/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>21523421
Link can be on ethereum and have a higher mcap than eth

lmao imagine replying to this shit
linkies live rent free in his skeleton head

>>21523421
How long until he snaps and attacks Sergey at one of conventions they are both attending?

>>21523421
based ramesh

>>21523450
based ramesh

Vitalik "Oracles are worth $32 million" Buterin

Tether runs on omni and noone cares about omni

>jakkula ramesh
oh nononononononono
were linkies pajeets all along?

>>21523450
Not with proof of stake it can’t. Imagine ETH is at $2 mcap and LINK is at $10. All it takes is owning slightly more than $1 worth of ETH and you can manipulate $10 worth of LINK. Imagine this but in trillions.

>>21523552
Tether is more blockchain agnostic than LINK at the moment.

>>21523480
That's why he's avoiding smartcon. Even an virtual conference is too risky that he will lose his cool.

>>21523421
Trolling autists is mean. Leave money skelly alone.

>>21523622
What? I literally can not follow the logic. Explain

>>21523622
>Software cant be worth more than the hardware it runs on........
jesus

>>21523622
what the fuck are you talking about lmao

>>21523421
LINK can flip ETH
LINK can move off ETH
another one of Vitalik's blind spots
sorry money skelly

It can't scale.

>>21523862
Cute analogy but it's wrong

imagine managing $10b worth of funds
using a $1b security company for your firewall
that's a better analogy

>>21523421
One is a vulgar ERC20 who has not been able to bring anything in 3 years
The other is a revolutionary blockchain that enabled the 2017 bullrun and the next challenge bullrun

Kek

>>21523916
vitalik OWNED by RAMESH

>>21523499
Kek
Bitwave

How about launching eth2.0 before Conversing with literal retards on an online communist opinionsewer

>>21523977
u are a brainlet you realize chainlink is middleware that connects blockchains to external apis right???
it is practically decoupled from ethereum completely and not to mention every aspect of chainlink is up gradable if ETH 2.0 never rolls out chainlink can easily change
Did you even read the white paper?

>>21523529
Vitalik, for me it is omise go’ buterin
Also, let me just dump the bags i received for free. Go omise!

>>21523977
also this is a trash fucking analogy <20iq

Vitalik’ look at my rainbow unicorn tshirts im such a nonconformist’ buterin

Vitalik ‘ heroin is worse than cp’ buterin

>>21523421
This made me appreciate that I really should consider starting a Pajeet tweeter account to troll influencers with "investment advice" and other such opinions...

Thanks OP.

>>21524090
Unfortunately for you kiddo, I know more about chainlink that you ever will, and you're making the very simple mistake of confusing the protocol with the token. If the token gets valued higher than the network protecting it, it's vulnerable. That case is open and shut. It's irrelevant where the protocol is, or what it does, the token is on ethereum, and there's no network larger than ethereum, so frankly, your growth is capped, your height ain't never gonna start at 6.

Vitalik, ‘ eth supply cap will likely be 100m’ buterin

T H E E T H E R E U M

>>21524189
Please do and post here

>>21524090
whats a whitepaper?

>>21523840
>>21523862
>>21523872

See >>21524203 is what I’m basically trying to say. Ask yourself if you’d want Chainlink to be on Ethereum Classic instead which regularly gets 51% attacks.

>>21523622
clever point actually. ignore the retards who don't understand. I guess making it really chain agnostic is important.

>>21523421
linkies are literally dumb enough to flip eth with an arbitrary middleware token.

>>21524249
Extra money from the government that only white people get.

>>21524203
I am very aware of the differece between the LINK token and the chainlink Decentralized oracle network...... You do not know more than i do obviously from your fucking retarded statement, EVERYSINGLE aspect of chainlink (THE ORACLE NETWORK) is modular so to speak it will migrate off of ethereum if it needs too

>>21524385
>it will migrate off of ethereum if it needs too
migrate where?

>>21524203
then again, executing a double spend attack on link will tank both link and eth price, so you wouldn't actually be able to gain anything by it. There's no incentive worthy of spending that much money.

>>21524306
my statement has nothing to do with ETC you fucking sperg I am simply referring to the fact that chainlinks oracle network can leave ethereums mainnet (and possibly build its own) if vitalik cant figure his shit out

>>21523862
More like software inside of software will never be worth more than the containing software.

Fb marketplace might generate a lot of revenue, but it will never be bigger than fb.

Linkies have gone full delusion

>>21523450
ty jakkula sir

>>21524412
Im sure sergey and his team already has contingency plans to build there own mainnet if need be.... but as of this moment while we are speaking there isnt one

>>21524203
>>21524306
>If the token gets valued higher than the network protecting it, it's vulnerable.
It literally isn’t. Explain in detail the how one should proceed in order to efficiently “attack” the chainlink token if its market cap got bigger than Ethereum’s. Go ahead. Do you really think that would be enough to 51% attack ethereum? Lmao.
The total market cap of tokens that run on the Ethereum network when put together ALREADY SURPASSES the Ethereum market cap hahahaha, if what you said is true they should all already be considered insecure or such a scenario should be impossible. Yet, here we are.

>>21524450
>I am simply referring to the fact that chainlinks oracle network can leave ethereums mainnet (and possibly build its own)

>>21524472
I agree
considering Chainlink is not even remotely decentralized today
I can see them deploying a permissioned blockchain and you retards will lap it up

>>21523468
Vitalik studied Chinese characters while programming at the same time. This is a statement from someone who first met him. The rent doesn't exist.

>>21524203
so... with this logic, how high can the price of link go, compared to eth price?

>>21523450

>>21524452
You are comparing a marketplace on facebook to a middleware external api connector wow you are a fucking brainlet

>>21524504
go away Vitalik, go and fix ETH2 ffs

>>21524499
I actually am not against ethereum by any means and i do want it to succeed and have eth 2.0.
but more on point if they can solidify OCA and permit more trusted hardware with SGX then all will be peachy and that wont be necessary

>>21523421
CHAINLINK CAN EASILY SURPASS LINK, NEVER FUCKING SELLING THESE STINKIES. $1000 EOM LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIyBFNjc1kY

>>21524499
2nd post also how is it not decentralized??? they have multiple Node operators running exactly like the detailed in the whitepaper......

>>21523421
He's a fucking CHAD. Take your VITAmin-LIK, fags.

>>21524070
Yeah I did not say there would be ETH 2.0

>>21524488
It’s not worth the resources and dealing with the complexity yet. Assume Chainlink was $1000 right now and Ethereum was using PoS. Do you not see the incentive to then try and attempt a 51% attack? What if it was $10,000? $81,000?

>>21524332

its a good point but not relevant for a network large enough to be practically immune to 51% attacks

>>21524424
Keep in mind that shorting exists outside the blockchain.

>>21524758
It would be EXTREMELY hard to 51% attack Ethereum

>>21523622
You're right, but also retarded.
LINK being worth more than ETH would be a massive risk to the network, as LINK doesn't contribute to the POW rewards pool. The potential reward for an attack doubles, but the potential costs stays the same.

He needs to stop replying to tweets just because they include the word ethereum

>>21524788
The US spends double crypto’s entire market cap on the military each year. It likely won’t be an individual or company orchestrating the attack but a nation or group of nations. For reasons I can’t predict.

>>21524788
This.

>>21524332
>>21524443

FLARE KILLS ETH/LINK

>>21524857
he lives for this anon, he doesn't really care about decentralized supercomputers etc, he just wants to autistically refute people on twitter. That's his life purpose.

>>21524871
These nations would have to go around and "payoff" the Node operators in order to assume control and execute said 51% attack

>>21524847
>>21524940
Ethereum is moving to PoS though

linkies are just being rude these days. im starting to hate them.

>>21524940
I’m thinking of some socialist nation like China where most of the BTC miners are located.

Chainlink (100T) ETH (1T)
In this case a 51% attack on a 100 Trillion $ would only take 51% of 1 Trillion (unsecure) even if chainlink were to bridge to other blockchains it would only make things worse since less capital would be needed to 51% the smaller chains. This is why Chainlink will not surpass ETH marketcap. 820 LINK 76k PNK

>>21524977
POS is a meme that will never work. Don't rely on it.

>>21524977
You have had a lot of dubs this thread either autism timing or luck
Yes because PoW is a meme but that doesnt necessarily imply a human exploit will open up (even though yes the incentive would be there) I personally believe if that were to happen it would completely kill blockchain tech forever so IT CAN NOT HAPPEN. (again not implying its completely impossible because anyone familiar with chaos theory would say it is)

>>21524832
kek brainlets don't understand even when spoonfed like this>>21524758

Link can never be worth significantly more than ETH when its a token on the platform.

thats like saying, the transmission box of a car can be worth more than the entire car all together. KEK.

>>21523421
chain link can easily just make its own blockchain and surpass eth at this point. vitalik is a pedo and his days are numbered.

>>21523421
kek

>>21525012
This is actually correct for all block chains that are vulnerable to 51% attacks. Debate me, brainlets

>>21525069
look man i understand what you guys are saying
And yes LINK cannot be worth more on ETHS platform due to what is stated above but i am implying that if eth 2.0 doesnt rollout chainlink wont be on its platform
also even IF link were to be worth more than ETH on its platform it is IMPERATIVE that a 51% attack on ETH does not happen because the world would lose faith in blockchain tech completely
the next few years are a critical junction for the blockchain space as a whole

>>21525237
chainlink will be on its own platform****** fucked up that sentence because im sperging out myself at this point kek

>>21524758
>>21525069
Are suggesting someone using their “link gains” to buy enough Ethereum to do a 51% attack? Holy fucking shit hahahahahahahaha. Do you think the market cap stays still if someone tries to buy a huge percentage of the supply? ETH’s market cap would increase so much mid process that it would not be even close to being possible, not even with LINK’s mc being 100x that of ETH. Likewise LINK mc would drastically decrease in the process, not to mention the complete lack of financial incentive to even attempt such nonsense. You people are literally financially illiterate

>>21523622
Technically possible but who has enough money laying around to buy 51% of all ethereum?
Not only that but if someone bought all ethereum its price will rise, probably enough to go above the price of chainlink.

>>21525012
>even if chainlink were to bridge to other blockchains it would only make things worse since less capital would be needed to 51% the smaller chains
Are you retarded they couldnt 51% attack chainlink through those other blockchains only way to do it is through is the one chainlink runs on which is ethereum
so ur first part is correct second part is silly

>>21523421
I sold ETH + LINK for DIA how fucked am i?

>>21525309
read further down the line and you will see his theory of (who) would be possible of this

>>21524203
>so frankly, your growth is capped,
Flawed reasonong ad one can expect for eth to grow with the growth of link.

>>21525277
do you know how to read????

>>21525328
>how fucked am i?
prolapsed anus level fucked

>>21525347
You might as well tell me

>>21525318
If ETH is 51% attacked and deleted all the wraped bitcoin Erc20 tokens are gone as well, but the bitcoins on other blockchains including core are not.

>>21523832
Based

>>21525416
here is his post>>>>21524871

>>21525065
Autistic luck.
It won’t kill it forever, ETH just forked after the DAO attack for example.
>>21525277
No, I’m saying the incentive and possibility to attack increases as the market cap of Link increases relative to ETH. There could be existing attacks we haven’t thought of yet in such a scenario or someone knows and they’re just waiting. Who expected the flash loan attack until flash loans were a thing?

>>21523622
I do want to say even though I dont agree with you (because of reason we talked about in the thread)
you did educate me on a new perspective Idk if youre still in this thread, I consider you a fren

>>21525510
Thanks pops.

>>21523622
The javascript has been hacked and now all LINK nodes are being affected, meaning they will go offline one by one.

But here's the real trick; every node that goes offline first has to be validated by other nodes, Thus the first node won't go offline until EVERY SINGLE NODE has verified it actually has gone offline

LINK will be in an infinite javascript loop. Maybe if you're a programmer you will recognize FOR and WHILE loops. Well.. This is a FOR loop that NEVER ends.

The price will TANK to at least 100 satoshi. Maybe even lower when the nodes are actually verified being offline.

Sergey is now busy setting up extra nodes to undo this process. Called contra-hacking. He has injected some GO-language code, pseudo-offline code, into the ChainLink network. This means nodes will appear the be online, while they are struggling to go offline, but in the meantime they cant because it isnt verified yet. Neat trick if you ask me, but it wont last long before the other nodes will know whats really going on.

>>21525592
It hard fork fren but i think we are at a critical junction in the blockchain space build a firm foundation of trust for institutional investors is too important for that too happen again over the next 5years

>>21525374
jesus christ dude stop posting you are an embarrassment

>>21525676
(this is a hypothetical scenario built upon his statement r r right....) Its not happening as we speak r r right... anon please answer

>>21524871
The idea was that it's economically profitable to spend enough money to buy most why to control all link if all link have more value than all eth.

But now you're saying that a state would do it, for non economical reasons.
But then a state would do it regardless of the marketcap of link relative to eth, and your whole argument is irrelevant

>>21525723
nice ad hominem and blanket statement you are obviously a libcuck Ive argue legit points this entire thread and i would fuck ur soiboi pucci

>>21524621
I like this.

>>21525374
Clearly I do, dumbfuck. And you obviously have zero notion of game theory and economics. That’s why you cannot detail the process behind your “attack vector”, argue in favor or its viability, or properly refute I said. Because you know you would come off as a complete retard if you tried too. Instead you stick to dumb analogies to try to sound intelligent, except they don’t apply at all to this case.
Also, to the “US military” or “China”, chainlink’s market cap in relation to ETH hardly matters lol. They aren’t gonna kill crypto. Look at what level you people had to go to try to defend your “Chainlink can’t be higher than ETH” theory.
>>21525592
Ah, of course. There’s an attack vector no one knows about, but will become possible ONLY IF if the MC of a single token in the ETH networks surpasses ETH’s MC.
You’re literally grasping at straws.

>>21525723
2nd post even the anon i was retorting against stated that that wasnt what he was saying
so my post >>>21525374 is completely valid that he doesnt know how to read if you need to be spoon fed more refer to the other anons post here>>>>>>21525592 where he clearly states thats not what he was saying

>>21525617
The real chad is the friends you make along the way.

>>21525892
Based Vitalik

>>21525806
I never said chainlink cant be higher than eth....WTF are you talking about ive been debating with the other anon how he is wrong as well this entire thread so my statement still stands that you dont know HOW TO FFUCKING READ you statement about using "link gains" to buy eth was not what he was getting at at all so i questioned if you knew how to read

>>21525892
I agree fren I want Sergey and Vitalik to be brothers in the end (they could create something so special) but vitalik is so salty....

>>21525676
Why don’t they have try/except clauses to prevent WHILE loop fuckery?

>>21523977
retarded analogy
am i meant to have every literal contractor be worth more than my entire company's liquidity? how the FUCK would i turn a profit then?

>>21525806
2nd post heres a hint newfag click on my id and read all my fucking posts and tell me > Look at what level you people had to go to try to defend your “Chainlink can’t be higher than ETH” theory. is my fucking theory again so i can call you retarded again

>>21525688
That’s true, ETH shit the bed after the DAO hack. The worst part would be all us NEETs would have to go out and find real jobs.

>>21525961
>>21526020
I re-read the posts I replied to, and both were clearly saying LINK’s mc couldn’t be higher than ETH’s, and one of them did imply the retarded “attack vector” I mentioned. Maybe you replied to the wrong post or didn’t pay attention to what I replied to.
But I’m certainly not gonna read all your 27 posts to lmao. Never selling either way, faggot.

>>21526039
Lets pray it doesnt happen fren

>>21525742
>>21525988
I'm actually more qualified to talk about this than most anons.I'm employed with a cyber-techno machinations company, I do a lot of security analyst programming type work. Open source, decentralized, APIs, partnerships, you name it. We'd be one of the first companies in line for something like Chainlink, if the decentralized smart contract space had more value over traditional data exchanges. There's a catch though, an underlying flaw more deeply embedded in the bedrock of LINK than the very code itself. The flaw is with the concept, and it's this: Companies won't actually go through the hassle of trusting their data API's through crypto.
Now I can already hear your keyboards going frantic, but hear me out. /biz/ hates banks, and traditional data providers. But actual companies, businesses, and investors do not. There's an old saying you might have heard of: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!". The idea that any of our bosses would give us the go ahead if we approached them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink, that they've never heard of, we'd be laughed out at best and fired on the spot at worst. We already have API data buyers and providers we trust.
'But Chainlink is trustless!' I hear you cry, but is that really a good thing? Just listen to the sound of it. Businesses don't want to spend millions of dollars on something that is trustLESS, they want something trustFUL. 'But the reputation system!', doesn't that defeat the whole point of your coin? If companies only trust nodes with high reputation, what's the difference between trusting banks and data providers that already have reputation, but in real life not on a computer screen.
The fact is, LINK is going to share the same fate as ETH will. A lot of 'real world application' hype, with a lot of 'crypto world application' reality. Only, this billion supply coin isn't going to come close to the $1k that Etherum hit.

>>21526157
I was arguing with the other anon that he was wrong as well fren but i also saw that you didnt compute his argument so i questioned if you can read
to simplify for your brain (i wasnt defending him want i asked if you knew how to read meaning i wasnt on his side just because i attacked you)

Vitalik is an enigma. Smart as hell but he sure says a lot of retarded shit too. Is it a proud lie or does he honestly believe that link won't flip the king of shitcoins?

>>21526174
Honestly you sound really convincing and maybe you are the real deal but the fact that you said
>> them to put our companies valuable data in a smart contract on a cryptocurrency called Chainlink
makes me question because if you were the real deal then you would have said "valuable data on the chainlink decentralized oracle network" not "chainlink crypto" almost good fud but you missed it

>>21526174
2nd post also my post was ironic if you didnt catch the metacommentary....... im not buying your trash fud

>>21526211
When i asked****

>>21526039
Also i realize some of my post sound like im asian af hahahah but in reality I just cant type worth of shit when i type fast i would be a trash code monkey

>>21526310
Lots of brainlets still can't understand the space past bitcoin. Everything is a currency to them. Like they somehow don't realize it's possible to run a program on a computer or something. It's a wonder they don't drown in their soup, having to remember to breathe and all.

>>21523421
Imagine being worth over a hundred million and replying to a tweet WITH ONLY TWO RETWEETS. FUCK YOU VITALIK GET BACK TO WORK ON ETH 2.0 INSTEAD OF RESPONDING TO EVERY RETARDED TAKE BY A LITERAL WHO ON TWITTER AAAAAAGH

>>21523421
We've already realised that Vitalik isn't as smart as he thought he was, it will be devastating when he realises for himself.

Does anyone know the total supply of Ethereum though?

>>21525069
Don't bother anon, these are people who actually believe their ERC-20 tokens will be worth trillions because the entire worldwide derivatives market is going to hinge on a protocol that can be taken over with a minimal investment from the Chinese government. Then they'll say 'CHAINLINK IS BLOCKCHAIN AGNOSTIC' without realising that their money is still dependant on the security of the underlying ERC-20 token, if the derivatives market was on LINK and the Chinese govt could tank the US economy with a 51% attack they absolutely would. The only way LINK has a real future is if ETHs market cap goes above 10 trillion and thus makes it unfeasible for government-tier powers to manipulate it. Even 10 tn might be too low a bar given the amount of cheap computing power and energy China has at their disposal, more like 50+ tn.

>>21524385
>>21524385
>>link is eth token
>year is 2026 link secures 50 trilions of derivats feeding data, price of 1 link is 3678$
>link token is coleterall, security budget of network, you can chose your own security setup depending how much coleterall/secutity you need/offer
>eth2 goes down for 30 minutes leaving all malicious nodes unslashed
>forex just got robbed for 3 trillions

But yeah link is blockchain agnostic and ETH can go to $0 and chainlink wouldn't budge


>>21525370
This one is correct acually

>>21523421
>Imagine being Vitalik and dealing with retards all day

Don't have to imagine, I'm on /biz/

>>21523622

>>21526174
I haven't seen this copy pasta in a while. Good one anon, it's weeding out quite a few nufags

>>21527319
you still didnt get what i was saying... Chainlink can migrate off of eths mainnet if it needs to it would be a bitch but it can

>>21527648
its trash pasta that needs to be modified so it weeds out more

>>21527762
mETH faggots know and it scares them. vitalik is also a fearful deflecting moron

>>21527762
I dont think you get it
Ofc it can but ANY chain chainlink migrates to is underlaying security of fucking chainlink token and nodes tahts the nature of beeing token not blockchain

>>21527260
chainlink can move off of eths mainnet if it needs to everyaspect of it is upgradable read the fucking whitepaper but you are right about china us burgers were fucking retarded with this tech we should have jumped the gun 10 years ago
https://coinidol.com/china-releasing-digital-yuan/

>>21524758
Can someone explain how this could happen and why it would be a problem? I don’t see how a 51% attack on ETH could affect link at all.

Since 90% of smart contracts with any real value ($) behind them require Chainlink to connect to payments and other offchain data, I don’t see why link couldn’t surpass ETH in mcap. Link is already securing something like 6bn in DeFi assets and links token price is directly correlated to the amount of assets secured because of collateral aka staking. Imagine if LINK was securing assets greater than the mcap of ETH? Put it another way: growth in the Chainlink oracle system drives rises in link token price, but not in ETH price. If the Chainlink system grows big enough there’s no reason the token couldn’t surpass ETH. Unless there is some mechanism linking ETH token price to Chainlink system growth - I don’t think gas fees are sufficient?

>>21527861
it would build its own so it could scale properly and if SHA-2 is compromised then the last think you need to worry about is the blockchain space....

>>21528059
read the entire thread if you truly want to know how in theory this could effect link

>>21528073
>if compromised
if underlaying chain is compromised its game over for link because it jsut lost billions of value you newfags are literally retarded lol

>>21525069
It's more like saying Amazon can be worth more than the UPS delivery trucks they use for distribution

>>21526174
This is true for now. Their overhead can be easily defeated by competitors willing to operate on the chain link crypto. That’s why’s it’s the fourth industrial revolution.

>>21528213
This. So many coping ETH holders in this thread not realizing that value accrues at the end points. Chainlink, Maker, Compound, there will be many token that surpass ETH in market cap.

>>21528595
I own 252 LINK.. Bought at $7-8.. Will I make it?

>>21523421
wait until holochain outshines ETH

>>21528204
sha-2 is the security cryptographic hash algorithm for ALL COMPUTER SYSTEMS ON THIS PLANET YOU BRAINLET not just blockchain and ive been here since 2008 ur the newfag

>>21528609
252k enough eoy?

>>21528204
>>21528807
2nd post here il;l even link the wikipedia page for your dipshit ass FUCKING NEWFAG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2

>>21528609
In a year or so m8

>>21526174
exact same reasoning boomers used against internet vendors back in the late 90's
new companies will pop up, there cost structure will be leaner and they will outcompete legacy business ran by boomers

see bezos being laughed at in interview by reporter in 97
now big brick and mortars are dead, even previous titans like sears
not saying this means link will go the same way as amazon, but it does mean your argument is invalid as new generations will not be held back by legacy inertia

>>21528634

>>21523622
That’s why it’s supposed to be chain agnostic, but the problem would be similar eth will still serve the most requests and the attack could still be done. Reminds me of the recent eth 2.0 testnet fiasco where most just chose a single testnet client instead of diversifying.

>linkniggers are literally pajeets

>>21528869
You're replying to copy-paste bro. Lol lurk moar.

>>21528204
OK you are fitting the bill of Dunning-Kruger really well. Mind if I interview you?

>>21523622
Eth is going to $10k so I can live with link being capped at $4-500bn.

>imagine being vitalik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7MeJionPMA&feature=youtu.be

>>21529144
i am replying to people that are lurking this thread not to the poster
how new are you that you don't understand sentiment changing ops on an mongolian horse etching forum

>>21529407
bum piss alleyways and cardboard canoes.

>>21524357
7777777 MY LINKY STAYS SUPER STINKY $1000 EOY

>>21523450
LINK will also be on other blockchains retard.

>>21523421
>Err... Chainlink is on Ethereum
lmao some literally who pajeet got him to seethe this much. Imagine even replying to that post. You would ignore it but he was so furious he had to give a passive aggressive reply. I didn't know it was this easy to get Vitalik angry.

>>21524090
you know bsv connects itself to external apis and it has the patents, no need for shitty school projects ranjesh

>>21529706
vitalik is also wrong
good chance LINK will flip ETH
good chance LINK will leave ETH eventually

>>21523622
You do realize that LINK can be more expensive than ETH while ETH is also too expensive for a 51% attack? Just because LINK flips ETH doesn't mean ETH's price drops to 3 dollars and a small group of people can suddenly accumulate enough for a 51% attack. If LINK is worth $1000 and ETH is worth $500 then ETH is still too expensive for a 51%. Any attempt to accumulate enough ETH for a 51% would just result in ETH's price soaring and likely flipping LINK again anyway.

>>21529771
Of course he is wrong. You know he also said the oracle solution was only worth a few million? Now it's worth a few billion. He was wrong years ago and he is wrong now.

>>21529778
>and a small group of people can suddenly accumulate enough for a 51% attack.
Except the people behind smartcontract.com. Finally the plan is revealed.

>>21529778
>>21529851

>>21529851
he's wrong all the time