/biz/ - Business & Finance

Go on warosu, put the date to 2018 and start browsing. It was full of fud and shill. Full of hope and despair. Mainnet was always coming "soon". Every conference/event was special, but usually ended with the same slides. It was comfy in a way and really depressive as well.

>>26858861
>this board
IS OWNED BY ALPHABET YOU BLIND NIGGER

>>26817402
buy chainlink !

>>26801499
chainlink better !

>>21169776

>>15950551

We create a protocol that automates the trust required to fulfill every contract.

>>12096816
Switched connection.
There does seem to be a decorrelation with other asset classes, according to our data and Bloomberg's popular article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-bitcoin-investment/

Thing is, there's a decorrelation until there isn't. So a lot of institutional investors are treating crypto like a strange sort of upside hedge, where it makes sense to allocate 0.1-1.0% of their clients' portfolios to crypto (primarily BTC and top 10-20 cryptos), hence why we suspect an influx of capital is still to come to crypto, the likes we have not seen yet. Blockchain VC is also a talking point for institutional investors, which is where I'm hoping some smart anons can get in on the layer between the two: syndicated VC funds.

>>12096984
Why you still here, anon? Because there is the faintest chance that there are still some good anons left. Wait and see

>>12097177
>>12095940
Obviously, the point is it's a general conversation starter, and the discussions centre around anti-human trafficking, fighting pedos, satanists and the like. The discussions are much like a biz or pol thread, but just slightly toned down

>>12096629
lol, biz is just over-reactive to shills. I saw the ShipChain and INT shills, the CoinMetro shill, the endless LINK shilling etc. It's understandable

>>12095966
You might be fine, but founders might still choose to avoid U.S entirely, just to be safe. They don't want to run the risk of accidentally letting in U.S private pools etc.

>>12096642
This is true. The question is, who's paying who, and who's worth listening to.

>>12073712
This comic strip better have a future subplot where the guy gets filthy rich.

>>11938416

>>10896924
I'll decode it for you and tell you whose company the transaction is from. We're almost there...

Chainlink 2500 dolars eoy !

You guys need to stop shilling link with infographics like this. Thinking that any part of the derivatives market will make up links market csp is retarded. Derivatives are not assests and they cannot be sold for assets. Chainlink is an asset. Derivatives are like bets. They are not usually sold and can never be sold for equal value (always less). Chainlink may make book keeping for the detivates market faster and cheaper and make payouts automated but the assets being used to raise the price of link tokens will be from another source.

>>9241558
>NO-LINKERS BTFO

>>8087521
Think of it like this. If the blockchains start receiving real word data giving it actual utility don't you think the blockchain technology would be exponentially more valuable? Dont you think that if real word data was being provided to ethereum smart contracts ethereum would explode in value.

Can link be worth more than the blockchain its token runs on?

>>7781485
I'll be dead serious for any LINK holder that has less than 5-10K LINK or if that's the max you can afford to accumulate to.
Get a source of income, save, invest, accumulate
I don't think daytrading is the way to go unless you have a large enough stack to risk a portion of it, and it makes the time and risk/reward ratio worth it

4k per link is undervalued

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7559431
Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

Companies have all sorts of contracts for all sorts of things (obviously) but the legal system never works like it's supposed to. Let’s say you agree a contract to sell a table, say, for $20 next week. You give the guy the table but next week he doesn’t pay. Are you really going to take the buyer to court even though he legally owes you the money?

This kind of thing happens on a huge scale between companies. If they do decide to go to court it's expensive and wastes time. Usually, the side who’s owed money settles out of court for much less than they’re owed.

This is where smart contracts come in. Smart contracts are basically code that executes a contract when conditions are met. An example might be “I'll buy $100 of bonds if the base interest rate hits 1%”.

Once agreed, a smart contract will execute as written, no matter what. No one can fuck each other over once the contract is agreed (unless they BOTH agree).

What’s more, the contract is stored on a blockchain and so can’t be interfered with without hacking 51% of the nodes (this is practically impossible).

But there is another attack vector for smart contracts. Returning to the $100 for bonds example above, I could hack the input to the contract to (falsely) tell the contract that the interest rate is now 1%. The smart contract sees this and executes when it's not supposed to. The security of the contract is only as strong as the weakest link, which in this case is the external data input (also called an oracle).

Chainlink (LINK) solves this problem by decentralizing the oracle – i.e. the information that goes into the contract. It means smart contracts can't be triggered by false inputs (i.e. the attack vector I described above) without hacking 51% of the nodes (again, impossible).

And the bond example is just one of millions of use cases.

>>7525355
Smart-contracts: Automated and unstoppable financial and data-driven agreements will save untold amounts of money, prevent corruption and fraud, and change the world.
Could be the start of a new technological revolution into true automation + UBI future.