerships with megacoporations and banks use Go, but only because they're retarded', at the end of the day it doesn't matter *why* ChainLink uses Go, as long as it gets those same partnerships.

>>OP
meks snes oP I buy more lnkkkk :DDDD

>>OP
>Corporations much prefer exclusive/enterprise grade software, than participating in something that will make other people rich.

how do you respond to news that Cisco and Nokia are developing blockchain oracle services. they *build* the infrastructure of the internet and IoT, from home routers to undersea fiberoptics.

they are building the oracle as close to or even directly into the firmware of the network. this is how IoT datastreams and API will be validated and registered. there is no room for LINK or token oracles.

you said yourself that corporations prefer exclusive/enterprise grade software. they also prefer IoT and API networks that can be validated and trusted with big $$ hinging on the accuracy of the data.

LINK's model derives this validation and trust from HODLers operating Nodes on a network that doesn't exist yet. Do you really think Visa, Tesla, SWIFT, will trust LINK's network with billions of dollars worth of daily decisions based on LINK network?

>>4940466
Yeah but didnt Sergey address the institutional incentive by leaving the other 650M LINKs to sell at lower prices? The 350M that got distributed is really to add to the decentralization so more people can run nodes instead of a bunch of central oracles. Even though LINK is not required to run a node, it is apart of the reputation process.

>>4940312
Maybe you should Go fuck yourself?

>>4940587
>Do you really think Visa, Tesla, SWIFT, will trust LINK's network with billions of dollars worth of daily decisions based on LINK network?

Yes because the LINK network can't be hacked. You can take down one node out of 100 and the other 99 will come to a consensus. This is literally why decentralisation is so important and a way more safer option then trusting a fkn single point of failure.

>>4940309

Someone is feeding you bullshit. At least on some level.

Native Client has been deprecated in favor of WebAssembly.

>>4940650
You act as though you are sure LINK node network can't be hacked or DDoSed or spoofed. but are you really sure?

It's arguable whether it can be hacked or not. I doubt you or I are qualified to say that. others in this thread have discussed whether LINKs decentalized Node network is hackable or not

of more concern is simply trusting the operation of the individual nodes. imagine telling an autonomous vehicle software company that you can offer them decntralized Oracle service for the IoT that informs the autonomous driving software (stoplight red or green? etc), then explain to them that these life or death decisions will be based on Nodes operated by the average 4chan shitposter.

>>4940587

That's why Link can very much be seen as 'a third wave' technology, the reason so many people are buying this and planning to just HODL until 2020+ is because Link's success is not only contingent on Sergey delivering a working product, but on blockchain and decentralisation become a truly mainstream part of society. I don't just mean mainstream like your average joe knows about it. Think of it this way, right now bitcoin = speculative, but what is it speculative of? The very real possibility that decentralisation will become intrinsic to the coporate and commercial delivery systems of the future. In other words if this extremely unlikely scenario happens where there is a *real* paradigm shift, where instead of being a decentralisation_of_x ERC20 token is seen as a PLUS by these corporations. If a true revolution happens and all of this stuff is embraced the way the internet was ultimately embraced then ChainLink will be at an advantage to this proprietary stuff.

>>4940601

It isn't a question of institutional incentive, it's more that although blockchain is taken seriously, tokens and ICOs and all this decentralised ownership stuff isn't taken seriously yet. There is new ground to be broken, new laws to be made, no company wants to break rank first. The issue isn't with incentive, it's with the necessity for a paradigm shift, right now Visa takes one look at LINK and the ICO and the community of shitposters and it goes running towards companies offering a more private/proprietary solution (Ripple), this is going to take time to overcome.

>>4940814
No i literally said you can hack a node but you wont be able to hack 100-1000 nodes. Did you even read what I said.

>>4940828
I'm done. Don't buy LINK then. Stay away from blockchain, if you don't believe in decentralization or technology then get the fuck out and go back to your "local solutions"

>>4940814

Consider that Oracle APIs will be an industry worth hundreds of billions within a decade, and a trillion dollar industry by 2030. Consider automation: our economy is going to rapidly restructure itself as a data-driven economy instead of a labour/production-driven economy. ChainLink does not need to monopolise the market in order to be valueable any more than Bitcoin needs to replace banking to be worth 300BN. For highly sensitive Oracles we may end up relying on some sort of foundation consisting of players like Oracle and Palantir, but ChainLink could still be a valuable decentralised network, no one says it's going to be used for warhead targeting.

>>4940829
yes I read what you fucking said you retard.

You don't need to hack 100-1000 nodes to disrupt services, and any disruption in services will ruin trust in the network. there can be NO failure in IoT or API oracles, no corporation is going to base hundreds of millions of $$ worth of network activity on a LINK network that is 99% accurate.

I think you and I are both retarded when it comes to talking about "hacking" the network. you seem really fucking sure that LINK is "unhackable", which is retarded. I'm saying that LINK can't provide certainty that the network is "unhackable", and that uncertainty is enough to kill any deal with corporate, enterprise, financial, customers. if they can't trust LINK immediately, they won't use it.

>>4940828
>If a true revolution happens and all of this stuff is embraced the way the internet was ultimately embraced then ChainLink will be at an advantage to this proprietary stuff.

sure, IoT and API oracles are the future, and they will revolutionize commerce, finance, shipping, health, etc.

that doesn't mean that LINK is well positioned. being early to the party doesn't mean you're going to get laid.

>>4941020
>You don't need to hack 100-1000 nodes to disrupt services, and any disruption in services will ruin trust in the network. there can be NO failure in IoT or API oracles, no corporation is going to base hundreds of millions of $$ worth of network activity on a LINK network that is 99% accurate.

>how does blockchain work

>>4941020
Well, forget the unhackable shit because I know nobody is claiming that. I'm saying it's going to be so fucking hard it's not going to be worth the effort.

I have a IT background mate and take security classes, I don't know everything but I know taking down 1000 nodes is going to be difficult. Why do you think TOR network which is decentralized has its security properties? Sure you can run a exit node and snoop data that way, which is a security flaw but they still use TOR. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency, I haven't seen a single fucking bitcoin "hacked" without some neet having his private keys stolen.

>>4941136
More beautifully said then I could.
Basically its all consensus. That 1% of data that got hacked wont even make it to the smart-contract because the other 99% says "Nope, we disagree with that, we have this"

>>4941107

It really does though, statistically throughout history those who innovate first tend to succeed. Link is poised to become the dominant force in trustless Oracles. Even if it gets replaced down the line, the potential upside is massive. Your argument is sort of like not buyin Ethereum in 2016 because Cardano will replace it in 2018.

>>4940282
Will Google still be trusted in the future?

>>4941232

not really, my arguement is that there are better positioned corporations, who manufacture and install intertnet service and IoT networks for entire cities, and they are developing blockchain oracles.

they will do it better than LINK.

so when you say LINK will succeed because it is early to the game, but ignore the fact that there are better services offered by stronger more well positioned organizations, and those organizations can solved the primary issue in oracle service: validating and trusting IoT and API data sources.

you say "Link is poised to become the dominant force in trustless oracles", but why do you say that? do you have any actual reasoning that LINK will dominate other contenders? do you even know what the other contenders are? there are a dozen oracle shitcoins out there, as well as Nokia and Cisco, among others.

so my argument is nothing like not buying ETH in 2016 (which I did, actually)

>>4941477

So? BTC is technologically obsolete yet it shakes the entire crypto market.

op this seems like bad news. tell me good news assblaster.

Go fuck yourself pump and dumper

>>4941477

Because Link is the only one developing TRUSTLESS Oracles. Keyword is trustless. Your argument is like saying Eth can never compete with a Smart Contract service developed by a giant corporation. The point is right now decentralisation, of the type Bitcoin and Ethereum represent, is a buzzword. It is yet to be seen whether these will transcend into an entirely new way of doing things. If they do then Link will have the advantage that it was done via decentralised token offering, vs a proprietary piece of enterprise software. Again there is a real chance that decentralisation and blockchain becomes a buzzword and dies out

>>4941605

It is what it is, Sergey has a hard sell in front of him, but the potential upside is massive.

>>4941679
Ok sorry I read the thread and you seriously look like you want a serious discussion

So what's the deal?
There's other alternatives but this one is the only decentralized/trustless. Isnt thay the reason we invested in this in the first place?

I've been saying we should shut the door for a while

Stoo making shilling threads, making fucking neets that dont even understand the tech invest on this making it un-desirable for institutions (IMO)

Maybe share it with more... Technical communities?

>>4941942
guys, post
>yfw the neets on 4chan compromised the entire project
anyway, who gives a fuck, right?

CAPTAIN REPORTING IN

>>4941998
You're not the real captain, faggot
(kek, we need trusted decentralized trips)

>>4942092
I am and have all the previous memes and wallet balance to prove it

I dont know why y'all worry so much

If I wanted to create a contract triggered by external data:
Would I use Link, which only requires me to get some Link, or would I use a centralized oracle which I need to contact and pay them in FIAT?

Institutions will use Link after the mainnet is runnjng and they see how flawlessly (hopefully) it works

They're not going to use it from day 1 for the same reason they wont keep using centralized oracles in the future, TRUST.

LONG TERM HOLD

lets just hope others hse LINK to prove them it really works in an environment

Im guessing 2019-2020 is going to be the year for Link (I might be wrong, might be earlier, later or never)

>>4942181
Keking at you, its easier to get a trip

!Captain Dan##faggypassword

>>/biz/thread/4677404

What about this?

>Chainlink nodes need open APIs
>EU is about to force banks to make their info available through open APIs in 2018

>>4942215
OK, created one just in case

wtf happened to the singularity moontalk assblaster?

you're sure singing a different tune today

what's bothering you, son?

>>4942473
That's better, now next time you see the others tell them what I told you ;)


Is assblaster still around? Dude?

>>4940897
He supposedly has 200k link

>>OP
Interesting. Do you have any idea how development is actually going?

How long do you believe they've been working on the Go rewrite?

How many developers do you believe are actually working on CL currently?

Is mainnet closer than we realize?

hey non-link brainlets. thats y every fucking interview sergey saying temper proof. u know what that means idiots

YOU TRAITOR, YOU FUCKED US ALL OVER WITH LIES

>>4940466
I'll go straight to the bones of the argument, and I'll quote Andreas doing it:

Open blockchains/nodes/apis ARE more secure. They're sewer rats vs bubble boys that get rekt every time someone from the outside looks at them wrong.

Always bet on the sewer rat, they're immensely successful creatures and at one time almost destroyed London.

I spit on the graves of the bubblebois that think they can go against open source innovation.

S

a tripfag shilling link

>which is why Sergey is doing everything he can to be taken seriously, i.e. not constantly reaching out to the community (i.e. us).

Fool's errand
Visa, Nasdaq, Citigroup, Capital One, Orange, State Street have exactly zero interest in helping make crypto viable.
If they actually do pick Sergy it will because his tech his coin his plan is total shit that will fail.
Then they can simply say "oh look crypto doesn't really work. See? Well at least we tried it. Better to stick with our closed network which we can totally control and monopolize against the goy, goy."

>>4941477
You're part of a large group of people that consistently take 'Oracles' and 'Data providers' to be one and the same. Confusingly, sometimes that is the case: a company that provides a data stream will themselves act as the oracle delivering that data to a user directly.

The difference with ChainLink is that its network of decentralised nodes will tap in to a variety of these data APIs, and then themselves form part of a wider decentralised network of other CL nodes all doing the same thing, but incorporating their own range of data APIs from a variety of providers. There's multiple layers of splitting involved, which are best displayed visually rather than by text (see pic).

That's the greatest misunderstanding I see in ChainLink discussion - this idea that oracles offered by the data sources themselves (fx Cisco or Nokia) will COMPETE with the CL network. It is far more likely that while they may offer their services directly to a user (representing a single point of failure), they would also happily offer their services (in return for a fee) to a ChainLink node who then relays that data back to a Smart contract alongside as many others as that contract deems necessary for their own level of security and trustlessness. Bear in mind other nodes selected by that smart contract may provide the same kind of data but from a different provider, again reducing any trust in a single party. That's the decentralisation layer. That's the whole point of ChainLink.

>>4941679
Oh AssBlaster, where art thou?

With these (speculative) news, would you still guess that Link will be 3 dollars worth a piece come May 2018?

>>4944365
mother of god, finally someone who gets it...

>>4945049
Glad to be of service

>>4944365
Sergey in here clearing things up.