iExec RLC vs LINK

[Anonymous No.14545653]

____iExec RLC____
Oracle Solution+ Decentralized Cloud Computing Marketplace + Data Marketplace
>Marketcap- ~30M

>Total Supply- 86,999,785 RLC
>Circulating- 80,070,793 RLC
>Developer holding- ~6,700,000 RLC(12.9%supply)
>Dev funds haven't moved for 489 days.
>Mainnet active.
>Great partnerships/collaborations
>Never talked about outside of /biz/.
____________________
____LINK____
Decentralized Oracle Solution
>Marketcap- ~1.2B

>Total Supply- 1,000,000,000 LINK
>Circulating-350,000,000 LINK
>Developer holding- 650,000,000(65%supply)
>Dev funds have moved within the past 24 hours, to Binance, and were sold.
>Mainnet active.
>Great partnerships/collaborations
>Talked about often outside of /biz/.

These are the cold facts. Tell me which you think is a better investment.

[Anonymous No.14545679]

LINK, unironically. But RLC could give 10x gains if we had another alt season.

[Anonymous No.14545720]

>>14545679
Can you elaborate why?

[Anonymous No.14545769]

>>14545720
RLC is way more risky than LINK.

[Anonymous No.14545781]

>>14545769
Can you explain shortly why iExec is risky compared to LINK when comparing these facts?

[Anonymous No.14545859]

>>14545781
LINK is already listed on Coinbase, iExec has only 1m daily volume.

[Anonymous No.14545911]

>>14545859
Coinbase listing isn't very impressive considering some of the coins listed on there are...suspect to say the least.
iExec's volume is interesting to me. Yes it's low. That's why it's interesting given the facts about the project.

It is definitely "risky" to invest in something low volume, but with risk comes gains. I just fear LINK is out of its high-gain potential stage, especially given something like iExec RLC came along and made oracles + all of the other stuff it's capable of.

[Anonymous No.14545917]

>>14545859
.... which means a small whale could literally 3-5x it at any point..... which means its most likely one announcement from a serious moon mission

[Anonymous No.14546031]

I'm almost loading a mini-stack of RLC but first i have to know: is the team still active? they actually are coding or just spending ICO funds like REQ team is doing?

I really don't trust anything that comes from France

[Anonymous No.14546050]

>>14545917
This is another thing. I don't think LINK will easily be able to 3-5x off of a single announcement or within a short period of time because of the marketcap. It's going to be a very slow burn if it continues going up. Potential gains are quite low from this point on.

I think iExec could 10x in a week multiple times over off of a crazy announcement like Google or Coinbase and you would still have time to go back to LINK if you really believed in LINK over RLC.

[Anonymous No.14546082]

>>14546031
Crazy active. About as active as ive seen seen i started investing in the space. Consistently delivering ahead of schedule on their road map

[Anonymous No.14546104]

>>14546031
>is the team still active?
Very active. Probably one of the most active teams in crypto. They update their github consistently.
>they actually are coding or just spending ICO funds like REQ team is doing
They haven't touched the ICO funds for anything except reinvesting back into iExec. The team released an article stating they would liquidate 100k ETH to keep RLC alive if they had to. That's how much they believe in it.

RLC is very different from REQ. In both use cases and teams.

[Anonymous No.14546210]

green id or numbers and i swing all my link to rlc

[Anonymous No.14546242]

>>14546210
Congrats on your insane gains.
How many RLC are you gonna buy? I want to watch the order pop up

[Anonymous No.14546371]

>bought at the top again

EVERY TIME

[Anonymous No.14546391]

>>14546210
Damn fren, money green

[Anonymous No.14546463]

Buy le baguette up to 10$ sirs. Dr. Ranjeet Comfyer coming soon

[Anonymous No.14546684]

>>14546371
If you're talking about LINK...yeah maybe. RLC is pretty much near the bottom if I've ever seen a bottom.

[Anonymous No.14546707]

>>14546684
Some charts don't have a bottom

[Anonymous No.14546788]

>>14546684
RLC
i just buy 100 of ever coin shilled until something moons
a smart investor i am not

[Anonymous No.14546796]

>>14545769

RLC is literally REQ tier.

[Anonymous No.14546804]

>>14546707
I think it's relative to the perceived value and potential use cases/potential adoption.
From my 5 years in crypto, I've seen many bottoms. This looks like a very good spot to buy RLC.

iExec really has no real competitors from what I can see. They are very far ahead. The reason why it's dropping is unknown, but the iExec team has alluded to thinking it's whale manipulation, which is bullish as fuck. I think RLC might 3x randomly quite soon.

[Anonymous No.14546828]

>>14546788
I wouldn't worry about small 10% swings in the short term. RLC's long value is extremely high.
>>14546796
Not from my research and understanding. REQ is "paypal 2.0" and RLC is "cloud computing 2.0". Big difference.

[Anonymous No.14546844]

Does anybody actually hold RLC?

[Anonymous No.14546864]

>>14546104
The team released an article stating they would liquidate 100k ETH to keep RLC alive

Can you elaborate on that where can I find the article

[Anonymous No.14546923]

>>14546864
Sorry I should rephrase, they "alluded" to liquidating a huge amount of their ETH to fight manipulation. It's incredibly bullish, IMO.

https://medium.com/iex-ec/rlc-token-state-of-the-exchanges-a2554a242d42

It's a very good read, too.

[Anonymous No.14547132]

With 75% trading volume exclusive to Binance, is the RLC team working to get listed on other exchanges? Come September, when us burgers are blocked from Binance, we would face liquidity issues.

[Anonymous No.14547165]

>>14547132
Yep. While it's not 100% certain that binance will not allow burgers to trade RLC, Gilles has said that they are working on getting it back on US exchanges and is the number 1 priority.

It's also on DEX's and shit. Nonetheless I have a lot of faith in this team to get it back for burgers.

[Anonymous No.14547225]

DOS Netowrk is a better oracle provider solution and its mkt cap is:

listen closely

..ahem..

1,5 mill

thats the real moonshot everyone should be going for but they are too lazy to go to the exchanges that trade it. by the time poorfags catch on this it will be 30x now and hitting major xchanges (they just got approved to swap from ERC-20 to binance chain)

[Anonymous No.14547289]

>>14547165
I just saw the medium article you provided just after I posted. Good read and shows the team is tackling the issue. Thx anon

[Anonymous No.14547291]

>>14547225
I'm going to tell you a few simple reasons why I won't take a risk with this coin.
>Incredibly new/untested/literal who team
>Extremely underdeveloped in comparison to iExec, will get eaten alive
>All asian team (high chance for asian exit scam)
>basically copying iExec and not providing a better product

[Anonymous No.14547321]

>>14547289
Any time dude. Make sure you buy soon. It looks like it might take off.

[Anonymous No.14547327]

>>14545653
>Dev funds have moved within the past 24 hours, to Binance
its actually true lol

a dev directly dumped 800k link on binance 8hrs ago
an easy $2.5m

>>14546796
link is actually reqtier
a neat idea thats actually just complicated ethereum middleware
theres actually tech behind iexec thats based on grid computing

>>14547225
>oracle provider
oracle just means API requester/parser. in chainlinks/others case its their entire business model. in iexecs case its just a dapp. golem is building their own oracles too. its nothing special techwise...

[Anonymous No.14547355]

>>14547327
>based on grid computing
Yeah, I didn't want to go into super-specific details. iExec fog computing is going to be the gamechanger.

Also, very funny how LINK is only doing oracles and other coins are doing oracles + a million other applications. I think LINK is way overvalued, and is only this value because of the coinbase/google thing.

[Anonymous No.14547495]

>>14547327
The site says you spend rlc to access iexecs resources or rent computing power. Could you give me a couple real use cases that I (or somebody) would need iexecs resources. What would I be trying to accomplish that I (or a business) needed to use iexec or rent computing power?

[Anonymous No.14547689]

>>14547495
Lets take EDF + iExec partnership for example.
>EDF reportedly stands to benefit from increased network resilience, performance, and transparency by choosing to work using the blockchain solution provided by iExec.

Lets take it a step further in saying that they could also eventually use an iExec powered AI to solve for extremely complicated data-driven issues as well as having instant access to an extremely powerful, secure, and cheap alternative to setting up an entire GPU farm + team of scientists to run the tests. Imagine having the opportunity to utilize a huge secure farm of GPUs for extremely cheap vs having to set up your own farm(huge upfront costs) or use a centralized one that is prone to many issues like security and tampering.

This is just one example of many potential use cases of iExec...This is like investing in a new technology the world has never seen before. We've literally never been able to do this before. It's just going to take a few years for the world to catch up.

[Anonymous No.14547997]

>>14547689
Maybe selling energy is weird to me because I'm American and don't get to chose who I pay for gas electric and other shit like that. But I think what you're saying is that power company may want to do... something (I still don't know what the hell they would need a gpu farm for if they just give people cheaper gas) but let's say they need some massive computing power, they could rent the actual hardware without needing the hardware in terms of processing power from iexec?

I just need to know what any individual or company would need huge gpu farms for. What specific data needs that much processing? I want to dig this cloud computing idea but what application needs you farms for cheap and short periods of time?

[Anonymous No.14548168]

>>14547997
It's not really "selling energy". It's more "buying computations" ala carte.

>I still don't know what the hell they would need a gpu farm for
They would use the GPU farm to run a ton of tests to further optimize their systems and such. Better optimized = more potential profits.

>they could rent the actual hardware without needing the hardware in terms of processing power from iexec?
Essentially, that is what iExec is. It's "hardware on demand" for companies that need instant access to massive CPU/GPU farms. For whatever reasons. Also for datasets, AI, dApps, and other shit. It's extremely secure, verifiable, transparent, and cheap.

>I just need to know what any individual or company would need huge gpu farms for.
For running massive data-set oriented tests, running AI to help optimize their businesses, using GPU farms to run physics tests, and whatever computational-heavy thing they need.

[Anonymous No.14548205]

>>14545653
>french
no thanks

[Anonymous No.14548220]

>>14546050
>10x in a week multiple times over off of a crazy announcement like Google or Coinbase
hey pal you new here?

[Anonymous No.14548236]

>>14547355
Doing one thing really well to become a standard is not a meme

[Anonymous No.14548249]

>>14547291
Its 1.5 million market cap...

$100 now could net $100k given a $100,000,000 market cap

you really dont want to risk $100 kek

[Anonymous No.14548263]

>>14546082
The trick?
Already have things developed ahead of time before putting it on roadmap. So it seems like they're productive on something that probably didn't take them too long.

[Anonymous No.14548347]

>>14547997
I work for a university and we have a GPU farm in our datacenter for shit like protein sequencing.

[Anonymous No.14548365]

>>14545653
The one that's currently being endorsed by nearly a hundred different shitcoins, Google, Oracle, Salesforce, Docusign, has been mentioned in a book about the 4th industrial revolution, and has one of the most solid team of advisors backing it than any other in crypto. I'm not a big enough fan of DBZ to be fooled by iExec's medium article begging for attention.

[Anonymous No.14548378]

>>14548220
No.
>>14548236
What if I told you LINK doesn't do oracles "really well" in comparison to RLC? What if I told you LINK wasn't even the first to do decentralized oracles?

>>14548249
Yeah, I get it. Give a tiny amount of money and pray to the sky it reaches 100M. I foresee that team exit scamming after realizing the scope of the teams they plan to take on.

[Anonymous No.14548442]

>>14548378
>LINK wasn't even the first to do decentralized oracles

LYFT wasnt the first rideshare service and look at it now. UBER is SHIT

[Anonymous No.14548532]

>>14548365
Both teams have incredible partnerships/collabs.
The big difference is the marketcaps + potential.
I think iExec has more room to run in these areas. LINK has exhausted a lot of potential and has a big marketcap because of it. Meanwhile, iExec has so much more, especially when you consider the additional scope of what iExec is capable of. LINK might have some more room to run based on hype, but don't ignore RLC...unless you hate money.

[Anonymous No.14548721]

Watch this video and understand why iExec might be used in some step of the way towards the world becoming autonomous and futuristic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5N2Jl8k14

[Anonymous No.14548752]

>>14548168
Okay this sounds good. What exchange do I get it?

[Anonymous No.14548783]

>>14548532
And what are they doing to get clients other than post medium articles with buzzfeed tier gifs? Are they actually going out and making connections with companies or just sending shills like you out to try and pump the price?

[Anonymous No.14548838]

>>14548752
Binance.
>>14548783
They're definitely making connections. They are partnered with many multibillion dollar companies. When this tech gets slightly more mature it's going to take off in the singularity event. v4 and v5 are less than a year away. v4 is in december and v5 will be ~6 months after. Who knows what partnerships they will have by then.

Read about v5 and you'll start to see the picture more.

[Anonymous No.14548878]

>does three things. Maybe more. Who knows?
>does one thing well.

Nigga plz

[Anonymous No.14548943]

>>14548838
To add, iExec is also capable of AI and robotics. Realize that with everything else we know about today's world.
Do you understand how fucking much money is involved in AI?
It's actually insane that no one talks about this. AI is going to be the vehicle that rapidly changes our world for the better.

Imagine being a company that doesn't utilize AI vs the ones that do.
You would get BTFO before you knew it.

Those companies could be using iExec for almost no real upfront costs.
Then imagine the norman using iExec AI services to start businesses, create inventions, or whatever imaginable...and that's just AI. It does so much more. That's why I'm betting on iExec to have insane gains vs LINK, especially given the info in the OP.

[Anonymous No.14548960]

>>14548878
See you have it wrong.
>does one thing well
>does one thing well + an infinite amount of other potential usecases + isn't at risk of a dev-exit scam because the team doesn't own 65% of the coins

[Anonymous No.14549035]

>>14548960
>muh exit scam
People say bsv can do all this shit too. Why not buy some of that?

[Anonymous No.14549085]

>>14549035
I really don't think bsv can do everything iExec can do. When someone can ask a robot for a task and have it verified then I'll be worried. I'm not sure if you've done a lot of research on iExec but consider doing it to understand the massive scope of possibilities.

[Anonymous No.14549086]

>>14548943
Yeah, this is sounding more and more sweet.
>>14549035
Though this is probably a good question. People have been digging bsv.

[Anonymous No.14549121]

>>14549085
>>14549086
So with robots (a thing I have looked into a lot as I'm in the food industry equipping new restaurants and installing the shit) and robotics is going to change the game fucking fast. My boss won't listen even when I bring him news and data and all that shit. If iexec can be rented for robots with any use it's a no fucking brainier.

[Anonymous No.14549133]

Damn this is a sad thread done by a nolinker, if you had any insight you would know why link is better

[Anonymous No.14549154]

>>14548838
>They are partnered with many multibillion dollar companies.
Name them.

[Anonymous No.14549192]

>>14549154
Alibaba ibm Intel Ubisoft EDF TFCloud

[Anonymous No.14549211]

>>14549086
It's very sweet when you begin to understand. It's very awesome to me that people still haven't caught on yet as it gives me ample time to get my positions. Billionaires aren't made overnight(mostly).

>>14549086
Like I said, I don't see BSV doing what iExec is doing. iExec is very focused on computing.


I could talk about robotics and AI forever. Love the hypothetical applications.

>If iexec can be rented for robots with any use it's a no fucking brainier.

This is definitely a future I see. Decentralized rentable robots/AI and also autonomously ran AI/robots for a plethora of things. Cleaning bots, truck driver bots, delivery bots, food bots, programmer bots, etc.

What if we eventually have decentralized corporations?
Where does this shit really end?

[Anonymous No.14549236]

>>14546828
>REQ is "paypal 2.0"
Lurk more newfag

[Anonymous No.14549237]

>>14549192
Yep, these are the main ones. I'm sure there's other very big companies. I mean, the French government even endorsed them.

https://medium.com/iex-ec/iexec-selected-as-a-winner-of-the-investment-for-the-future-programme-by-bpi-a-french-public-45d486d317fd

[Anonymous No.14549245]

>>14549154
This version chasing stuff is a massive red flag. And anything that claims to do more than one thing. Soz I was just trolling before, but thanks for the sincere replies.
T. All in link

[Anonymous No.14549247]

>>14546082
Fuck you Gilles

[Anonymous No.14549250]

>>14549236
Listen, I'm sorry you lost your money or are holding bags. I get it. I've been there a few times. Who knows though, maybe REQ will eventually be worth billions. Anything can happen.
>implying it isn't marketed as paypal 2.0
It's pretty obvious my dude...

[Anonymous No.14549253]

>>14545653
I'm convinced. I'm gonna buy an 86k stack

[Anonymous No.14549283]

>>14549245
It's not version chasing. Every version is significantly updated, and the first 2 versions didn't really matter and were more of development milestones.

V4 and V5 are the versions you should be looking at.

>And anything that claims to do more than one thing
What do you mean by this? iExec is capable of a shit-ton of things. It's all been shown...

[Anonymous No.14549313]

>>14549283
Doing lots of different things just suggests to me that they don't know what problem they're trying to solve.

[Anonymous No.14549335]

>>14549250
Lmao REQ is a fucking baguette scam dumpster fire.
But of course the frog marketing company you work for shills them too
>muh paypal 2.0
KEK

[Anonymous No.14549366]

>>14549313
They're solving the centralized computing problem. They're solving the centralized robotics problem(imagine a world of only centralized robots, would be bad vs decentralized). They're solving the data-set-monetization problem. They're solving the oracle problem.

Oh wait, they already solved them. It quite literally already exists, it just hasn't been adopted yet because the world is a lagging piece of shit with 400ms ping.

That whole "they don't know what they're doing so they do everything" stance is a huge cop-out excuse and straight ignorance. Everything is not zero-sum.

[Anonymous No.14549373]

>>14549192
Post proof.

[Anonymous No.14549383]

>>14549335
Is it a scam? Idk, I just always saw it as paypal 2.0 and never cared much about it because isn't bitcoin basically just paypal 2.0: decentralized boogaloo anyways so who gives a fuck about them. Comparing them to RLC is stupid unless you're just fudding then whatever.

[Anonymous No.14549398]

I had a stack of RLC that I sold once the Google pump hit link and I ride it in time for nice gains. I've been thinking of buying back into RLC again.
Would it be a good idea to hold both link and RLC or stupid?

[Anonymous No.14549421]

>>14549366
You can solve every problems in this world if you don’t pay for expensive listing, useless bounty program, hyping every useless new your product won’t be interesting from a speculative perspective

[Anonymous No.14549452]

>>14549383
Yes you fuck

[Anonymous No.14549454]

>>14549373
>alibaba+intel + google cloud bonus potential partnership soon?
https://medium.com/iex-ec/iexec-moves-forward-collaboration-with-intel-and-alibaba-cloud-at-rsa-conference-2019-ccc1f119f2ae

IBM
>https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/iexec-integrates-ibm-cloud-to-increase-the-security-of-decentralized-computing

dont feel like linking the others it's all googleable

[Anonymous No.14549496]

How much are they paying you for this?

[Anonymous No.14549497]

>>14549398
I think it's good. They hedge pretty well against eachother.
>>14549421
Was that English? Jesus. If you don't think iExec is at the very least interesting from a speculative perspective you have a low IQ.
>>14549452
Okay well that sucks but it doesn't have anything to do with iExec besides being French. That's like not buying NEO at it's ATL because it's chinese and the chinese are known scammers...It's dumb.

[Anonymous No.14549551]

>>14549496
I'm invested into iExec after doing extensive research on everything I need to know. Increasing awareness is really the goal, as most people don't even know about iExec let alone understand what it is... It'll help a bunch of people get rich as well as potentially increase the speed at which the tech is utilized. Maybe someone important sees this message, who knows.

I'm also bored and having fun informing people/having discussions about robotics/AI

[Anonymous No.14549608]

>>14549551
Ultimately if iexec succeeds they would be easily a top 5 coin, and it's really crazy to have in the top 5 a project led by a bunch of French literal whos. THIS is what is keeping people off.

[Anonymous No.14549637]

>>14549497
Sounds good. How many RLC for a suicide stack? I just know I need 1k minimum to not get deleted by the AI.

[Anonymous No.14549658]

>>14549608
Look, if you ask literally anyone who knows me you will hear that I hate the French as a people. Going back to ancient days I hate them. But the chance hear is great.
>>14549551
Do you chart?

[Anonymous No.14549666]

>>14549608
>Ultimately if iexec succeeds they would be easily a top 5 coin
I know.
>a bunch of French literal whos
Look the team up...literal gods of grid computing. Gilles has written books on the stuff. If the people are keeping you off I'd like to see the type of people you invest in instead...
>>14549637
5-10k is a good suicide stack. 25k+ is making it within 3 years

[Anonymous No.14549680]

>>14549658
>hear
>here
>the chance here....
Im phonefagging.

[Anonymous No.14549705]

>>14549666
Checked when you guys say xK stack are you talking #tokens or $

[Anonymous No.14549720]

>>14549666
>If the people are keeping you off I'd like to see the type of people you invest in instead...
Ethereum mostly. And yeah this is not looking good for me but I also bought a LINK suicide stack back in the days and I'm happy I did.

[Anonymous No.14549722]

>>14549658
Do I chart? As in do TA on RLC? I have before, yes, and it went okay. I know a bit about TA, but I don't do short term more medium-long. I think this is the last dip before it takes off. It could take another month or 2 though but it also might not.(because v4 comes out in Dec.)

[Anonymous No.14549841]

>>14549705
Tokens, sorry.
>>14549720
Okay, so ETH is a funny one because it looks like a literal scam in terms of team-looks, but when you see Vitalik talk you instantly see the autism and in combination with the tech it works out.

I see iExec in the complete opposite, the team isn't just a singular autist it's a bunch of genius chads that overdeliver on everything and bust their asses, ran by Gilles Fedak, a guy that is so smart he wrote a book about grid/cloud computing and is applying that knowledge to iExec RLC, with the help of other geniuses from China.

You can have your cake and eat it too. You can have a good looking team and successful technology. Also consider that ETH as a project is very different from what iExec is doing. ETH had it easy. The gains will be similar, but it might take RLC more than it took ETH.

[Anonymous No.14549893]

>>14549841
>when you see Vitalik talk
Yup, this convinced me. He's impressive. Anyway I appreciate your effort, I will do more research into Gilles background and accomplishments.

[Anonymous No.14549896]

>>14545911
screenshotted

[Anonymous No.14549983]

>>14549893
Impressive and hilarious. Invested based on that alone. Yeah, look up the team. The shitty part about iExec is that it does so much it's annoying to do research on.
>>14549896
Emotional investing is bad.

[Anonymous No.14550140]

>>14549722
Checked. I think if it breaks .0014 it could take off up to .0020-.0025 before it goes sideways for a bit with a new floor of about .0019
That's pretty sweet for anyone trading this. We should know in about 12-14 hours. I bought 200 just to fuck around.

[Anonymous No.14550171]

>>14545653
I'm already 80% in RLC, but seeing these threads hype me up so much for the long term. Love seeing some actual discussion on the use case that gets new people interested. Especially now when the entry point couldn't be better

[Anonymous No.14550200]

Why would iexec be used though? Link has to succeed or crypto fails. Iexec is not ibtegral to the success of crypto so it's a gamble. Partnerships really make it likely that it will take off but it's not guaranteed

[Anonymous No.14550250]

>>14545653
Thanks for the post anon. I would t be able to live with myself if I let this obvious x10 in July pass me by.

[Anonymous No.14550268]

Forgot to post proof

[Anonymous No.14550283]

>>14550200
Have you read the thread?
And crypto doesn't need link to succeed, RLC literally does decentralised oracles as well plus all the benefits of decentralised cloud computing

[Anonymous No.14550295]

>>14550268
I trade with eth. Is btc better for this? Just getting into crypto

[Anonymous No.14550324]

The main problem with iexec is that it's only as good as the apps that are developed for it
The tech could be amazing but if no dapps are ever made for it no one will use it

currently I'm getting that impression... no one is developing apps for it because they dont need them

>wait for sidechains
>wait for v4
>wait for gpu farms
>wait for tee implementation
>wait for partnerships
>wait for apps

>wait wait wait

[Anonymous No.14550332]

>>14550295
No different, just depends on the price and volume for the trading pair as to how easily your order will get filled

[Anonymous No.14550395]

>>14550268
Tfw I only have 2900 RLC.

[Anonymous No.14550453]

>>14550324
>The main problem with iexec is that it's only as good as the apps that are developed for it
This is somewhat of a false statement considering you can make a centralized app into a decentralized one with relative ease. The dApps will come. Also, I suspect the team will make their own tools for enterprises to use. Also, enterprises will develop their own tools to use on the iExec market.

>The tech could be amazing but if no dapps are ever made for it no one will use it
There are a bunch of dApps on it already, and I'm sure more are being made. They might also run another dApp challenge.

Nonetheless, v4 is what everyone is waiting for as it unlocks a huge portion of the total potential of iExec.

[Anonymous No.14550476]

>>14550453
Tfw my buddy was trying to develop a trade bot/platform/algo and wanted to use IEXec for the compute. Allowed for nesting and trade strats...

[Anonymous No.14550490]

>>14550250
>>14550268
Welcome dude. Glad you see it too.

[Anonymous No.14550534]

>>14550476
Yeah I think that's kind of what intel and iExec are making together. Price prediction dapp.

[Anonymous No.14550602]

Hold till V5. Don't dump on V4. You'll regret it.

[Anonymous No.14550615]

>>14545653
Do you have any information about the sidechain governance ? Where come from the value of Rlc except from network use ? Can we expect a stacking mechanism encouraging people to hold ? How are they going to deal with the fact that Binance hosts the largest part of trading, allowing heavy manipulation ?
What was the massive sell off from a top 10 holder in the past week ? Is this a red flag ?
What is the «websensor» thread I saw yesterday ?

[Anonymous No.14550629]

>>14550602
I know. v5 is only 6 months out from v4 and they have some shit in the pipeline inbetween that.

[Anonymous No.14550670]

>>14550615
sidechain stsking confirmed by team member

[Anonymous No.14550694]

>>14550615
>Do you have any information about the sidechain governance
All I know is it uses the PoCo algorithm which is proof of stake + reputation system.
>Where come from the value of Rlc except from network use
Network use is a main driver of value, but obviously speculation is a thing in crypto right now so it could go 100x this year and no one would see it coming. I think this goes for most cryptos as usually how big the network is correlates with how much "value" there is.
Staking exists and the team is looking into further ways to make it worth holding RLC.

>How are they going to deal with the fact that Binance hosts the largest part of trading, allowing heavy manipulation ?
They addressed manipulation in their latest medium post. They alluded to having 100k ETH and will use it to buy RLC if they are forced to to prevent whale manipulation downwards.

>What was the massive sell off from a top 10 holder in the past week ? Is this a red flag ?
No idea, don't care. Heard about it and laughed. Probably some idiot that needed money or thought iExec would lose another 50% value.
>websensors
The oracle dApp is on mainnet now I believe. I think it's separate from iExec's doracle(I could be wrong). If I'm not wrong that's funny, a dOracle built on a platform that has its own oracle.

[Anonymous No.14550834]

>>14550670
That's a really cool bit of information, never saw it before. It's going to be hard to not sell some profit after v4 after past performance of releases but at the same time v5 comes so soon after and they could have Google up their sleeve or coinbase. Fuck man.

[Anonymous No.14550840]

>>14550670
what exactly is a sidechain?
like ethereum that uses rlc instead of eth?

[Anonymous No.14550953]

>>14550840
A sidechain is a chain that is attached to the "main chain" that usually has some sort of utility or something. I think.

At least in RLC's case, they're making a sidechain to allow for extremely fast transactions to take place within the iExec ecosystem? Or something like that, to avoid the downfalls of being an ERC-20.

ETH could definitely use RLC to offload computational stress. Stuff like cryptokitties could probably be a dApp instead.

[Anonymous No.14551216]

>>14550953
Aren’t sidechains used to lower gas costs ? I read that transactions are (too?) expensive in the V3

[Anonymous No.14551346]

>>14551216
Yes, fees are horrendously high right now and makes the whole platform unuseable. We need to wait for V4 and at that point people might start developing apps for it, if they see that computations are cheaper than on centralized clouds (which isn't clear yet, because of redundant computations necessary for consensus). I'd say we are at least still one year out before any significant usage.

[Anonymous No.14551359]

>>14550834
>they could have Google up their sleeve or coinbase.
KEEP DREAMING PRATYUSH

[Anonymous No.14551420]

You fucking faggots think you're slick. OP is fake shilling to paid pajeets replying to his shill. Rlc is BTFO. RENT FREE BITCH. LINK WON GET OVER IT.

[Anonymous No.14551455]

>>14551216
Ah yea that's the main use I believe, but I think it also makes for faster transactions too if I remember correctly.

I think it completely eliminates gas costs because it would all be done on an internal sidechain within iExec.
>>14551359
You don't know. It's a hypothetical considering the scope of their other partnerships as well as the fact that they have talked to google.

[Anonymous No.14551459]

It just doesnt seem like blockchain is even necessary for the cloud computing part of their strategy, which they're very focused on. Maayyyyybe secure data renting, though thats thanks to SGX

[Anonymous No.14551469]

>>14551346
That’s what I though thx for clarification
>>14551420
Without any argument you can kys

[Anonymous No.14551476]

>>14549637
>Sounds good. How many RLC for a suicide stack?

[Anonymous No.14551508]

>>14551420
Emotional investing is bad.
>>14551459
It's definitely needed. Think of it this way, centralized computing is everything right now. iExec is going to capture all of that by decentralizing it. If you don't understand the need for decentralization in general then you need to do more research.
>>14551476
>deleted by the AI
lul
5-10k is suicide bags
25-40k is /might make it tier/
40k+ is /madeit/ tier

[Anonymous No.14551517]

>>14551469
ARGUEMENT? Ha. Swift, google, Microsoft, Salesforce, oracle, etc are using LINK, rlc btfo. Get the fuck off my board you worthless faggots. You're worse than the enigma cucks. The market has spoken. Betamax was better than VHS, but got BTFO. Same situation faggot. But LINK is better tech because they can actually MONETIZE USE IN THE NETWORK BY HOLDING LINK, RLC HAS NO TOKENOMICS THAT BENEFIT ENTREPRISES. FUCK OFFFFFFFF

[Anonymous No.14551538]

>>14551508
Sure bud, invested my entire network after making it with NEO and XRB on link with an average buy in of .25. Sooooooo emotional. Please fuck off my board.

[Anonymous No.14551552]

>>14551517
They literally have almost the same tokenomics what the fuck are you smoking. Both have staking mechanisms. iExec might even have better tokenomics thanks to the multi-use cases of it as well as the data-marketplace and such.

[Anonymous No.14551554]

>>14551517
/thread

[Anonymous No.14551560]

>>14551459
yeah, the blockchain basically isn't needed, at least not for any common scenario. They whole 'onchain consensus' sounds nice, but in practice it forbids any undeterminstic applications. Too bad undeterministic makes up 99% of all heavy computation tasks (deep learning, simulations, protein folding...)

>>14551508
I don't think you understand that you can do decentralized computations without a blockchain. Golem does it, DADI does it, and many more. Putting a blockchain between every single request on the platform is prohibitavely expensive, and at scale I doubt that sidechains can solve it (think about a network where there are 10000s tasks requested every second)

[Anonymous No.14551566]

>>14551538
The way you type tells me you're both scared and angry that iExec exists. You're very emotional. Nonetheless the facts exist and are laid out in front of you. Do what you want.

[Anonymous No.14551596]

>>14551566
>you're both scared and angry that iExec exists.
You're projecting.

[Anonymous No.14551599]

>>14551566
Sure I am so scared bud. Why did the god father of digital agreements join LINK AND NOT IEXEC. I pissed because faggots like you get paid a nice penny to come on here and shill your shit project to get weakhanded marines to sell their chance at freedom fuuuuucccckkkkk offfffff. BOTH THE GRANDFATHERS OF POS AND POW ENDORSE LINK... ITSSSSS OVER FUUUCCCK OFF.

[Anonymous No.14551605]

>>14551508
Don't you me you fucking shill

[Anonymous No.14551634]

>>14551560
undeterministic Applications are not forbidden at all that’s all the point of iExec dude. Look at the bag of tasks solution

[Anonymous No.14551652]

>>14551560
> Too bad undeterministic makes up 99% of all heavy computation tasks (deep learning, simulations, protein folding...)
>Implying RLC won't be capable of non-deterministic applications
They have stated many times non-deterministic computing is coming.

>On the other hand, non-deterministic applications, for which RA can legitimately be different between runs would cause all sorts of issues. Such application will not be supported by iExec’s version 2 and will be addressed later. There are many approaches to solving this and making PoCo compatible with those applications. This should be further discussed in another article of this series.
https://medium.com/iex-ec/poco-series-3-poco-protocole-update-a2c8f8f30126

>I don't think you understand that you can do decentralized computations without a blockchain. Golem does it, DADI does it, and many more.
Lol, what are you even saying. iExec won't need to use any blockchain once the sidechain is active, and they have alluded to creating their own blockchain for iExec.

>Putting a blockchain between every single request on the platform is prohibitavely expensive
Good thing they're making a sidechain for iExec.
> I doubt that sidechains can solve it
Good thing what you think doesn't matter vs what a team of genius grid developers do

[Anonymous No.14551658]

>>14551599
We understood that you are a children. Now fuck off

[Anonymous No.14551662]

>>14551634
>>14551652

yes undetermenistic applications are allowed with 0 replication i.e. no result validation i.e. no consensus at all ===> blockchain not needed.

Bag of tasks has nothing to do with undeterministic computations.

[Anonymous No.14551664]

>>14551658
Fuck off ranjeesh.

[Anonymous No.14551674]

>>14551652
> iExec won't need to use any blockchain
> once the sideCHAIN is active
> and they have alluded to creating their own BLOCKCHAIN for iExec.

ok..

[Anonymous No.14551704]

>>14551596
I'm reading his text pattern and seeing the emotion, not too hard.

>>14551599
The way you type tells me you bought LINK at 4$ and are pissed that I made this thread comparing the two.
You keep talking about google "joining link" but in reality it's not a partnership and everyone knows it. Still cool, but it's not like the government of France endorsing iExec isn't as cool. Or IBM/Intel/alibaba/EDF. That's why I said both have great partnerships/collabs and is a non-factor, unless you factor in potential partnerships x marketcap

[Anonymous No.14551724]

>>14551662
Result validation across a decentralized computing marketplace is most definitely needed, and blockchain is needed with that. PoCo solves it, iExec solves it. You're deluded to think otherwise.
>>14551674
Yes, it -essentially- won't need a blockchain with the sidechain. They HAVE alluded to creating their own blockchain to get away from the "muh ERC20" bullshit, and being reliant on ETH.

[Anonymous No.14551761]

>>14551566
Pretty good English for someone named Manvinder

[Anonymous No.14551769]

>>14551761
I'm American. You eurocucks are more annoying(and possibly more retarded) than burgers are.

[Anonymous No.14551770]

>>14545653
Are both projects blockchain agnostic ?

[Anonymous No.14551780]

>>14551704
>I'm reading his text pattern and seeing the emotion, not too hard.
No, you're projecting. And it's very obvious.

[Anonymous No.14551785]

>>14551770
iExec is 100% agnostic, I think LINK is pseudo agnostic. There's no clear answer, unless someone can show me otherwise.

[Anonymous No.14551794]

>>14551704
I bought in pre sibos fag, fuck off my board. ITS A FUCKING INTREGRATION IEXEC WILL BEND THE KNEE AND RUN A NODE ON THE LINK NETWORK HOLY SHIT, RENT FUCKING FREE PUSSY

[Anonymous No.14551798]

>>14551780
The cope is obvious here. Bunch of eurocucks wake up and start sperging out on an otherwise great thread. Why would I be scared kek, I bought the bottom of a 30m marketcap coin and not the top of LINK

[Anonymous No.14551814]

>>14551794
>not emotionally investing
>saying "fuck off my board"
>saying "rent fucking free pussy" unironically
kek.

[Anonymous No.14551815]

>>14551785
WHY IS ORACLE GOING TO BE RUNNING 50+ NODES TO SELL DATA TO THEIR CUSTOMERS ON THE "ORACLE BLOCKCHAIN" and not ETH. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST GO THE FUCK BACK TO YOUR BAGUETTE.

[Anonymous No.14551821]

>>14551798
>The cope is obvious here.
No, your projection is.
Meanwhile iexec is literally "cope: the chart".

>an otherwise great thread.
You only got so many replies because you talked about Link.
Nobody cares about iexec.

[Anonymous No.14551839]

>>14551704
>You keep talking about google "joining link" but in reality it's not a partnership
fucking lmao

To Google Cloud, a "partnership" is a paying sponsor or a media outlet. Look up "Google cloud partner with us".
What Google Cloud did with Chainlink is MUCH more valuable: integration.

[Anonymous No.14551847]

>>14551815
That doesn't answer the simple question: is it blockchain agnostic? I googled it and it didn't show up, but it did for iExec...
>>14551821
>muh projection hurr durr

[Anonymous No.14551860]

>>14551821
That’s a fact Linkies can not help but criticize the only good competing project everytime ;) but thx for visibility

[Anonymous No.14551883]

>>14551847
> I did a quick google search and
That's some really solid investigation there
Thanks for bringing back your findings bro, I just sold 100k.

[Anonymous No.14551895]

>>14551860
Nice English what for you used it to.

Let me guess; you're French?

[Anonymous No.14551897]

>>14551839
>MUCH more valuable
Ok and that's your opinion...an integration can end up just being used for testing purposes and fall flat on its face if something better comes along or if something bad is discovered. As cool as the Google "thing" is, it's about as cool as any of iExec's same "integrations" or partnerships, hence why in the OP I said both have great partnerships/collabs. I don't know why you're screaming to the sky about Google like it's the second coming of christ. Google is on its way out.

[Anonymous No.14551909]

>>14551897
>As cool as the Google "thing" is, it's about as cool as any of iExec's same "integrations" or partnerships
Apparently not.

[Anonymous No.14551933]

>>14551883
I mean dude if you can't google something like "is chainlink blockchain agnostic" and get the answer without having to even click on a page it's more than likely not blockchain agnostic.

This is what I get for link
> Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Hyperledger at the moment.
So it's tri-blockchain capable but not agnostic? The answer isn't clear.

[Anonymous No.14551941]

>>14551724
OK ranjesh, tell me how Poco solves validating that two undetermnistic applications (for example a random number generator) give the correct answer. Protip: you're talking way out of depth about things you don't understand

[Anonymous No.14551942]

you iexecucks never cease to amaze me

youre wondering why your shitcoin is only a 20 million market cap while big dick link has 1.25 BILLION market cap
so you guys have to sit in this thread to circlejerk that you are right and the market is wrong...
surely iexec will be at 1 BILLION someday, we just have to wait guys it'll happen... cope

let me hit you with some facts

COINBASE AND A FUCKING GOOGLE PARTNERSHIP

LINK IS THE REAL MOTHERFUCKING DEAL WHILE YOUR DORACLE IS VAPORWARE

GET OVER IT

[Anonymous No.14551946]

>>14551933
>if you can't google something like "is chainlink blockchain agnostic" and get the answer without having to even click on a page it's more than likely not blockchain agnostic.
The absolute state of non-Link shills.

[Anonymous No.14551951]

>>14551909
Well that's what opinions are for. I think the french government, IBM, Intel, AlibabaCloud, and EDF are about as cool as Google integrating LINK.

[Anonymous No.14551963]

>>14551941
Poco is a slightly modified PoS, the creator of which just partnered with Chainlink.
It doesn't do anything more than other consensus mechanisms.

[Anonymous No.14551971]

>>14551951
Your opinion doesn't matter. Especially considering this: >>14551946
The market has assessed iexec's "partnerships" and connections, and has deemed them worthless.

[Anonymous No.14551973]

Serious answer coming through:

The issue I see in terms of RLC vs Chainlink and which will make itself more apparent as time goes by is this:

- Chainlink attemps to solve a current problem with smart contracts: how to link to off-chain data

- RLC attempts to solve a possible future problem with smart contracts: side chain specialization

While it's likely there will eventually come to be an issue with smart contracts which requires specialized side chains, it's years too early to say. We know RIGHT NOW that there is an issue with getting and returning off-chain data with smart contracts.

[Anonymous No.14551980]

>>14551973
Oracles ARE sidechains.
Doubly so with things like threshold sigs, enclaves, ...

[Anonymous No.14551989]

>>14551933
> if I can't find it on google search in 10 seconds it must not be a thing
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
You should google "shovels" as well to help you dig your own hole faster.
Fuck off you sub-80 IQ newfag tourist.

[Anonymous No.14552007]

>>14551971
>>14551946
>your opinion doesn't matter
Neither does yours. I'll make 400x before you make 4x.

>>14551941
For consensus to be achieved, the value R submitted by different workers following a correct execution the same work order must be identical. This is straightforward when dealing with deterministic applications for which RA is consistent between runs. On the other hand, non-deterministic applications, for which RA can legitimately be different between runs would cause all sorts of issues. Such application will not be supported by iExec’s version 2 and will be addressed later. There are many approaches to solving this and making PoCo compatible with those applications.
>>14551973
You're ignoring all of the other speculative value iExec holds through dApps, AI, dataset monetization, etc.

[Anonymous No.14552009]

>>14548943
I don't see the point in blockchain. It's all promise

[Anonymous No.14552016]

>>14551989
Something as simple as "is this blockchain agnostic" should be readily available information, retard.

[Anonymous No.14552023]

>>14552007
>You're ignoring all of the other speculative value iExec holds through dApps, AI, dataset monetization, etc.
No I'm not. You just said it yourself: it's highly speculative. It's not speculation that linking off-chain data to smart contracts is required right now.

[Anonymous No.14552029]

>>14552007
>I'll make 400x before you make 4x.
I doubt it with the amount of research you do, but k.

[Anonymous No.14552030]

>>14551724
>>14552007
> PoCo solves it, iExec solves it. You're deluded to think otherwise.
> Such application is supported by iExec and will be addressed later.

HAHAHAHA kek BTFOd yourself

[Anonymous No.14552032]

>>14552009
Blockchain allows for verifiable, transparent, and secure things to happen. If you don't see the potential in AI/robotics utilizing blockchain to our advantage you understand neither.

[Anonymous No.14552047]

>>14552030
*isn't supported by iExec

[Anonymous No.14552054]

>>14550615
>Where come from the value of Rlc?
Frenchfag confirmed.
Likely an iexec dev.

[Anonymous No.14552055]

>>14552023
Yeah, the -other- stuff is speculative. The oracle stuff is seemingly easy considering how fast they made one.
>>14552029
Look through the thread and educate yourself.
>>14552030
That information is from Version 2. We're a few months away from Version 4. It just goes to show that it's possible and you're an absolute tryhard brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14552063]

>>14552055
>Look through the thread and educate yourself.
Yeah, I did.
And I found you saying "if I can't find it on google search in 10 seconds it must not be a thing".

[Anonymous No.14552085]

>>14552063
Keep looking, maybe you'll find something of value.

[Anonymous No.14552089]

>>14552055
>Yeah, the -other- stuff is speculative. The oracle stuff is seemingly easy considering how fast they made one.
Huh? Ok, I'm confused now. What are you arguing? RLC centralized oracles vs Chainlink decentralized oracles?

[Anonymous No.14552090]

>>14552085
>Keep looking, maybe you'll find something of value.
... says the faggot who gives up after 10 seconds of Googling.

[Anonymous No.14552106]

>>14552089
You didn't know? RLC has decentralized oracles now. You can get the price of ETH just like LINK's proof of concept thing.
>>14552090
There's a difference between given/conversational information and something that should pop up on demand. You're clearly a child. Time for school yet?

[Anonymous No.14552108]

>>14546050
You seem some what smart so here's a few tips. Enterprises decide who get to play with the big boys, the standard has been chosen. Academia may be interested in RLC, but there's no money. Link has TC and Cornell on that front too. Well that's debatable. What you really need to understand marketcap is a legacy economics metric, it does not mean a shit you fucking idiot. Network protocols don't have a marketcap

[Anonymous No.14552114]

>>14552106
>You didn't know? RLC has decentralized oracles now.
Oh this was a stealth troll thread all along. Congrats, ya got me. So long, sir.

[Anonymous No.14552121]

>>14552106
>There's a difference between given/conversational information and something that should pop up on demand.
translation: "I'm too lazy to actually look things up".

[Anonymous No.14552128]

I remember when IExec retards were spamming the board with infographics about how much better it is than LINK back in May

then Link announced mainnet, google, oracle, coinbase, and went from 50c to $3 while Iexec went from 60c to 40c

you idiots stopped posting REAL quick lmao

[Anonymous No.14552129]

>>14552016
> the internet should instantly spoonfeed me anything I wish to know, because as a generic shitcoin shiller paid 2 rupees for every post I make (64 and counting now) I do not care to read anything more indepth than the first page of whatever I am googling

I'll repeat what I said before since you're a bit slow:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
You should google "shovels" as well to help you dig your own hole faster.
Fuck off you sub-80 IQ newfag tourist.

[Anonymous No.14552134]

>>14552108
Chainlink already does offchain computation with SGX too. GPU computing coming, but the hardware doesn't exist yet

[Anonymous No.14552140]

>>14552128
just checked again its at fucking 34 cents LMFAO

[Anonymous No.14552146]

>>14552108
> Enterprises decide who get to play with the big boys, the standard has been chosen.
Nothing has been chosen. A google integration with bigquery is not "a standard has been chosen". LINK price is running on google/coinbase hype and that's it.

>Academia may be interested in RLC, but there's no money

This is simply false. There's an extreme amount of money in AI/Robotics/cloud computing/datasets/fog computing/rendering.
Also, not to mention, we're on the cusp of the upcoming insane bullrun of speculative AI/robotics investing. AI is going to be fucking huge and to think there's "no money" in looking at RLC you're just deluding yourself.

>What you really need to understand marketcap is a legacy economics metric
It's simple fact that coins with less marketcap have higher gains potential. LINK could still 50x from this point but it would be much harder instead of something like RLC to 50x.

[Anonymous No.14552151]

>>14545653
LoL. Neither. Link's peak financial gain is over. Buy CHR.

[Anonymous No.14552155]

>>14552146
>A google integration with bigquery is not "a standard has been chosen".
cope

[Anonymous No.14552159]

>>14552114
https://iex.ec/decentralized-oracles/
???????
>>14552134
>Chainlink already does offchain computation with SGX too
Proof? I'd like to see it.
>>14552128
Yes...yes...buy high sell low

[Anonymous No.14552163]

>>14552146
but RLC is shit its not gonna 50x, stop being a nolinker and just buy in there is still HUUUUUUUGe gains to be had

[Anonymous No.14552172]

>>14552163
I'm cringing.

[Anonymous No.14552177]

>>14552159
>can you prove Chainlink does offchain computation with SGX?
What the actual fuck?

[Anonymous No.14552178]

>>14552159
I bought at 40 cents you mong, already 9x, sorry you can't find someone to dump your heavy ass rlc bags on

[Anonymous No.14552183]

>>14552159
>https://iex.ec/decentralized-oracles/
>look! it has "decentralied oracle" in the title! so it must be true!
You are braindead

[Anonymous No.14552186]

>>14552177
Show me a video or something of it working?

[Anonymous No.14552192]

>>14552186
no

[Anonymous No.14552200]

>>14552178
I'm not selling my RLC until after v5. I'm in this for the long run because that's how you make the most gains.

[Anonymous No.14552217]

>>14548249
Hey fag, not sure if you just suck at math or are a fucking moron

$100 x 100 = $10,000 not $100k

But looking at mcap further:
1.5M -> 100M Mcap = 66.66X
66.66 * $100 = $6,666

So, basically 1/20 of what you were saying you would net assuming this could ever reach 100M market cap

[Anonymous No.14552219]

>>14552192
Is there any proof somewhere ?

[Anonymous No.14552222]

>>14552219
google it

[Anonymous No.14552237]

>>14552192
Ok then it doesn't work.

Btw guys before I go..one last bit of information.
The iExec team is going to be releasing a lot of new information soon and you might want to get in before these announcements...New UX, sidechain stuff, oracle stuff, adoption, v4, etc...look into it. RLC has been manipulated for a long time and rightfully so, it hasn't had much perceived value until now. They might let up soon, it could easily 10x before LINK does.

[Anonymous No.14552241]

>>14552237
>if you don't spoonfeed me, it doesn't exist
This is the state of iexec shills.

[Anonymous No.14552256]

>>14552241
It's pretty un-based of you to answer this way when someone asks you for a simple example video of the tech working the way you say it does.

[Anonymous No.14552264]

>>14552256
Chainlink and SGX go way back.
If you make a thread that even mentions Chainlink, you should be aware of that.

[Anonymous No.14552276]

>>14552264
That's great that they have a friendship, however you said
>Chainlink already does offchain computation with SGX too
I want to see an example. How do you know that it's currently capable if there are no examples???

[Anonymous No.14552293]

>>14552237
> s-so before I go guys
> I uh, I think my shitcoin will 10x because they said they would do a bunch of things when I googled it
> I also googled those things and the words sounded nice when I looked so yeah pls buy my coin pls sirs
Absolutely braindead.
Even the retard who was trying to shill eth classic sounded more convincing than you.

You tried retard, you tried.
0/10 content, 10/10 effort

[Anonymous No.14552304]

>>14552276
see >>14552264

[Anonymous No.14552314]

>>14552237
>The iExec team is going to be releasing a lot of new information soon and you might want to get in before these announcements...
So they did another announcement of the announcement?
That always worked out fine for them didn't it?

[Anonymous No.14552315]

>>14552293
Okay, your loss dude, no need to get your panties in a bunch.
>>14552304
Okay so I'll take it as there's no example of it working. Interesting.

[Anonymous No.14552326]

>>14552315
see >>14552241

[Anonymous No.14552344]

>>14552146
>>14552146
Google, Microsoft and SWIFT are just three among literally hundreds. SWIFT was confirmed in ETH Berlin btw, many nolinkers are not aware of this yet. Source: youtube chainlink official channel newest vid. Marketcap doesn't matter. Network protocols don't have marketcap.

>>14552237
Chainlink is an offchain middleware you do realize this? SGX + TC is the most advanced offchain computation solution, read Chainlink and TC WPs. The state of no and nu-linkers...

[Anonymous No.14552347]

>>14552315
> 74 posts trying to defend himself and his shitcoin from being roasted
> I'm the buttblasted one
Okay my dude.
We'll see you in the next CL vs RLC thread where you spend the whole time showing everyone that your entire basis of knowledge is 5 second google searches.
I'm sure it will work out splendidly if you just do the same shit again.

[Anonymous No.14552378]

Absolute state of Linkies, thinking monopolies exist in this capitalist world. Sorry boys. The market share is too important to be unfought

[Anonymous No.14552390]

>>14552347
I was actually educating people for most of my posts until the EUfags woke up and decided to shit in my thread like the street shitters you all are.

>>14552344
I don't care about the partnerships, I already said that. Marketcap does matter. Do you realize that saying that also applies to iExec since they can do oracles as well as chainlink if not better?

[Anonymous No.14552420]

>>14552390
Anyway, thanks for the read. Was interesting

[Anonymous No.14552483]

>>14552420
Np, I had fun talking and learned a bit myself. It's always fun seeing what people think.

[Anonymous No.14552490]

>>14552390
> shilling his shitcoin and the best he can do to scrape for attention is to compare it to chainlink
> I-I'm just educating people even though all I can do is 5 second google searches
HAHAHA OH LAD
PLEASE MAKE ANOTHER THREAD SOON

Jesus fucking christ the absolute state of faggots trying to fud while projecting their pajeetism onto others.

[Anonymous No.14552521]

>>14552344
>marketcap does not matter
sub 85 iq the post

[Anonymous No.14552529]

>>14552490
>muh pajeet
>muh shilling
Read the thread. Imagine googling something simple and not getting the answer in the first 10 seconds because it isn't there.

[Anonymous No.14552603]

After reqt debacle I cant trust french ever again. Those fucking scums are rajeet-tier.

[Anonymous No.14552630]

>>14552603
The bogs are French too. Might want to reconsider, especially that the French government has invested millions into iExec and the bogs have deep ties with them...

[Anonymous No.14552639]

>>14552603
This. Just look at Req and Ark. There will never be a successful crypto coming out of France.

[Anonymous No.14552685]

>>14552529
> doubling down on his stellar 10 second google research techniques as if it's a valid point
You're either a very good troll or you flunked out of high school. Please stay off this board you low IQ piece of trash - go hang around on the CC subreddit where you can discuss this kind of thing with people more on your level.

[Anonymous No.14552696]

>>14552685
On second thought, please stay off*

[Anonymous No.14552718]

>>14552685
>implying google shouldn't work and give me the answer instantly
Nonetheless, no one even answered the question if it's blockchain agnostic or not. iExec is, I know that.

>go hang around on the CC subreddit
You mean like all of the normie LINK holders that frequent there often? iExec isn't even mentioned there and when it is the posts get removed.

[Anonymous No.14552843]

>>14552718
Son, oracle, Microsoft, google, Salesforce and swift are telling you LINK is blockchain agnostic, otherwise they wouldn't be able to use it. If you read the whitepaper it clearly states that it is. >>14552718

[Anonymous No.14552850]

>>14552718
>no one even answered the question if it's blockchain agnostic or not
Look it up.

[Anonymous No.14552869]

>>14552843
How come it isn't easily findable information?
How are those companies telling me LINK is agnostic?
>>14552850
I did, couldn't find a clear answer. Do any of you know? Instead of typing "look it up" you could simply say yes or no.

[Anonymous No.14552882]

>>14552869
>I did, couldn't find a clear answer.
Because you're either too lazy or too dumb.

[Anonymous No.14552886]

>>14552718
> please spoonfeed me again sirs, I could not find it in my 10 second google search
I even did the search FOR you in pic related, you braindead faggot.

> all the normie link holders
Yes, because CC is totally known for having many link threads up at a time.
All I'm trying to say is that your sheep-like way of thinking appeals to people in places like that. They want a quick buck to go with their quick google search (and you couldn't even do that) because they can't be bothered taking the time to understand anything, they're just faggots asking WHEN MOON. That's the caliber of discussion you insist on having - so go there and get some instead of cluttering the board up with your desperate curry drivel.

[Anonymous No.14552897]

>>14552869
People say "yes" and you don't accept it. Don't get angry because nobody wants to waste their time with you.

[Anonymous No.14552928]

>>14552882
Instead of typing all of those words you could type yes or no.

I'll take it that it's not agnostic then since everyone is being defensive.

>>14552886
>chainlink works with many blockchains, specifically bitcoin, eth, and hyperledger at the moment
This is really vague, and doesn't answer the question if it's blockchain agnostic.

>Yes, because CC is totally known for having many link threads up at a time.
You would know huh, faggot. I've seen more faggots here talk about CC and every time I went there there was at least 2 LINK threads.

>sheep like way of thinking
>buys a coin that's spammed on biz and treated like a cult
Pot, meet kettle.

[Anonymous No.14552944]

>>14552928
>Instead of typing all of those words you could type yes or no.
Instead of typing all those words you could've found your answer.

[Anonymous No.14552945]

>>14552897
Did I miss someone outright saying it's blockchain agnostic?

[Anonymous No.14552958]

>>14552944
I looked
>>chainlink works with many blockchains, specifically bitcoin, eth, and hyperledger at the moment
>This is really vague, and doesn't answer the question if it's blockchain agnostic.
Came up. Not very clear. Nonetheless this has been a very cringey semantic argument filled end to an otherwise good thread, have fun retards. Enjoy the show.

[Anonymous No.14552988]

>>14552945
Show me where your Doracle is the industry standard? Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.14553024]

>>14552958
You can't find something as basic as this, so it figures you're shilling a complete shitcoin like iexec: you're clueless.

[Anonymous No.14553058]

>>14553024
Oh I found it, it just wasn't very clear at all. It should be a yes or no answer.

[Anonymous No.14553067]

>>14553058
>Oh I found it, it just wasn't very clear at all.
Then you didn't find it.
Your cluelessness is compounding.

[Anonymous No.14553076]

>>14553067
Oh I found it, it just wasn't very clear at all. It should be a yes or no answer.

[Anonymous No.14553085]

>>14553076
>Oh I found it, it just wasn't very clear at all.
Then you didn't find it.

>It should be a yes or no answer.
It is.

[Anonymous No.14553148]

>>14553085
>Then you didn't find it.
Oh I found it.
>It is.
It just wasn't very clear at all.

[Anonymous No.14553183]

>>14553148
If it's unclear to you, then you either didn't find it or you're too dumb to understand it.

[Anonymous No.14553193]

>>14553183
>simple question didn't contain a simple answer
Unclear bullshit is unclear bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14553212]

>>14553193
>simple question didn't contain a simple answer
Typically, questions don't contain the answer, they inquire about it.

[Anonymous No.14553277]

>>14553212
Whatever the word is bro tis late suck my dick :)

[Anonymous No.14553559]

>>14548249
You're better off parlaying on horse races

[Anonymous No.14553686]

This retard linky goes to iExec's Telegram to sperg on 4chan RLC shills.

>The level of linktards

[Anonymous No.14553710]

>>14553686
He actually looks like a McDonalds wagecuck

[Anonymous No.14553730]

>>14553686
what a cuckface

[Anonymous No.14553790]

>>14553686
Hey Dani you look good today

[Anonymous No.14553805]

>>14553686
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.14554379]

>>14553277
> haha whatever bro, I didn't just find the answer "yes" when I looked into link's blockchain agnosticism (at 1 link out of the entire page I was sent from the search) so I dismissed everything as unclear

Do you even know that you've spent an entire thread declaring yourself as a brainlet with reading comprehension issues? You even seem to be proud of this, up until the point where you know you're trapped and try to dismiss it. Absolutely fascinating.

[Anonymous No.14554557]

>>14553686
honhonhonhon wat a faggóooott

[Anonymous No.14554921]

>>14545653
Someone’s got an “89-posts-in-this-thread” interest in getting you to either sell your STINKIES or buy his RLCrap.
>How many threads have YOU made 89 posts in, anon?
>>Have you ever cared about anything so much??

[Anonymous No.14554994]

>>14554921
why is RLC so hated? now there are many threads about literal pump and dumps and they are not hated like this one

[Anonymous No.14555116]

>>14554994
Because they know RLC can 10x at any time

[Anonymous No.14555127]

>>14554994
Their project was about decentralized cloud computing. No one gives a shit about that, so after Link's recent price rally they're now trying to jump on the oracle hype and also build a decentralized oracle network.
Given Link's connections with the big players it is likely to become the industry standard, while RLC is likely to just keep bleeding down to zero.
Also, everyone hates the french projects, as they never achieve anything. Req, Ark.

[Anonymous No.14555240]

>>14555127
Honch honch how retard are you ?
Muh only link can be an oracle honch

[Anonymous No.14555264]

>>14554994
Nobody hates on rlc. We're hating on the retarded shill that made this thread.

[Anonymous No.14555353]

kek at the retarded non-programmers in this thread,

Link is trivial centralized oracles with $4 billion market cap. The oracle and google "partnerships" are fucking memes. Neither companies are using Chainlink in any of their own products. It's just PR bullshit.

LEARN SOME PROGRAMMING BRAINLETS. YOU'RE GONNA GET FUCKIN REKT KEK

And yes, I am a no linker, and I couldn't care less about having missed a measly 10x in 2 years. There was literally 10 shitcoins that 50x in 3 months.

[Anonymous No.14555395]

>>14555353
>Neither companies
okay sandeep