/biz/ - Business & Finance

an anon isn't just going to lie on a dolphin cum trading forum right?

>>11945976
They will use the real Link token when mainnet is live.

you just described a centralized oracle system BTW, Chainlink is decentralized, so you canno have your own centralized nodes you dumb monkey

They will never get it to work

>>11946002
>>11946005
this. not sure if OP was actually too dumb to understand this, or just tried to fud.

>>11946060
Not fudding, I am happy with my link stack

I am getting worried, though

I realized a bet on link is not just a bet on the tech being useful

It is a bet that enterprises will soon stop deluding themselves into thinking private blockchains are reasonable things to use.

I don't want to wait ten years or even five years for public blockchains to be accepted the same way it took forever for software as a service to be accepted.

If we really need web3 to happen before link moons then FML

I want to moon in a few months, I'm almost thirty. I want to become rich af in my twenties, not in my thirties

more nodes = more security, but how soon and how steep are the diminishing returns for added nodes? you'll have the contracted counterparties running nodes to balance eachother out and maybe a couple random nodes from the network to balance out the contracted parties. I'm thinking something like total nodes = 2n + 1 where n is number of nodes operated by contracting parties. There are too many confounding variables for me to consider right now (cost of extra nodes vs. decreased risk), but I have the intuition that you won't need too many more nodes than that to provide adequate security for a particular contract. What do you anons think?

>>11946102
fucking retard
sell your link stack now

Btw OP and responses up until now are pasta.

>>11946102
LINK token is 100% necessary for the oracles to work, even private blockchains, because of the TransferAndCall function the token has.

>>11946122
>but I have the intuition that you won't need too many more nodes than that to provide adequate security for a particular contract. What do you anons think?

Obviously it will vary from user to user. The higher value the smart contract is dealing with, the more nodes you will want to use. That is all we can say. You might want hundreds of nodes if the risk is that high.

>>11946122
What makes you think a company is going to demand a higher degree of decentralization and tamper-resistance in their input/output systems than in their infrastructure that executes their smart contracts?

If a company is willing to use a consortium chain, they're probably willing to use a consortium oracle.

If you have ten companies contributing their own nodes to a private ethereum chain, what makes you think they won't also contribute their own chainlink nodes to that chain?

They trust a majority of the other members to execute contracts correctly but not to fetch data correctly?

>>11946154
>If you have ten companies contributing their own nodes to a private ethereum chain, what makes you think they won't also contribute their own chainlink nodes to that chain?
Dude it doesn't matter. They have to use the LINK token. See: >>11946140
Some will want private, some will want public. Some will want less decentralization and some will want fully decentralized oracles to protect from all the risks of centralized oracles. Chainlink offers it all and all of it requires the LINK token.

>>11946002
no they wont
try it out and you see that you get your own eth chain that is nothing to do with mainnet

>>11946178
Chainlink isn't on mainnet you retard. See: >>11946140

You can't use the network without the LINK token - it won't work without the token's functionality.

>>11946154
Look at the work that is being done on legality of smart contracts and the standards around them. It is looking like decentralization end to end is going to be a requirement, or at least part of the agreed upon standard for digital agreements, including oracles.

>>11946178
This.

Collateral has to have monetary value to encourage honest behaviour. Collateral must be represented in the form of link tokens in the Chainlink network. That's all there is to it.

>>11946195
TRANSFER AND CALL
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

>>11946193
yup, the whole point is it being temper proof and trustless-_- ffs, if you make your own fucking oracle whats the point of decentralization? OP is so fkin retarded srly

>>11946213
>Remember: Never fund addresses that you are using in your private chain with public main-net ETH or LINK tokens.

>>11946192
the token will just be deployed on whatever chain

>>11946193
>>11946214
This
Look at the recent documents that came out of the US commodity futures trading commission.

https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7847-18

They highlight all the problems with oracles - all of them are solved through decentralization.

If centralized oracles were sufficient, smart contracts would already be widely adopted. They aren't. Literally hundreds of teams are waiting for LINK mainnet.

kek this has been known for months.

> I am getting worried, though

wake up. enterprises are not going to use some basement dev's mainnet, that's not how the think. they use their own controlled solutions, like managed private eth.

do you bizlets REALLY keep imagining this?

> enterprise IT guy to enterprise middle mananger: "we need to migrate to blockchain. I enable oracle data feeds".
> manager: "ok, lemme look at your plan for the project and budget assessment ... okay, it says here that to complete this project you need to buy something off neets on a chink exchange. is this correct?"
> IT guy: "y-yes"

>>11946232
Because it's still on testnet you idiot.

Do you not understand TransferAndCall?

Reminder.

How Chainlink solves the Oracle risks that are presented in LabCFTC primer on Smart Contracts.

https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/LabCFTC_PrimerSmartContracts112718.pdf

Let's think about this step by step.

>Oracle failure, disruption, or other issues with the external sources
Use multiple nodes with multiple data source

>An attacker may compromise the oracle
Again, decentralization solves this

>Oracles may accept or distribute unexpected information
Again decentralized oracles solve this

>Oracles may be subject to manipulation or themselves fraudulent, resulting in unexpected, fraudulent outcomes
This is where the penalty/reward system comes in

>>11946193
Yeah, Link is standart. CFTC is clearly been in touch with Sergey.

>>11946102
they will have to get trustless data to their private chains, from there they will have to see if the security of private chains is gud enuf. so link be link

>>11946122
they dont need alot of nodes, until lack of decentralisation fucks shit up big time for somebody. it will always be about perception

I wrote the "fud" being copied and pasted in this thread.

It's not intentional fud.

I'm not a blockchain dev but I am a software engineer and I write shitty boring internal business tools at a FANG company, so I'm a little bit tech savvy. got over 250k link but it seems reasonable to me that if you're willing to accept insecure faux-decentralized consortium chains, you probably don't understand the need for a decentralized oracle network either

People posting this again as "fud" might be surprised if I end up being right and the biggest companies end up being clueless for the next few years

>>11946457
>250k link
fuck you, you don't have that much

>>11945976
>forcing the shadowfork meme again

They're talking about the testnet tokens you absolute moron.

Kaleido connects to the public ETH blockchain, using anything but actual ETH wouldn't work.
Same with the eventual Chainlink mainnet.

>>11946457
>if you're willing to accept insecure faux-decentralized consortium chains, you probably don't understand the need for a decentralized oracle network either
Actual decentralization allows for all kinds of usage forms.
From permissioned to permissionless, from decentralized to centralized, from ready-made to customized, ...

If you think Kaleido isn't good news for Chainlink because of "muh private blockchains", then where have you been all last year when Swift (which uses Hyperledger Fabric) was universally considered good news for Chainlink?

You're a brainlet.

>>11945976

you're absolutely right anon, but the average level of understanding on /biz/ is too low to accept that.

you can, and I do, simultaneously acknowledge there is enough interest in using public chains for chainlink to be huge, but the fact is kaleido is for deploying permissioned chains that will not use our tokens, and the reality is at the moment most actual businesses are interested in private chains, that may use chainlink, but not with nodes you or I can run. I definitely see that changing, and it will be good for link in the same way Ripple's non XRP products pump ripple's price, but there's a lot of misunderstanding relating to private chains and chainlink on this board.

>>11946604
exactly right, this anon get's it.

private chains using chainlink in the short term are not fud at all. they were never going to use a public chain so it's not like they're taking business away, and chainlink will benefit from the exposure and their contributions to the code.

there's enough crypto projects and companies using the public chain to still be really bullish, but there's no reason to lie to delude yourself about kaleido and even swift and hyperledger.

>>11945976
>hey look I never heard about kaleido but since they talk about my meme coin I will sign up and act like I know my shit XD

THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN
OP YOU ARE A FUCKING FOO FAGGOT

>>11946781
>but there's a lot of misunderstanding relating to private chains and chainlink on this board.
Yeah, with you being a prime example.

>>11946796
Not to mention the fact that peer-to-peer smart contracts may very well supplant the very institutions (banks, insurance companies, ...) that use these private chains.

>>11946886
look up dunning kruger

>>11946904
exactly.

>>11946904
honestly I think not understanding that this is the long hard slog that's going to make ether and chainlink incredibly valuable is the problem on this board. I think assblaster made people think all these companies you know and love are going to start using the public ethereum chain as soon as chainlink launches, but there's literally no evidence for this. I wish it were wrong, but the number of existing financial and insurance corporations who've expressed interest in public chains over private one's is minuscule, AXA Fizzy being the main example.

>>11946213
THEY CAN JUST CREATE THE SAME TOKEN ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE CHAIN
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

>>11946970
>shadowfork
Fucking nonsense

>>11946970
CHAINLINK BTFO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>11946240
based.

>>11946970
it's pointless anon. the level of understanding on this board is on average too low and there's just too much deluded hope in metaphorically winning the lottery, to even understand that it's not fud.

if anyone really wants to see the light, go ask thomas if your node could accept jobs and receive payment in link tokens from jobs on Hyperledger or private Ethereum chains. We can clear this up real quickly.

>>11947019
Of course it could if the permissioned network node wants it.

Yes. My friends bought btc under 10usd and I told them I'm not giving 10 dollars for that shit I just forked it. Im still sitting on my 3M bitcoins to this day. Just wait until binance bank adds fork support (this is confirmed by America)

>>11945976
Did you save this from the “concerned” anon yesterday or has this copypasta been around for a long time?

>>11947036
sure, if you're able to run a full node on their network, which is not the case for the general public for most permissioned chains. I'm sure there might be some cases where you could be allowed to, but I doubt that will be very common.

>>11947058
No, the permissioned network node simply has to sign the oracle computations.

>>11947019
You wouldn't even be allowed on these chains. Think about it.

>>11947063
okay but do you really think companies or a consortium of companies that have agreed to use a private chain would then want to turn around and use public chainlink nodes?

>>11947019
> hurrr hurrr let's completely fuck up our network's collateral system for contracts and reputation by allowing private forks of chainlink
Fudders think this is the kind of thing which is worth posting. So well-thought out and intelligent - I'm glad we have these intellectual titans to really raise the bar on this board.

>>11947074
that's the point

at best he'd give an answer like this >>11947063 which is possible but not plausible, given the business choice of using a permissioned chain in the first place.

>>11947083
Probably not. They're trying to force the private blockchain meme for a reason.

Internal financial institution data is already becoming more and more publicly available though. Laws like the EU's PSD2 are making that happen.

>>11947083
It doesn’t matter if they want to use their own nodes... They still have to use the LINK token because of the TransferAndCall function it has.

>>11947104
>Internal financial institution data is already becoming more and more publicly available though. Laws like the EU's PSD2 are making that happen.

>>11947089
go ask thomas then

right, and that goes back to your point of the real promise of chainlink and ethereum being supplanting what exists now, or perhaps on the longer term making the companies that have expressed interest in quorum or hyperledger switch to the public ethereum chain.

>>11947113
right, but not the tokens you and I have. i guess you bring up a good point. hyperledger has no native cryptocurrency, but if a hyperledger chain used chainlink, they would need to use their own versions of the chainlink token to use the network on their chain; however those are emphatically NOT the tokens you and I hold.

>>11947123
>right, and that goes back to your point of the real promise of chainlink and ethereum being supplanting what exists now, or perhaps on the longer term making the companies that have expressed interest in quorum or hyperledger switch to the public ethereum chain.
Yup.

Private blockchains are stupid btw for a variety of reasons.
Starting with https://www.coindesk.com/ibm-blockchain-maersk-shipping-struggling/

One day they'll learn why "trustless" is a key word in the whole decentralization thing.

>>11947113
They don't need to fork the token. They have their own chain, they can use their own contacts. Gas saving isn't even important since it's not a public chain.

>>11947123
> go ask thomas
Isn't an argument
He has never claimed anything like this - go get some screens of him saying that they had essentially invalidated reputation / collateral by allowing private forks. But you won't - because you're just invoking his name as part of yet another shitty attempt at fudding and have nothing to actually back up what you're saying. You fucked up your trades and thought link would go lower - we get it. Making profit with that kind of thing isn't for retards like you so you had better just hodl desu.

>>11947132
Private blockchains have their place, immutable ledgers with event driven self executing logic, once you have more than 1 party involved, you should be looking for trustless and therefore public

>>11947131
Hyperledger is a protocol, the permissioned chains themselves are the implementation. You'd have the same problem with any permissioned chain regardless of its protocol. None of them need tokens to operate.

>>11947131
>hyperledger has no native cryptocurrency, but if a hyperledger chain used chainlink, they would need to use their own versions of the chainlink token to use the network on their chain; however those are emphatically NOT the tokens you and I hold.

This is just nonsense. Chainlink is blockchain agnostic and works with all blockchains via external adapters.

>>11947194
>will not use the current Link token since it's a permissioned chain and not main-net
That doesn't make any sense.
The underlying blockchain has nothing to do with how the Chainlink node works.

>>11947178
okay I think I understand. so your saying since transferandcall is mostly a gas saving measure, and the chainlink protocol would work fine without making the one transaction tranferandcall allows allows (and rather just make two transactions), on a private chain they wouldn't have to be bothered with that and thus wouldn't use their own version of the tokens and just use the chainlink protocol without them?

>>11947205
Go tell jonny he is wrong

>>11947189
like ships sailing in the night anon, reread the thread and try again.

>>11947194
>>11947205
>>11947222
Explain dis?
I think he means Rinkby testnet tokens.

>>11947194
kek

>>11947222
Just the "it's a permissioned chain and not main-net" part makes no sense.

"Permissioned chain" implies the private blockchain that requires oracle data, and "main-net" implies the completed Chainlink node network.

To say the former is not the latter is so obvious that it makes no sense at all.

>>11947222
he's not. I'm glad at least Jonny might get through to some of you.

>>11947229
Maybe go read it again

>>11947248
>Just the "it's a permissioned chain and not main-net" part makes no sense.
I mean it makes the least sense.

>>11947251
Well that would explain the apparent lack of sense of that post.

>>11947248
no by main-net there he means the ethereum main net, where the LINK token contract is that is all of the tokens we not.

>>11947251
Im agreeing with you. Kaleido is for building private chains, ie not eth mainnet, so not chainlink mainnet

>>11947268
*all of the tokens we have

>>11947268
Well that changes things lol.

Still, Chainlink nodes work on all kinds of blockchains and DLTs with the erc token all the same.

>>11947168
>>11947210
>>11947228
>>11947251
>>11947268
>>11947277
Still waiting for proof of Jonny actually saying anything like this. Go on faggot - go get some proof to back up your retarded claims.

>>11947254
That’s not helpful anon.
Wtf is going on here.
I thought chainlink nodes used the link token on all blockchains including private and permissionless because it is blockchain agnostic. If they want a centralised oracle for their private chain, why is this a problem? How can the oracle provide data for the smart contract without the token? I thought the token was fundamental.

>>11946967
could all the private chains use public chain to communicate and settle things? so that eth becomes the interoperability chain

>>11947343
Are you kidding? you may not like it, but that's literally exactly what jonny is saying here >>11947194 please go ask him or thomas for more info, and not just people circle jerking in your discord who also don't know what they're talking about.

>>11947343
Literally a screenshot from Linkpool telegram above

>>11947375
>I thought chainlink nodes used the link token on all blockchains including private and permissionless because it is blockchain agnostic.
This is all true, but you can still change things any way you want.
Same way you can fork Bitcoin yourself and use that any way you want.

This does reduce or even kill the decentralization, but that's part of decentralization: the option to not be decentralized.

>>11947375
The token is fundamental for the network, not for a single oracle node.

In this case it is essentially like running a single node chainlink. Which for a permissioned chain, is probably acceptable as their is already inherent trust

>>11947391
>>11947400

And again absolutely no actual proof. Are you going to keep btfoing yourselves? Don't you feel the least bit embarrassed?

>>11947404
Why would they fork it when they can just use the LINK tokens that already exist?

>>11947422
You're only fooling people who cbf scrolling up, why bother

>>11945976
>I can only use rinkeby testnet on my test blockchain
>I'm running a ChainLink node on rinkeby testnet
>I use rinkeby eth for gas on rinkeby testnet
>>Why can't I put real LINK on my Chainlink node that is running on rinkeby testnet?

You're a fucking retard.
KYS.

>>11947437
I don't know, and I don't know that this is what they're actually doing.
Contrary to what that Jonny post implies, being on a private blockchain does not automatically mean they aren't using the legit Chainlink network.

>>11947450
> j-just scroll up
To nothing. The fact that you refuse to post proof really does say a lot about your "message."
Lol, pathetic.

>>11947539

>>11947194

>>11947175
>Private blockchains have their place
>immutable ledgers with event driven self executing logic, once you have more than 1 party involved, you should be looking for trustless and therefore public

This is contradictory.
The definition of a blockchain pretty much is "an immutable ledger with event-driven, self-executing logic with more than 1 party involved".

>>11947582
A deleted post? Wew ya sure showed me lad

>>11946886
Top kek.
That guys fucking dumb.
So much stupidity in this particular thread.

>Lemme break it down for the dumm dumms.
You have a software solution that would benefit from blockchain.
(Most solutions don't fit blockchain, but do it cause it's 'neat')
Let's pretend that you have a piece of shitware that allows people to buy fresh organic maymay screen printed t-shirts.

>Yo, I want a t-shirt. Print this maymay on a blue, medium, shirt. You submit the order of $25 for the fresh maymay shirt.
××
Company receives the order on their website and sends order request to t-shirt making slope shop
÷÷
>Slope shop receives order and makes a blue medium shirt then ships it to silk screen machine running gooks
××÷÷
Gooks and you can see the correct color shirt is shipped and follow it in transit until it is delivered. Upon delivery the chinks get paid for building a t-shirt.
××÷÷
>Gooks spend 3 minutes silk screening a clothed frog shitting and pissing himself with the words 'pee pee poo poo' under him. They box up your shit and ship it to you.
××÷÷
Once again everyone can see the package in transit because it's 2020 and this is has been available for a decade. You receive your shirt.
××÷÷
>Upon delivery all unpaid parties are paid with the $25 that was held in escrow.
÷÷

×× = public chain
÷÷ = private chain
××÷÷ = both

>>11947602
Oh shit, you're actually retard
I'm sorry

>>11947194
Lmao there are literally shadowforks of Link. We are so fucked in the near term.

>>11947610
I failed at explaining public and private. Reverse the ×× & ÷÷ explanation at the end.

>>11947625
You can fork any open-source blockchain all by yourself, anon. Starting with Bitcoin.

>>11947602
I guess you aren't seeing the image? It's not a deleted post. it's a picture of Jonny saying that Kaleido users are not using LINK token right now because it's permissioned and because it's not mainnet.

>>11947625
There have always been single node chainlinks, the team run a bunch

Every time they mention a chainlink, like for devcon, this is what they are talking about

>>11947620
> links to deleted posts
> calls other people retarded
I give this fud like a 2/10. You get the pity point for persisting despite basically being stuck with making up random and unconvincing shit to try and drive the price down.

>>11947500
>Contrary to what that Jonny post implies, being on a private blockchain does not automatically mean they aren't using the legit Chainlink network.
Right...
I mean SmartContract.com already provided centralized oracles without the LINK token. At the moment Chainlink isn't on mainnet but you can use it for a centralized oracle on Rinkby *right now* - devs said this, I recall. So when mainnet comes, why would they use the Chainlink network but not the token, and how would that even work?

>>11947620
Oh actually looks like someone invited their mumbai discord general friend along for the ride
>>11947645
Jesus christ this is some of the saddest shit I have ever seen.

>>11947647
>Kaleido have made it easy for enterprises to run their own private consortiums, rather than running on the public ETH main-net
>They'd use a ChainLink node on their own private chain to fetch data and that will not use the current LINK token since it's a permissioned chain and not main-net. If Kaleido offer any services on main-net, we're happy for them to use our nodes ofc.

Typed it out for you since you obviously can't see the picture. This is all coming from Jonny

>>11947652
Remember Thomas always saying you can run a node with zero link

This is the scenario
Not a network, where the token is fundamental, just a node, a chainlink, your own chainlink, as a service, billed at $0.25 per hour

>>11947657
Can you see the picture attached to this post? With Jonny saying what is typed out above: >>11947666

>>11947666
> Chainlink will be used to move big macs between smartcontracts just in case the contract auditors get hungry and need to be bribed with a yummy snack
> each link token will entitle you to one completely housetrained bengal tiger
I typed my own screenshot out because you obviously can't see it either Rakesh.

>>11946102
Private permissioned blockchain private node operators is analogous to private internet. In the early days of internet phone companies wanted to sell people private internet but that fell apart quickly. A permissioned blockchain is basically a much shittier database. Why would this stand the test of time? It can't.

>>11947679
Which post? Is this the tactic now? Just pretend there was a post and hope people buy it? Uh, ok.

>>11947652
You need the Chainlink token any time you're dealing with partners you don't know and/or trust, "peer to peer".

>>11947688
MPLS private IP VPN networks are a huge thing

>>11947704
Still waiting for that proof pajeet. Come on now.

>>11947693
I literally just re-posted the picture for you and typed out what the picture said because either you’re trolling or there is something wrong with your browser that means it isnt loading images

>>11947685
Pic attached for third time

>>11947716
Takes a while to stop biting at the bait doesn't it

>>11946005
“Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote - Grover Cleveland (22nd president of the United States)

>>11947702
Which basically means "always, in every single conceivable situation", but some folks just have trouble catching on.

>>11947738
Every network interaction. Not every node function

>>11947610
Legit. Tards in this thread don't understand that these permissioned chains are basically shards. They are sufficiently decentralized for their respective participants and keep what will likely be billions of sensitive and costly (gaswise) transactions off of Eth mainnet.
>tfw you solve the oracle problem and scaling the eth main network all at once

>>11947704
Private internet back then meant you could only browse certain websites the phone companies allowed you to similar to tv channels on the internet. They would never let you access to the public internet with free downloads, porn, blogs etc.

>>11947746
Not sure what you mean.

>>11947762
Smartcontract.com run chainlinks now, token free, with no network live

When the network is live, collateral, reputation contracts etc, then the token will be required

>>11947781
Well yes.

>>11947738
To be clear, I meant there is always reason for distrust, even towards yourself since you can always make mistakes or (unknowingly) become compromised.
Monetary incentives (tokens) aren't going to help remedy distrust in all cases, of course.

>>11947781
Will there be a network for each public chain that wants to use Chainlink?

I get that with private chains, they can just set up their own Chainlink network. If they want to use the public one, they will have to pay somehow.

How will this work? Will all payment of public node operators happen on the public Ethereum network?

>>11947781
This seems like the simplest explanation.
we already know that mainnet chainlink can be used to make centralised oracles or as decentralized as you want with as many nodes as you want.
I would need someone with technical understanding to explain how participating in the Chainlink mainnet will be possible without LINK tokens. Even for centralised oracle on a private chain.

>>11947704
>Mfw you said private IPSec VPN tunnel SSL/TLS encryption SHA2 gobbletygoop
Brainlet talking out his ass: confirmed.
Next time just say MPLS networks are quite common.

>>11947753
Truth.
Once Sharding is released, link reality will truly shine.
The retards here are either creating new FUD, or are genuinely sub 100

>>11947818
>I would need someone with technical understanding to explain how participating in the Chainlink mainnet will be possible without LINK tokens. Even for centralised oracle on a private chain.
The details are pretty unimportant. The fact is that it can be done.

The token functionality is there for providing guarantees in terms of penalty pledges and compensation.

These are smart contracts we're talking about, penalties/compensations (when they apply) have to be guaranteed and immediate.
And they apply as soon as there's more than one distinct party to the transaction.

>>11947818
Main net

Not final release of chainlink node software.

If you run one node, you are just an oracle node. If im that node purchased as a kaleido service, i just act as an individual oracle on the private blockchain for that customer. No network

>>11947844
50% of people here couldn't find their left nut with instructions, i was just being as specific as possible

>>11947391
I totally agree with you Vision on how they won't be using 'our' link token when they have a permissioned ethereum blockchain and permissioned chainlink network. Good job trying to explain this to people who have no idea about how this shit works. Whatever.

However, you remember how it's possible to tether a permissioned blockchain to the ethereum mainnet to have al least some sort of control and trust about the state? One might argue that you'd want this too for your oracles. What I'm Saying is that maybe some of the nodes selected for data fetching will indeed use the mainnet and some will be permissioned. Only time will tell.

>>11947906
Im not saying this is bad. Its just the way it is.

Kaleido will be great for name recognition for chainlink as the Oracle standard.

Companies will use many chains, public and private, will need oracles, and will trust chainlink oracles to do the job

We've had centralized oracles for years. Sergey has been doing this for multiple enterprise clients. If a centralized oracle is sufficient for almost all of enterprise needs, which you brainlets here are promoting, why would sergey go and make a decentralized oracle network? Where have you guys been the last year?

>>11947857
But then what gives the Link token value? Is 1000 EOY still possible or has it just been shattered because all business will go private and not use the token?

>>11947942
>Im not saying this is bad. Its just the way it is.
However, the token we all love and hold will just matter for usage on the Ethereum network?

Not even for other public chains?

>>11947688
Yes, but as long as there is no scaling nor privacy, there will be permissioned chains.

>>11947967
>But then what gives the Link token value?
Supply and demand. Like anything ever.

>has it just been shattered because all business will go private and not use the token?
Is the value of Bitcoin shattered knowing anyone with a computer and internet can fork it?

>>11947967
$0,5 is pushing it.

The less LINK is worth, the more use it will see.

I personally love the technology behind chainlink and hope in the future we actually make the price so low that everybody in the world can afford it, from small businesses to big businesses.

Make Chainlink so cheap, that even with $100 you are able to buy over 80,000 chainlink for your personal use. This is the future what I want to see. The future of decentralization and almost free data

>>11947970
Any chain that uses Chainlink 'mainnet'.

>>11947983
>The less LINK is worth, the more use it will see.
Makes zero sense.

Payments are not fixed in LINK

>>11947983
Nope.

>>11947983
>The less LINK is worth, the more use it will see.

>>11947983
I hate your idea, makes no sense. Why would nodes support Link confirmations if they make pennies doing it. The supply is one billion in total, eventually demand exceeds supply, price per Link has to go up to support demand. Simple economics.

UH OH, SALTY NOLINKERS INCOMING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>11948029
We can always make more Links, we can fork our own versions of it

Chainlink is about love, not money. This is what you incels don´t seem to get since you have only dollars on your mind

>>11947967
>has it just been shattered because all business will go private and not use the token?
Btw, this is nothing new.
Arguably the very first claim to fame of Chainlink was Swift, which uses Hyperledger Fabric, a private permissioned DLT.
The marketing effect from this alone is massive.
And then there's the fact that the banks are increasingly being forced to open up their internal data source APIs to third parties, so it often really doesn't matter if they want to use private oracles. Their shit is public anyway.

The real genius of Chainlink isn't that they make really good oracles, it's that they're the first to make truly decentralized peer-to-peer oracles.

This allows for actual mainstream smart contracts to become a reality, which may put all those legacy banks and other financial institutions that are so keen on using private chains to go out of business.

>>11947970
No.
This is a fallacious implication made by that Jonny post.

>>11948077
Jonny screenshot post was me, as said above, not meant to be fud. Just fact, for kaleido. This is a kaleido thread

>>11948077
>This allows for actual mainstream smart contracts to become a reality, which may put all those legacy banks and other financial institutions that are so keen on using private chains to go out of business.
The market will decide.

Mooning will take too time much time for these GRQ neets.

>>11948141
Jonny was implying that only Chainlink operations tied to ETH will use the ETH token. That anon I was replying to thought this for instance.
The truth is that Chainlink was always meant to work with any underlying blockchain, WITH the erc token.

>>11948077
Hope restored. Thanks!

>>11947967
Christ.
The fact that y'all don't grasp any of this is hilarious.
How the fuck did you find LINK?
>What gives muh token value?!
The token gets value from supply and demand.
>If all these businesses use private chains, what does that mean for LINK?!
They're using private chains due to a combination of justifications.
-they don't want *all* of their transactions visible to the public
-throughput limitations due to PoW are VERY limiting
-old school thought of 'this is muh IP, I want to control it's

If the businesses want to share data publicly, for example let's say a business wants to publicly share a smart contract to show trust in it's execution, they would use a public chain (ETH) and as a result, public LINK tokens. Once ETH's scaleabilty issues are resolved, the network will see fuck tons of use. A lot of these corporations are using ETH forks with the expectation of adopting the mainnet once it is ready (PoS + sharding) for specific parts of their contracts.

This is legitimately going to change the way to whole fucking world does business.
Whether LINK is used or not, this coming age is fucking exciting.
Learn as much about blockchain and related technologies as your sub 100 brains can handle. We're codifying the fucking world.

>>11948178
You're trying to misrepresent what JDog was attempting to jeetsplain and I don't appreciate it.

I have 10k Link. There are who knows how many people with 50k or more. If it goes $1000, that's $10 million for me and $50 million for dozens or hundreds of others before taxes.

How is it even plausible for so many to become multi-millionaires so quickly?

I don't know how i end up here??...
One minute I'm smoking with this guy from the Netherlands in the back of a nail salon in SanFran.
Next thjmg i know, this fat guy with a beard is going on about some kind of Oracle problems whatever the fuck that means.

>>11946137
this. OP is copy pasta from a previous thread. its just fud and bait. want real info? we just partnered with Olympus labs. who will use the chainlink network

>>11948744
>nail salon
totally forgot about that, good times

>>11948635
BitCoin turned people into literal billionaires, and you're forgetting that OVER 90% will sell long before becoming millionaires. They'll sell at a x10, or x40, or when it does x270 then tanks to only x180 for four months. Almost no one will hold all the way to $1,000.

when is link going to dolphin to the moon? dolphins are probably aliens and i think we can meme a new verb. because link will more than just """"moon""". by the way the nazis are controlling me right now, thats how i got these digits.

Yerp $1000 eoy

>>11949059
Go back to /news/ schizo

>>11949078
>too stupid for pattern recognition
never going to make it you sheltered NPC retard

>>11948635
Check ethplorer. There are only 800 people in the world with 50k or more LINK. With 10k there are only 3000 people with more link than you.

>>11948514
No I'm not.

He said "[Kaleido] will not use the current Link token SINCE it's a permissioned chain and not [ETH] main-net".

This implies that Chainlink on any blockchain other than ETH won't be able to use the Chainlink token, which is bs.

>>11948458
Great post

>>11949247
>>11948514

Finally someone asked thomas on r/chainlink

>Chainlink nodes running directly on a permissioned blockchain can only be utilized within that blockchain. Private or permissioned blockchains do not use public coins or tokens to function. Because of that, these Chainlink nodes in a permissioned chain cannot receive payment for their work.

this should settle it for all the brainlets out there. He also literally says this is a good thing. It's not fud you faggots.

>>11949744
This is exactly how I pictured it since a year ago.
Key word is "directly though. All of this does not exclude regular Chainlink nodes from connecting to permissioned blockchains through conventional adapters, like any other blockchain.
All it would take is the signature from a permissioned node.
Not that this would happen often, or even at all.

But this has nothing to do with my argument here: >>11949247
which is simply about Jonny's misleading wording.

>>11949744
Why is it a good thing?

>>11949744
so Chainlink is worthless when noone needs it. dump it

>>11950260
>>11950305
If you can't think of any use cases beyond permissioned blockchains, better sell now lmao.

>>11945976
>reposting this shit fud

>>11950404
My question is: Why is this specific use case a good thing? Our link tokens are not involved.

>>11950492
Because it proves that Chainlink is a wonderful piece of software.

Remind me why permissioned Ethereum blockchains are bad for Ether again

>>11950492
If nothing else, exposure and real-world usage of the tech.
Same way permissioned industry blockchains like Hyperledger boost the value of public blockchains like Bitcoin.

For instance, they could try to build their own private oracles like companies have been doing for years now. But instead they turn to Chainlink.
This is massive for the credibility and perceived value of the actual peer-to-peer Chainlink network. Which may eventually supplant the very institutions (banks etc.) that insist on using private blockchains.

>>11950260
Makes it more likely to become The Standard.

Get all these retarded companies who don't understand blockchain to use private chainlink nodes while they're puttering around with their retarded private chains.

Increases awareness of chainlink, makes it a standard technology so ubiquitous that it will also be used for public use cases.

It does mean we might not see $1000 or even $100 till public blockchains scale and are so widely used that we're not excited about random banks using private chainlink nodes anymore.

>>11950404
the real fud is why cant all those other use cases simply be on private ledgers

>>11950611
Why can't Bitcoin or Ethereum be on a permissioned blockchain?
Because the users are people who don't know each other.

>>11947462
>>11947462
pic very related.
a private fork of chainlink certainly works. question is whether financial institutions allow highly valuable contracts to execute on a centralised and vulnerable chain.
answer: no, so this is not an issue

>>11947222
He's not wrong, this one is from Thomas.

>>11950604
Friendly reminder that it isnt how often Chainlink is used that determines its value.

Its how much money it has to be secured for. Even if Ethereum doesnt scale in a year or two, we can still have smart contracts managing millions of dollars, which puts an requirement on the size of the stake of the node operators.

>>11946005
It’s pasta

>>11947753
This. Link is the next revolution.

>>11947983
Kek. Thanks for the chuckle. 3/10

>>11948156
GRQ?

>>11948829
Jesus this is a niche community. I’ve never met you but I remember the nail salon FUD too. Good times fren. After mainnet hits we’ll reminisce about the glorious pre-mainnet meme days.

>>11950744
Checked.