/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>7993337
delusional linkies

>>7993337
lol no, the token is a real utility token and is ERC677 for this exact reason.

sold 100k

>>7993337
>You can't stake it.
Stopped reading right here

Thanks faggot, just cut my dick off and threw it into cyberspace. Received 100k LINK in return. Cyberspace has been good to me.

Why don't you go suck on a lemon?

dud youre not even trying. where are the shadow fork guys. maybe they have some creative ideas

OP is correct.
https://guides.oraclefinder.com/node-faq
How much LINK is required to be a node operator?
No LINK is required in order to be a node operator. However, holding LINK on your node (commonly referred to as staking) helps with ranking your node against others. Your node will also need some LINK in order to bid on smart contracts with the penalty amount. If the node is not selected to perform the job, or the node successfully completes the job, then it can retrieve that paid penalty amount.

Wouldn’t holding millions of LINK automatically rank you to the top above the other nodes?
No, holding LINK is just one of the factors when determining a node’s reputation. Having LINK on a node helps get the node started, but there is a point of diminishing returns for how much LINK to hold. Nodes that simply have enough reputation may be eligible for the job. From that, node selection will be random.

>>7993337
weak fud, you may not have heard, fud season is over.

>>7993424
>>7993337

The pain of being caught in a poor swing trade and desperate weak fud applied to buy back in
the /thread

>>7993337
You will need tokens for contract staking/collateral you absolute faggot

>>7993426
>>7993446
When does the delusion end exactly?

Here's the reality of it. Even if you were right and the ChainLink token did literally nothing within the ecosystem and there was literally no reason to buy.
LINK would STILL moon because people would want to own a token attached to the biggest more world changing project in crypto in 2018. People would STILL buy in! We can't lose! Hahahaha

>>7993471
I sincerely hope that you aren't able to buy back in quick enough and get left behind, it's what you get for being an ADHD trader.

>>7993424
>Your node will also need some LINK in order to bid on smart contracts with the penalty amount.
How big do you think the penalty amount will be for heavyweights? This is your answer.

>>7993510
Can't be too much or the entire project would become obsolete and companies would go back to use third party services as they are doing now.
Maybe link worth a dollar.

>>7993503
>I sincerely hope that you aren't able to buy back in quick enough and get left behind, it's what you get for being an ADHD trader.

This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>7993549
>>7993510

Stop talking to yourself. You made a bad trade. That sucks. Shut up an buy back in. Your fud is painfully weak.

>>7993597
You are talking to two people that aren't the OP you dumb fucking retard.
These two guys were actually discussing why LINK TOKENS could be worth anything.
Do you fucking brainless shitholders really have 0 argument or incetive to have a discussion?
LOLL BUY BACK XXDD
FUDDDD
LOL HE LINKED SOURCES FUDD HAHA BOTTOM SELLER XD
Its not hard to buy back in since the token is doing nothing btw.

>>7993337
thanks just sold 100k

>>7993424

>No LINK is required in order to be a node operator. However, holding LINK on your node (commonly referred to as staking) helps with ranking your node against others. Your node will also need some LINK in order to bid on smart contracts with the penalty amount.

didnt you just contradict yourself? im trying to have an intelligent discussion and im genuinely curious, so explain how holding LINK helps to prioritize your node and you need it to bid on contracts (the entire point of the node) and this is a bad thing how? is the node doing multiple transactions at once, or does it do them one by one?

that seems like the thing i want to know, whether having more means you can bid on more contracts at the same time and accept them into your "queue" or whatever in the node. If the nodes resolved one contract at a time (instead of many at once), to bid and add that contract to your "queue" you seem to think is free, but in order to gather all these contracts you would have to have the money to bid. youre not going to just bid on one at a time right, youre going to compile big lots of contracts to resolve, so surely you must need to hold the LINK to bid on all of these contracts at the same time and have them added to the nodes' list of tasks. seems like more LINK gives you a bigger net to fish with, right?

if the price of a contract is .001 LINK , that doesnt mean that just holding 0.001 LINK is an efficient way to run your node because youre just bidding on as many as you can afford to bid on, right? arent you casting a wider net bidding on as many contracts as possible? you cant bid without putting that money into an escrow, you cant just bid for it and not front the money (you have to have the penalty fee already out of your hands and locked in until the task is complete)

can someone smarter than me please chime in here

do you understand what i mean? im a brainlet it might be totally off base with what im saying.

>>7993424
>If the node is not selected to perform the job
doesnt that mean that the more LINKs you have to bid around the smart contract environment means you have a higher likelihood of securing contracts? youre talking about doing one bid and one contract at a time. that doesnt seem like its how it would work, thats not efficient. it would be more like thousands and thousands of bids simultaneously, right?

>>7994737
>>7994769
it is from the faq that guy linked, check it out, he did not make it up

>>7993337
see image, check under the first and second types
>adds network strength
>preserves network
all for tokens that are better served separate from their platform to allow the free market to offer a fair price
Got any other FUD?

>>7994790
>>7994790
from the article:
>Wouldn’t holding millions of LINK automatically rank you to the top above the other nodes?

>No, holding LINK is just one of the factors when determining a node’s reputation. Having LINK on a node helps get the node started, but there is a point of diminishing returns for how much LINK to hold. Nodes that simply have enough reputation may be eligible for the job. From that, node selection will be random.
this doesnt tell me anything about how, upon adoption of this technology, the price of the token itself will be low because of this fact. it simply doesnt address anything to do with the price of the LINK token itself. it just says you dont necessarily need heaps to run a node, but that doesnt tell you how profitable your node will be as a result of that. know what i mean? theyre just saying "yeah sure anyone can do it...", doesnt mean that just anyone is going to have a great profitable node, just says they can join in on it if they want.

>How much LINK is required to be a node operator?

>No LINK is required in order to be a node operator. However, holding LINK on your node (commonly referred to as staking) helps with ranking your node against others. ***Your node will also need some LINK in order to bid on smart contracts with the penalty amount (<------THIS IS A CONTRADICTION OF THE LEADING STATEMENT)***. If the node is not selected to perform the job, or the node successfully completes the job, then it can retrieve that paid penalty amount.

if the token is actually needed on the network (ie. for bidding on contracts,) then that gives it an inherent value. right?

>>7995000
and saying that millions of LINK wont automatically help you be top ranked, so if your node isnt updated or has a bad reputation then it wont matter how much LINK you have. but they said diminishing returns referring to millions of LINK, most stinkers here only hold thousands. they might mean different things. to me theyre saying that the token has an actual utility. to my reading it sounds like the power of the token is in its ability to be used to bid across the network

>>7994856
I read LINK more into the second or thrid, LINK Is chained to ETH, you need to run GETH to run a chainlink node, see the FAQ.
So why not use ETH for the only real usecase: the penalty payments? You could also bind ETH to your node. You do not need LINK.

>>7995051
and if LINK is the currency used to pay out people for smart contract verification, it seems like those who are transferring this LINK into other currencies will have to negotiate on a price at some point for how much the token is actually worth. that faq doesnt touch on any of that. the scaleability of the tokens price is in the scaleability of the network and the actual amount of "transactions" that a node is capable of. given what ChainLink is trying to accomplish, this is not merely for financial transactions. they are the tip of the iceberg. thats why LINKers get so wet in the panties about it. simply the number of different applications, which go far beyond the realm of financial exchange. it is a way to verify true data. think about the amount of true data that needs to be verified in the world. it is the link between the chains. do you know what im saying?

the key here is the number of the use cases i believe

>>7995105
you could do that but theyre not doing that. theyre using LINK tokens. that is why it may be valuable. thats kindof the whole point here

>>7995168
read the text in the picutre that guy posted and you will know what im talking about

>>7995214
that would probably apply if link was not targeting multiple smart contract platforms. It is aimed to be blockchain agnostic, but this has not been realised yet.

>>7995257
Tt would need its own blockchain then and that is nowhere defined in the whitepaper raodmap website or wherever.

However blockchain agnostic doesnt mean that i think.
What i believe it means: You will be able to use the chainlink network that runs on ETH to write into smartcontracts on for example, the arc blockchain.

How many big macs can i buy with 1 lank?

>>7995311
the screenshot mentions enigma in tier 2, and link network will work in a similar fashion so I would say tier 2 it is.

>>7995105
>What are the hardware requirements for running the Ruby node?

At a minimum, a ChainLink node which is also running Geth (as a light client) should have:

2 Cores
4 GB RAM
16 GB Storage
>As we get closer to when the node network goes live, we'll be able to tell how adding hardware resources scales for a node's ability to complete more assignments.

i believe the token is portable to other blockchains anyway, but im not sure how that all works. so that last paragraph says that a node is scaleable using hardware in order to complete more tasks.

that must also mean (since the token is needed to bid on contracts) that it is also able to bid on more at once (otherwise how would it be able to complete more tasks without bidding on them). LINK token is needed to bid because of the penalty fee. so theoretically, the more LINK you have, the more tasks you can bid on at once, the more you can be accepted for and ergo the more you can complete. they did say there are diminishing returns but im not sure what they mean given the fact that you can expand your node capabilities. unsure on that and its a big point id like to see addressed.

now as more and more adoption happens across more use cases (which is literally the reason why LINK people want LINK), naturally a coin with a limited supply will payout less and less for each smart contract, right? it will go from 0.001 LINK a contract to maybe 0.0001 LINK a contract over time, because the "fee" will be the same in the sense of its "value" but the fraction of the token's numerical value in relation to that fee will change.

so if you hold many thousands of that token before that process begins to occur, eventually those zeros will start moving in the reverse direction for you, as the currency splits more and more through wider aoption, your portion of the token stays the same and therefore expands. this is because there is a limited number of tokens.

>>7995391
Is there any token portable to another blockchain yet?
Any how would you just run an entire network on another chain? Thats just insane. (deluded?)

>>7995214
LINK is needed to bid on contracts. its not just an arbitrary coin, thats the difference. yes it doesnt "need to exist" as a crypto itself, but its the token needed inside the network. the key is the network, and LINK tokens are the only thing that the network recognises as currency.

stop thinking about the coin, think about the network. youre missing the forest for the trees anon. the coin could be a total pile of shit, what matters is that it is called LINK and the ChainLink only allows LINK to be bid inside the network. the token doesnt actually matter.

>>7993337
just sold 100k

>>7995443
I am thinking about the network not the coin.
The project and network is great. The coin is useless and replaceable with ETH or any ERCxxx.

You just proved my point and pointed out what i said in the OP and my other posts the LINK token is useless shit.

>>7995432
it doesnt really matter though. LINK is just the token that the network recognizes, that is its value. nobody cares what it does as a coin or any of that, what blockchain it runs on, we just care that it is called LINK and you need LINK to bid on smart contracts on the CL network. its not the coin thats actually important. my understanding is that the LINK token doesnt neceserrily need ETH, it just uses it. nobody is talking about it having its own blockchain and shit, nobody gives a fuck about blockchains, blockchains are for babies compared to what this network does. its about the link between the chains. you tards keep fixating on the token youre missing the whole chainlink thing

>>7995485
youre misinterpreting what im saying. youre just making up a hypothetical and saying yeah they COULD accept this. i COULD go try to trade my neighbour his car for a 3 day old cabbage. i COULD do that, but he wont accept it.

you COULD try to use eth or any other ERCxxx to bid on smartcontracts on the ChainLink network, but you cant, because they dont accept them. they accept LINK

>>7994737
You're spot on. The more tokens you have, the more money you will make. Compound interest. I'm posting from mobile so won't get into the details now, but that's how its gonna be basicly. The only limitation will be the amount of links you have or the amount of existing assignments (in the beginning of the life of the network, or if you're a super whale, then you split your links into multiple nodes like the guys from linkpool will do)

>>7995485
miss out for all i give a fuck, though, i dont really care, its a risky investment and im prepared to lose everything ive put in. i know fuckall about IT at the end of the day, but i do understand human motivations. look around you. look at the state of this board right now. ask yourself why. all of my points i made are me trying to figure out why, and to me it makes sense that its because the token is the exclusive token that the chainlink network recognizes as currency. so if you believe in the network and not the token i dont know what to say about that.

>>7995539
i will be staking some with a trustworthy company like that that will diversify my LINKs across many nodes, thats probably my plan.

>>7995485
You are useless you retard. You could say that about any token (that it could be replaced by eth or btc). No one is gonna spend years of hard work and millions of dollars on a project that uses some outside token you fucking faggot. The devs and community need to have a stake in the project to push development etc

>>7995504
What if they do tho? What if someone forks it like in that picture described >>7994856

>>7995570
I believe sirgay said something about possibly accepting ETH too.
I doubt it would be impossible for nodes to just start accepting any other currency from the ETH network. its decentralized after all.

>>7995539
it doesnt compound. Its not like the earnings from operation will exponentially grow the more tokens you have, you may just be more likely to be selected to perform that job.

>>7995601
like any fork, you need the inventive for the node operators to move over or it won't work.

>>7995621
Bs. You'll be able to bid on more assignments the more tokens you have FOR COLLATERAL. Stop getting hung up on this reputation thing. It's not gonna matter that much. It's the amount of collateral you can provide

>>7995601
because the developers are being paid in LINK and people in generally really really really like money

>>7994737
Anon, you're not a brainlet compared to 95% of /biz/. You got it right.

But I'll sum it down for the real brainlets.

>Have a node with 100k LINK
>Average penalty fee of contracts are 10k LINK
>Someone operating a node with 0 LINK won't get many contracts, if any
>After one day you've won 5 contracts, and 50k of your LINK is locked up as collateral
>You still get to bid on other contracts, meanwhile someone with 50k LINK would just have to stand by and wait until one or more of the existing contracts expired before he could take on more assignments

>>7995601
yeah but why would you pay node operators in ETH when you have LINK? that means that each smartcontract personally costs the developers money. they dont have heaps of ETH, they have heaps of LINK to pay for the contracts people with. why would they buy ETH and pay it to people for using their network

>>7995601
so im saying its not about what they accept, its also about what they pay out. a nightmare scenario for me would be if they accepted another token for bidding, but at the end of the day theyd still be paying out LINK, which means that the people operating the nodes need to believe that LINK is valuable. an extremely diverse number of industries will be operating many nodes, which will theoretically in that scenario provide the LINK with some type of inherent value, otherwise why the hell would you run a node to be only paid LINK if you didnt think it had any value. chainlink cant just pay cunts in ETH to settle contracts, they dont have the ETH to give people and it seems irrational to buy it just to do so when you invented this token for the purpose of that called LINK. its a bit circular.

>>7995601
>lets fork ethereum and start accepting every other current possible
I'm sure it will work The entire strength of the project like this is the community, network, people running nodes. All that needs to be incentivized. Look at the johny guy from linkpool he is active, creates adaptors etc because HE HAS SKIN IN THE GAME. That's how this bussines works and its a beautiful thing to watch

>>7995845
Currency*

>>7995845
Talking about the code and LINK, not ETH.

>>7995715
Its easier to buy Ether than it is to buy, also cheaper (minimal fees but still)
I'm just talking about the possibility.
I would not have any of these doubts if LINK ran its own blockchain and was the native token.
I would be all in then.

>>7995813
so it seems like if the network has value, the token which that network either accepts of pays out has value also. dont forget that the people and companies who want the smart contract resolved are the ones actually paying a real world fee to chainlink, and that fee translates directly into LINK, whether or not LINK is exclusively accepted in the network for bidding, because it is the reward for resolving the contract. they cant just pay out ETH or some other shit when they dont have it to give out. it would deincentivize the entire enterprise. so if sergey accepts ETH or even fiat per smartcontract by the actual "real world" boots on the ground customers, hoards all that value himself and pays out a useless token to the node operators, they wont want to run nodes. he needs them to operate the nodes otherwise he has no network. he needs to ensure that LINK tokens have inherent value. he will do so by making them a requirement within the network because thats what hes paying every cunt with. know what i mean

>>7995949
forget about the coin and that side of it is how i look at it. LINK tokens are a "currency within the network", the network has value, so the currency used within it must also be valuable to incentivize network operators. it is the backbone of it. i know what youre saying about the coin and that would normally apply to some shitcoin, but its not a shitcoin, its this whole crazy network for smartcontracts with nodes and adapters and all this shit. i think youre fixating on the wrong part of the project. youre using the wrong format and language to scrutinize it. what you say would be applicable if it was just a coin but thats like looking at a dollar bill and saying fuck paper is not worth hardly anything. youre forgetting that youre standing on planet earth and there is a gigantic network surrounding what this currency represents.

>>7996032
at the end of the day, if chainlink is to actually operate as a network, they need to have some way of making the token valuable.

the way i see their business model seems to be:

either a)
1 Customer pays Sergey contract fee ($$$)
2 Sergey pays Node Operator LINK to resolve contract
4 Sergey now has $$$ (his goal as a businessman), Node Operator has LINK
5 Nope Operator tries to convert LINK to $$$
6 Nobody buys it and it is worth $0
7 Nobody runs a Node anymore
8 ChainLink dead

or scenario b)
1 Customer pays Sergey contract fee (LINK)
2 Sergey pays Node Operator LINK to resolve contract
4 Sergey now has LINK (sergey wants $$$), Node Operator also has LINK
5 Nope Operator tries to convert LINK to $$$
6 Somebody buys it because they need it to pay Sergey to resolve their smartcontract
7 Peopel run Nodes because you can turn LINK into $$$ like alchemy
8 Token price expands as network traffic increases because there is a limited supply of the token and it must be cut into ever smaller chunks to accomodate a larger number of transactions (if it costs 1 LINK per smartcontract, they will only ever be able to resolve a limited number of contracts. no, the amount of LINK paid over time will become a smaller and smaller decimal, and this will continue along an exact curve of how many transactions actually take place. the longer you hold your 1 LINK (if chainlink network is open), the more valuable it will get as a simple fact of mathematics. never mind the speculation that will occur on the coin)
9 anons original stack is now worth more $$$ because the 0's of this decimal action now move in his favour relative to his supply of LINK

whether sergey likes it or not, he has to make his customers pay in LINK or he cant incentivize his node operators. otherwise it would literally cost him money to run chainlink instead of making him money.

>>7995677
before calling BS, inform yourself.

the whole reputation system is the sole mechanism for how nodes are selected to pick a task, and if youre being paid say 1 LINK for a certain job, then the collateral is not going to be around the same.

the way a node is selected is completely down to the user who wants the data and I doubt that people will care about how much LINK is on a node as long as its got enough for the collateral.

doesnt matter anyway you put it, its never going to compound

>>7996312
in other words, chainlink will be able to actually make its coin more valuable just by operating as a network. because its not just a coin, it is a function, chainlink actually WORKS, ie. performs labour that is actually demanded within industries. as chainlink does its job (resolve smartcontracts), the token price will increase as a result. this is just maths. a traditional crypto only computates and performs cycles to suit its own existence (to verify its own ledger). chainlink nodes compute to perform real world labour, this is why it is so goddamn awesome.

LINK lets ERC20 do the pointless labour. they dont care about that shit. they have transcended blockchains theyre going to do actual real computing work required by real industries

>>7996587
let us refrain from saying it is an ERC20, cause the function comes from it being ERC677

>>7996452
>if youre being paid say 1 LINK for a certain job, then the collateral is not going to be around the same.
id like to have a source if youre going to just make statements like that. if i was to guess id assume it would be identical or a tiny bit more otherwise an error would cost the customer or chainlink and thats retarded.

its like an auction where it costs money to raise your hand, if you dont win the bid you get your money back, but not until someone else wins the bid. the more LINK you have means the more auctions you can attend simultaneously. thats what your little LINKies actually do when you stake them, they go out and bid on contracts for you. you need heaps of troops to send out to get the most amount of contracts.

>>7996619
so we say ERC677? why has everyone been saying ERC20?

>>7996817
because you dont bid for assignments, you simply get selected if you meet the criteria and then the nodes which get used are picked by random from the ones which meet the criteria.

its in the white paper..

>>7996619
>ERC677
its not since ERC677 is NOT finished stop spewing fake news
http://blockchainers.org/index.php/tag/erc-677/
https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/677#issuecomment-353871138

>Sergey created a decentralized secure token that has no purpose whatsoever
yeah, nah

>>7996855
line 67:
> https://etherscan.io/address/0x514910771af9ca656af840dff83e8264ecf986ca#code

fucking brainlet

>>7996840
you need collateral to meet criteria in the first place, so I don't see your point

more links = more money to be made

why the hell do people care so much that people buy LINK?

>>7996840
>The order-matching smart contract takes a proposed service level agreement,
logs the SLA parameters, and collects bids from oracle providers.
>The submission
of the proposal to the order-matching contract triggers a log that oracle providers can
5
monitor and filter based on their capabilities and service objectives. ChainLink nodes
then choose whether to bid on the proposal or not, with the contract only accepting
bids from nodes that meet the SLA’s requirements.
>When an oracle service provider
bids on a contract, they commit to it, specifically by attaching the penalty amount
that would be lost due to their misbehavior, as defined in the SLA.
>Bids are accepted for the entirety of the bidding window. Once the SLA has
received enough qualified bids and the bidding window has ended, the requested
number of oracles is selected from the pool of bids.
>Penalty payments that were
offered during the bidding process are returned to oracles who were not selected, and
a finalized SLA record is created. W
actually no.

>>7996898
the point being that it doesnt compound.

you could say I only want nodes which has over X LINK but I want the collateral to be Y LINK

>>7996889
try sending your link to a contract address and see what happens, mr bigbrain

>>7996917
formatting got all fucked up. but thats like 4 instances in the whitepaper and i got bored of looking after that many

>>7996917
ok so wrong with bidding, but how does that mean youre compounding exactly?

>>7996933
based on how contracts work in the alpha, im also inclined to believe what you've quoted isnt what it will actually work like

>>7996918
how does it not compound? if having a stack of link means that you make more link just by having it, then that is compounding. youre actually just making shit up right now

>>7997000
because the numbers are going to be tiny. there won't be any difference on a node between having 50k to 100k, youre not going to put forward thousands in collateral.

Having a higher amount means a chance to earn a higher ROI, but you can't say you'll earn 5% on top of 5% on top of 5%, it won't work that way.

>>7996952
lets say it takes:
1000 LINKS to make 1000 bids
of those 1000 you win 10
you now own 1010 LINKS
so now you can use 1010 LINKS to make 1010 bids
of those 1010 you win 11
Now you have 1021 LINKS to make 1021 bids
and so on and so on

see what people are talking about is staking the LINKS, not just holding them. they wouldnt do shit if you just held them except follow the price. most linkies want to stake in the future thats why they want them

>>7997000
this
it does compund.
Let's say you can bid on 10 assignments today
after you get paid and your collateral is unlocked you can bid on let's say 12 assignments, then 15, 20, 30
it's like with neo and gas, except with Link you have to do actual work
>>7997053

ok no one meant it in the mathematical way to be exact, sometimes it's gonna be more then compound, sometimes less

>>7997089
that isnt compounding, its just an higher chance to receive jobs.
>>7997100
you can't say compounding and then say no one meant compounding by its definition man

>>7997131
dude, it's semantics, don't be such a purist lol
the point remains the same
The more link tokens you have The more money you make, I don't care if it's gonna be linear, parabolic or whatever, the point is people will want to have as many tokens as possible to make more money and take full advantage of the electricity/node/labour costs to maximize profits, and If they run out of assignments to bid with 1 node they will open up a new one.

>>7993337
because it's biz great pump, an army of bots and retards, dedicated to pumping a coin literally nobody in the crypto world cares about.

ITT: linkies coping with delusion

>>7997173
so you also think that they'll be an unlimited amount jobs on the network which your node meets the criteria of? So like if you had 100k, you could bid on 100k jobs which your node meets the criteria of? I dont think so.

I'd also guarantee that if you accepted 100k jobs, your node would be crashing pretty instantly and also loosing you that 100k

>>7997053
bro you didnt even read the white paper then tried to tell me to read it like you had. you didnt even know about the bidding, you dont understand the utility of the coin, you dont even know what its used for, you dont know what youre doing here. you dont deserve to be poor because youre stupid, you deserve to be poor because of how arrogant you are. i honestly hope to god you dont buy any link

>>7997131
alright lets call it expanding then. still works for me

>>7997260
bro I got one schematic wrong based on my own analysis of the implementation, something which still could turn out to be true.

dont go all crazy defensive cause you dont have anything to refute my latest points.

>>7997285
marines in arms, were all gonna be rich

>>7997218
yes, keep telling us all you know about the project, oh wise one. its like you dont understand that time is a thing.

you think theres just one set of contracts and if you miss out on that one lot then awwwwww no more contracts. see theres this shit called time and as it passes, new things happen. as a result, yes, as long as chainlink is operating as a network there will essentially be an "unlimited" number of contracts. because of the time thing. see we can also use time to develop nodes so that they are more capable of performing a wider variety of tasks if we wanted to.

youre bringing what is an obvious example (100k) and saying hurrrr the node will crash. it was an example to help your peabrain understand the maths. i bet you butt in on people in the middle of jokes and try to correct them, thinking youre being really smart but missing the point entirely

>>7997218
maybe in the beginning there won't be too many assignments but as the network epands and gains clients/customers I doubt you'll be able to even reach the point of diminishing returns, unless Sergey puts a cap on the amount of tokens staked on 1 node to prevent centraliation, but then you just open up a new node.
It also boils down to how many nodes will average contract creator demand, I guess it will depend on the importance of the contract/assignments.
I woner tho how will the node competition play out over time. Normally in mining competition, small miners get killed by huge facilities maximizing profits/lowering costs, but with running chainlink node you can actually have an advantage over some future huge node facilities by working from the start and having a track record of good reputation/uptime etc and also acquiring a lot of tokens while they are cheap. Big guys usually don't jump in until something is a safe bet, and by the time it's a safe bet link tokens will be way more expensive

>>7997314
yeah damn, i wish i could refute your points.

>>7997314
ah i think i get how youre so confused now. this cunt actually thinks there is a limited number of "contracts", like "big joe down the street, he runs the insurance racket. he got the contract right at the beginning and now he handles all the insurance contracts, the lucky bastard". no. each contract is just a computation, they happen many many many times a second. you dont own some chunk of the market permanantly like youre under contract to a company or something. god almighty. i understand cunts wanting to learn but dont try to teach please if youre this unfamiliar. you should be ashamed of yourself that someone who knows as little as i do about this actually knows more about it than you when youre so sure of yourself. thats really bad man

All I "node" is this convo makes me realise I am gonna make a bunch of Jack off this investment. You all carry on though!

I see a lot of people just parroting people online who say only buy "platform currency" because tokens are shit, not realizing they imply that some tokens are not shit, including Vitalik.

>>7997517
lol thats where you're fucking wrong.

contracts can be single API requests, or computations whatever you brainlets like to say. These requests will be quick fire yes, and may only be one time calls based on a single event in a contract.

or you can have contracts which are scheduled for years and you will have your collateral in for years. Just like how the contracts on the old mainnet had expiry dates. You are paid in portion based on the % of the contract which has been executed.

>>7997715
dont lol me you fucking dunce. just because a contract is scheduled for years doesnt mean your node wins the bid every time. if it was how you say it is then it wouldnt be decentralized. if nodes were guaranteed to get a task then they can be attacked. that is specifically the attack vector they are trying to prevent with decentralization. duh. another mong who didnt do his homework...

>>7998223
so if your node cant be guaranteed to get a specific task, you cant own a share of the market just because youve been there the longest. if you want to just stake everything that way you can do that as an option but its not an intelligent way to stake. why stake everything in a linear fashion and lock up all your funds when you can spread it all out on current tasks. id draw you a diagram but i cant be fuct.

>>7998304
the upshot of this is that the node operator who actually works hardest will win the most bids, because he wont have his LINK locked up in tasks that will not be triggered for a long time. he can move them around to bid on more current or imminent tasks that dont have a trigger weeks in the future. its actually quite clever. the whole thing is pretty elegant i learned a lot just arguing with fags here and referring back to the whitepaper. good thread. im not usually so rude im just overtired at the moment.

>>7995677
>Stop getting hung up on this reputation thing.

But the reputation is the cornerstone of the whole decentralised system? It is the value proposition for intermediaries and API economy. It's all about unlocking off chain assets. Sorry I'm in LINK myself for a few bucks but I'm not getting the value of the tokens here at all? INB4 why did you buy any? I'm in for a few hunbdred quid is all because the tech proposition is intriguing and useful.

Maybe its better viewed as a traditional share holding in sc.com / link network?

>>7998531
the reputation is necessary to be eligible for a contract. the token is used to obtain the contract. the more tokens you have, the more contracts you can bid on simultaneously, meaning the more contracts you can resolve, meaning the more you get paid out.

reputation is like a driving licence but having a drivers licence doesnt mean driving is free

>>7998531
reputation is important, but a shitload of tokens will only raise your reputation so much. Uptime, data corectness etc are more important for reputation. Tokens are important for collateral

and if you don't see the value of the token you didn't read/understand the thread

>>7998531
reputation is important, but a shitload of tokens will only raise your reputation so much. Uptime, data corectness etc are more important for reputation. Tokens are important for collateral

and if you don't see the value of the token you didn't read/understand the thread

>>7998585

>>7998531
of think of it more in terms of a boat having a fishing licence... each employee who works for that business operates under that licence, not every fisherman needs to have a fishing licence they just work for the boss. your LINKies are your nets, your reputation is your boat, you send them out to bid, but since you hold the licence, they represent you. see reputation is either a thing you have or do not have. you cant have 20000 reputations. you only need one. but you want a shitload of nets

>>7998531
anons need to be clear that we are specifically talking about making money staking or operating a node. the coin price itself will have other speculative factors that we arent necessarily talking about here.

>>7998223
lololololol

not one node would be assigned for years, many would be.

>>7998788
yes. exactly. youre proving my point for me without knowing it

>>7998852
give over mate, you're going round in circles trying to win brownie points for trying to be right. You got proven wrong on compounding, now youre just trying to gain back some dignity.

>>7993491
Seems like a pretty brave assumption to me. Why would they do so given the abstract nature of smart contracts and oracles? Do yo uthink tyour average Joe will be tuned in to oracles and decentralized data? fuck NO

The need for liquidity is what can give the ones in your wallet value, node operators can still run a node with 0 link if they want. It's another angle unless you plan to stake yourself.

>>7998740
wrong... Again

>>7998941
for
>>7998531

>>7998948
Care to elaborate? Ah, I know, you can't because you're a clueless fag.

>>7998882
youre really really confused anon. im serious.

>>7999007
Top fucking kek

reputation is an open source system that will be defined by the community by contracts they create using a standard defined by CL.

an end-user specifies how they want reputation to be calculated, which will then give you a list of nodes which will most likely selected by random.

Fucking screencap this and come back to me when the main-net launches.

>>7998882
>You got proven wrong on compounding
just because mathematically it's not the exact same corelation as it is in neo-gas case doesn't mean the idea is invalid. On average it will be a compound interest, maybe not in the beginning but later on with more requests it will

>>7998928
do you think the average joe has any idea about decentralization/bad actors/incentives/consensus ? I guarantee you they have no idea whatsover yet they bought into btc/eth, they will buy into smart contracts/oracles too

>>7999095
i actually should screencap you

>claims to know what decentralized means
>believes that oracles "may be" selected randomly
think about that for a second... what is the alternative to randomly selected? oh, i guess it must be non-randomly selected. what is the purpose of decentralization? it's to avoid that very thing, the non-random selecting of nodes. why? because if a node is pre-selected for a given task, that task and node can be identified and targeted for attack.

do you know how TOR works? it is a similar thing, it is a process of decoupling the specific computation from the identity of the node. that is what makes it impossible to attack, that you cant predict which node will perform which task.

this is the point of chainlink anon. youre so ass-backwards on this its not even funny. it wouldnt be so bad if you werent such a rude cunt. youre smugnorant

>>7999095
So you're saying everyone thinking they're going to be stinky linky whales are going to be btfo?

>>7999095
You need to go back.

>>7999383
you didnt get what I said at all.

end-user defines a contract and wants nodes which meet criteria X,Y,Z.

the reputation contract gives back a list of nodes which meet criteria X,Y,Z and then the contract will pick by random which nodes are used.

if that wasnt random and it was the best node wins, then theres 0 incentive to start a node as the big nodes just get bigger.

>>7999476
im 100% convinced that youre a master troll at this point

>>7999476
you can always undercut other nodes with lower prices to make up for the lack of track record/reputation