/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>12117388
you were saying?

>>11132188
are you retard linkie?

>>11130771
link is a scam utility token, like most icos are in fact. The token doesn't make sense and using eth directly would be much easier. 65% owned by devs, a scam tactic in itself.
Recently they completely abandoned their sybillable 'decentralized' network of nodes in favor of manual trust ('third party reputation providers'), making link tokens completely useless.

I hoped it's going to die before mainnet, but it's going to be another REQ - the project actually has to launch to dispel bagholders' illusions.

>>11038659
>>11039038
>The views expressed by the author above do not necessarily represent the views of Consensys AG.
there's a stinky at openlaw.
Currently chainlink has only fully trusted nodes and it's doubtful it's ever going to change.
No linky has ever explained what makes tokens valuable. They made a nice api but it's open source.

>>11031389
forgot pic
>>11031391
>it will be the gold in this situation
gold doesn't die when it gets cut out of electricity
>Over time, storage and electricity get cheaper as well.
this only means that hash power increases, if miners mine below block rewards it means they are profitable, if they are profitable new miners arrive until profit becomes small.

>>10696457
link has absolutely horrible tokenomics, I wouldn't be surprised if the token is not used for anything.
It's not a share, why would they give free money to token holders? There's zero legal obligation.

Their most recent model appears to be one node per data source, ran by the data source itself. Which is the only model that really makes sense, because by using a particular data source you already trust it implicitly, so what's the point of more nodes?

Poor, poor linkies. Not even the devs support your shitty uninformed theories.

>>10441072
That's all it takes? One uninformed, and downright mistaken statement from a random retard on the internet? Why don't you ask the devs/rory. pic related