/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.15965341]

Assuming I don't intend to touch anything for 2 years would 1/3 BTC, 1/3 ETH, 1/3 LINK be a good combination? Or should I unironically be 100% LINK?

[Anonymous No.15965350]

All in LINK

[Anonymous No.15965356]

100% link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=117&v=c9rUrnk--VE

[Anonymous No.15965358]

LINK>BTC>>ETH

100% LINK is probably optimal for the coming two years.

[Anonymous No.15965363]

32 ETH and the rest in LINK as long as the 32 ETH is less than 10% of your total stack.

[Anonymous No.15965368]

>>15965363
k fine I'll finally ask

what's the deal with 32 ETH, why 32

[Anonymous No.15965381]

>>15965341
80/20 split with eth and link

[Anonymous No.15965383]

sell your btc and eth for link you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.15965387]

Well since i got only
10k link
1btc
32 eth

Cllearly i think its good idea but im biased

[Anonymous No.15965395]

All in 100% LINK, anon. It will outperform both ETH and BTC

[Anonymous No.15965396]

>>15965381
skipping BTC entirely? why so bullish on ETH?

[Anonymous No.15965405]

>>15965395
BTC seems the safest, I think LINK has the most growth potential but if it turns out to be a scam I'm left with nothing.

[Anonymous No.15965408]

>>15965368
ETH 2.0 staking requires a minimum of 32 ETH. The goal with both LINK and ETH investments is passive income.

[Anonymous No.15965429]

>>15965341
reminder that LINK is NOTHING like ETH.

1. ETH had a testnet with thousands of users and finished mainnet 1 year after ICO, and only raised 16mil. Chainlink had a testnet and mainnet with ZERO users after 2 years and 32mil. It has gained ZERO adoption (the partnerships aren't using it). The level of developer adoption and excitement for ETH vs LINK is absolutely incomparable, LINK has none.

2. The Ethereum tech was actually innovative. It was the first successful attempt at a smart contract platform. It was decentralized and working one year after ICO. Chainlink only has centralized oracles (Sergey is lying about decentralization) which are not new or innovative. Their "innovative" solution to sybil resistant consensus is KYC.

3. The Ethereum foundation only had 1% of the Ethereum supply after ICO. The Chainlink team has 65%. Also when Ethereum was $1, it had a market cap of less than $100,000,000. It was actually a low market cap gem. Chainlink's real marketcap (if you count the 650,000,000 tokens in Sergey's wallet, ready to sell) is currently $2,000,000,000, which makes it an incredibly overpriced top 10 coin, not a low market cap gem like Ethereum was at the time.

4. Chainlink has already had mainstream exposure. It's made the front page of crypto subreddits countless times, was covered in forbes and every news outlet imaginable. Yet, even after all this attention, it has failed to get any developer adoption. It is fair to say that every single dev in the space knows about Chainlink, and decides not to use it. There are many projects running oracles in production, none of them choose to use Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.15965431]

>>15965405
>>15965396
Im not that guy but you may want to look into what quantum computing will do to PoW. JP Morgan is working on a quantum computer right now, and when it’s complete they will mine every Bitcoin block as soon as the hash is released. It will become more centralized than USD. PoS is not susceptible to quantum computers.

[Anonymous No.15965462]

>>15965431
If quantum computing cracks SHA256 then the entire global financial system will break down, Bitcoin will be a footnote.

[Anonymous No.15965499]

>>15965341
Pick the one that hasn't already gone up 1000x.

[Anonymous No.15965505]

>>15965462
Quantum computing will CERTAINLY crack SHA256. Its not an “if”, its a when. Its only a matter of how long it takes someone to program a sufficiently powerful quantum computer to perform such a task. Invest accordingly.

[Anonymous No.15965538]

>>15965505
wrong. there are many aspects of quantum computing that people doubt are even possible

[Anonymous No.15965550]

>>15965431
quantum computing is a meme and most of it is pure theory
they are nowhere near cracking bitcoin

[Anonymous No.15965600]

>>15965505
they are extremely far off from breaking SHA256

[Anonymous No.15965667]

>>15965341
I think the glory days are over for link actually.
Currently into UDOO and I think this will become the new link and the new biz coin.
People should not fud the project without even doing some research and judge every new token that pops up on biz

[Anonymous No.15965687]

>>15965667
1 rupee has been deposited into your account.

[Anonymous No.15965694]

>>15965550
>>15965538
>muh quantum computing is a meme
You dumb motherfuckers, its already here. Its not theory, they have working quantum computers for sale already. Its only a matter of time before one with enough qubits is created to crack SHA256 and falls into the hands of someone who wants all the bitcoin. You are the equivalent of that nigger who said “man will never fly” except you are saying it AFTER the Wright Brothers already did it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-Wave_Systems

[Anonymous No.15965701]

>>15965667
Imagine being this indian

[Anonymous No.15965709]

>>15965341
Getting a 100 LINK suicide stack next paycheck.
For now I'm all in on DAG and CCX and not touching them for years.

[Anonymous No.15965789]

> LINK will never be above 30c again
> Fuck I mean LINK will never be above 50c again
> AHHHHH fuck you faggots LINK won't break 80c
> OMFG you faggots I will kill you all LINK won't break $1.20
> FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU you better not let LINK break $1.50
> DEATH TO ALL LINKIES IF IT BREAKS $2.00 I'M FUCKING PRICED OUT REEEEEE
> $2.50 FUCK YOU CUNTS HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW IT WAS THE REAL THING, REEEEEE DON'T TELL ME I HAD TWO YEARS BECAUSE I WAS CHASING CHINK SCAM COINS LIKE OMISEGO REEEE

[Anonymous No.15965837]

Buy as much LINK as possible, take out a loan if need be.

[Anonymous No.15965843]

>>15965341
Unironically not talking to insane people that are not 100% in LINK

[Anonymous No.15965858]

>>15965709
Pajeets are getting sneaky with this shit!

[Anonymous No.15965859]

>>15965341
I'm 90/5/5 link/BTC/eth.

[Anonymous No.15965878]

sirs
bsv looks good for the price. creg is satoshi apparently.

[Anonymous No.15965890]

>>15965694
>he thinks anyone with a quantum computer powerful enough to crack SHA256 would bother breaking bitcoin

[Anonymous No.15965907]

>>15965667
imagine if you could press a button and instead of banning this person they actually died IRL haha wouldn't that be wacky

[Anonymous No.15965913]

>>15965431
>t. Retard who doesn't understand quantum computing and just reads buzzfeed esque articles

Bitcoin is perfectly safe from QC

[Anonymous No.15965939]

>>15965858
DAG has a 1:1 use case ratio with Chainlink you idiot. Every single time a LINK smart contract is used, the data is validated by DAG.

It's completely and utterly retarded to be shilling LINK and shitting on DAG. No DAG, no functioning LINK smart contracts. It's simple.
Pic fucking related. And I'm British, not Indian. DYOR, cunt.

[Anonymous No.15965947]

>>15965890
Yeah, because who would want to print money legally. Thats just absurd.

[Anonymous No.15965956]

>>15965913
Dont say I didnt warn you faggots.

[Anonymous No.15965981]

>>15965600
I am not claiming otherwise. However, it will take less time to get there than you think it will. Its kind of hard to measure how “far off” a technology is before it is created. The right genius level IQ autist at the right time could single handedly push the Bitcoin D-day closer by several decades.

[Anonymous No.15965988]

>>15965956
all you did was causing a bullish signal.

[Anonymous No.15966012]

>>15965981
What makes PoS harder to crack than PoW

[Anonymous No.15966029]

>>15965341
That is mine combination and it went pretty well

[Anonymous No.15966068]

>>15965956
the answer to quantum computer, which is decades away from being able to crack bitcoins cryptography, is quantum crytography. this has already been talked about a lot before.

even the most optimistic quantum computing researchers who are excited by the technology are always downplaying it and saying this tech is in its very early days and it might be decades until quantum computers become very useful, and if humans see a problem like quantum computers cracking bitcoin decades before it happens someone usually invents an answer to the problem.


and another angle not discussed a lot, im not so sure money will be thought of the same way when the fourth industrial revolution is in full swing and we have quantum computing powered robots building shit for us and farming our food and being part of the infrastructure of the world. all in all its bullish for humanity as long as bad people dont get in control of the computers and enslave us all.

[Anonymous No.15966070]

>>15966012
PoS isnt based on hash power. No amount of computing power gives you any advantage in PoS. A quantum computer with a sufficient number of qubits might as well have infinite hash power when dealing with SHA256.
>but anon what about cracking wallets
There are quantum “resistant” hashing algorithms out there, but those will only prolong the inevitable. You cannot make a quantum “proof” hashing algorithm. And even adopting the resistant ones will still result in BTC being centralized to those with the millions of dollars it takes to own and operate a quantum computer. You CAN stop wallets from being broken into by instating KYC(I am sure you have noticed the uptrend in this lately), and 2FA. What you CANNOT do, is make PoW quantum proof. Bitcoin will move away from PoW or be mined exclusively by the likes of JP Morgan, Google, IBM etc. I would, and have, put money on the latter.

[Anonymous No.15966128]

>>15966068
>even the most optimistic quantum computing researchers who are excited by the technology are always downplaying it and saying this tech is in its very early days and it might be decades until quantum computers become very useful
Gee, i wonder why. Its almost like highly intelligent people have read “The Art of War”, or something.

[Anonymous No.15966157]

>>15965956
As the anon says below, it's many decades away. You've simply fallen for some clickbait article without doing your own research

Current quantum computers will need to be exponentially more powerful and be able to incorporate error correction before they can even approach a problem like SHA256. at this point its not even theoretically known if QC can be scaled up to that many qubits without succumbing to decoherence. It gets exponentially more difficult to isolate the more qubits you have. And the universe has always found ways to stop humans exploiting quantum behaviour for a free lunch (quantum erasers/FTL communication via entalgement etc)

And you keep comparing quantum computers to classical computers but bitcoin mining is not carried out by general purpose classical computers, its done by highly specialised ASICs which are many orders of magnitude more optimised than classical computers. So your theory of QCs being able to insta mine blocks fails to take into account the enormous difficulty of current bitcoin mining. Finding a collision and hacking wallets is much harder still and many decades off for quantum computers, and if this happens anyway bitcoin is the least of your concerns.

Bitcoin can be easily upgraded to be quantum resistant. The current legacy systems of commerce and finance - that rely on cryptography just at much as bitcoin - cannot.

[Anonymous No.15966161]

>>15965408
Not a guarantee just a number vitalik threw out there like 2 years ago now

[Anonymous No.15966172]

>>15965694
>by the time we have a computer with enough qubits to hack bitcoin, bitcoin won’t have either scaled to be quantum resistant or become obsolete
You’re a fucking retard. Who in their right mind with an IQ over 80 believes they’ll just leave the technology as is over the next 20 years?

[Anonymous No.15966209]

>>15966070
Pos is still based on cryptography anon so is still basically just as vulnerable to QC. you don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.15966226]

>>15966157
>>15966172
>>15966209
I have given you faggots more than you realize here. Go ahead and throw away the gift I have given you, I dont give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.15966251]

>>15966226
>tries to start argument using easily refuted and stale FUD
>gets BTFO
>"b-but its true! I don't care anyway"

[Anonymous No.15966262]

>>15966251
>easily refuted
Say it again, maybe it will become true!

[Anonymous No.15966273]

>>15966262
You're a prime example of the dunning kruger effect.

[Anonymous No.15966285]

I think Vechain has the most upside and potential in a multi trillion dollar supply chain industry. Every big company will be using it like Walmart which is number 1 on fortune 5 with over 500 billion dollar revenue. Link got partnerships but ain't nothing like Vechain does

[Anonymous No.15966336]

>>15965368
>Muah 32 meth
Just a meme propagated by scam coin ico devs that desperately try to fund their lawyers to stay out of jail. ETH will die in the coming months; look out for LINK adding a new dlt to go live on, it will mark the end of eth

[Anonymous No.15966455]

>>15966285
Oh noooo
It’s a retard

Be nice everyone

[Anonymous No.15966573]

>>15965939
DAG has been a failure and will continue to be a failure. They have no team, they will never build what they intend to build. They will never build a useful piece of technology.
That is why people hate DAG and people here who shill that garbage. They lost $33M fucking dollars in 18 months with nothing to show for. Its clear they cant run a business, thinking their pie in the sky vaporware is going to do what is says is a joke. How many people work there, like 3 or 4?
Nice try pajeet. Link will sign a partnership agreement with any company claiming to build some crazy tech, im sure its one sided in favor of Link. If they deliver great, but they wont.
Dont even think just because Link signed a partnership agreement with a shitcoin that it raises the value of that shitcoin. This is just more PnD bullshit news for DAG. Back to your shanty rasheesh

[Anonymous No.15966791]

>>15965341
BTC isn't worth anything so dump it and put it into something else. Invest purely in stuff with an actual use case and cashflow.

[Anonymous No.15966799]

>>15965341
GET THIS NONSENSE OFF MY FEED

[Anonymous No.15966836]

Simple math and not being retarded shows that only an idiot isn't 100% in link right now. I wish I would have gone into debt to get more link actually.

If link goes to $5 from here it will be a return % higher than 100%. To get the same results in BTC or ETH they would need to reach $16,000 / $340 respectively. You tell me which is the more likely scenario short term and which will happen sooner?

[Anonymous No.15966861]

>>15965341
Sergey will eat their lunch

[Anonymous No.15967072]

>>15965405
you had two years, i dont feel sorry for you at all

[Anonymous No.15967160]

>>15965341
All in Link

[Anonymous No.15967175]

Should I just exchange all my BTC, LTC and ETH for link? Are they ever going to moon again?