A couple more price feeds

[Anonymous No.16686932]

https://feeds.chain.link/mana-eth

https://feeds.chain.link/lend-eth

[Anonymous No.16686939]

LITERALLY WHO?

[Anonymous No.16686946]

Nice to see this is what $40 million + and multiple 700k dumps amounts too. Fucking price checkers.

[Anonymous No.16686957]

>>16686932
pnd scam

[Anonymous No.16686959]

More than an eth price checker!

[Anonymous No.16687293]

>>16686932
Chainlink is the pokedex of crypto

[Anonymous No.16687296]

>>16686932
chainlink is a scam

[Anonymous No.16687313]

chainlink scam, dont buy

[Anonymous No.16687315]

>>16686932
Bump

[Anonymous No.16687336]

Nice. Sergey’s daddy driving Lambos and you neets hold your dicks for price feeds. Nice moon mission kek

[Anonymous No.16687358]

haven't heard from LEND in a while, anyone still invested in this?

[Anonymous No.16687360]

>>16687293
How to catch niggers?

[Anonymous No.16687534]

So... what’s the big deal?

[Anonymous No.16687693]

>>16686932
ETHLend integration is almost ready to go
>>16687358
See above

[Anonymous No.16687709]

Decentraland still exists and is relevant enough to warrant its own price reference network? wat

[Anonymous No.16688048]

>>16687709
Coinbase list it friend

[Anonymous No.16688122]

8-20 Gwei per request
0.000000008 to 0.000000020 per request
~$0.000001024 to $0.00000256 per request
~$1.024 - $2.56 per million requests
Interesting

[Anonymous No.16688164]

>>16688122
Takes about 1min 30 seconds to 2min 20seconds per request. Not sure why you would pay a premium for requests that you could make from the machine you made the smart contract on. The requests would come in milliseconds and you wouldn't have to do 5+ requests to verify responses.

[Anonymous No.16688180]

>>16687693
Delete this

[Anonymous No.16688190]

>>16688122
>Chink Santa

Everything sucks, you guys.

[Anonymous No.16688218]

>>16686932
>https://feeds.chain.link/mana-eth
I hold some Decentraland bags. Why the fuck would anyone be interested in this coin? Thought it was dead

[Anonymous No.16688221]

Do any oracles provide data on how many requests they process an hour?

[Anonymous No.16688253]

>>16688218
Probably team needs the price for some purpose like with Loopring.
>>16688221
This is best place for stats: https://twitter.com/CryptoSpong3

[Anonymous No.16688362]

>>16688218
Have you checked to see which coinbases.. errr I m-mean ex-exchanges.. list mana?

[Anonymous No.16688383]

>>16688221
WTF what crypto logo is that? looks like fucking stinky linky
if so then i'm fucking selling

[Anonymous No.16688457]

>>16688122
It costs 0.16 LINK and ~0.021 ETH per one request. So it's about $2.99 per request.Million requests would be $2,990,000 and that is only for one oracle and one price.

btw 3M requests/month costs $699 using CMC API https://coinmarketcap.com/api/pricing/.. The price per request is $0.00023300.

Using chainlink is about x13000 more expensive and I didn't even take into acoount the limitations for that particular contract.

Now, can everyone give me a guess why no one is adopting chainlink?

[Anonymous No.16688462]

>>16686932
Service Agreements are no longer listed under the epics section of the pivotal tracker.
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/n/projects/2129823
What does it mean /biz/?

[Anonymous No.16688520]

>>16688462
Steve has officially gone rogue.
I repeat, Sergey has officially lost control of Steve Ellis.

[Anonymous No.16688547]

>>16688457
Imagine thinking that an api cost was the only cost to executing a contract lmao

[Anonymous No.16688578]

>>16688547
NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAVE MONEY WITH SMART CONTRACTS YOU HAVE TO PAY HR ROASTIES AND ACCOUNTING ROASTIES WOMYN ARE STRONG AND POWERFUL YOU CAN'T JUST CUT JOBS IN WHITE COLLAR AREAS TO SAVE 90% NOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.16688588]

>>16688520
wait steve ellis was jason parser all along??

[Anonymous No.16688600]

>>16688457
Why would you bother completely making up numbers...while linking to the real numbers? One fucking job Ranjeet.

It's under 60 gwei per aggregation, or .000011 usd. The link is paid by the team, and is an arbitrary number (for now). Even if these weren't free-to-use heartbeats, paying 2 bucks for a completely secure SC usable feed that can be broadcast unencrypted if so chosen, isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.16688641]

>>16688588
Checked. Steve's a big guy...

[Anonymous No.16688650]

>>16688462
FUCK I SHOULD'VE SOLD

[Anonymous No.16688654]

>>16688600
High IQ vibes

[Anonymous No.16688667]

>>16686932
>>16688650
>1+ year test net
>6 months main net
>nobody can name a single dapp with users using Chainlink oracles in production
>(with proof link to dapp.com/dappradar/etherscan)
>Linkers: this is bullish!

[Anonymous No.16688680]

>70+ years of independence
>nobody can name a single indian that takes a shit in a toilet
>(with proof link to india.gov.in)
>indians: this is bullish!

[Anonymous No.16688715]

>>16688462
>pic related added
pretty close to EOY

[Anonymous No.16688732]

>>16688680
no link to dapp.com/dappradar/etherscan? Thank you for confirming there's literally not a single dapp using Chainlink oracles in production.

Because of you anons here can sleep comfortably knowing they made the right decision by not buying LINK.

[Anonymous No.16688748]

>>16688732
no link to india.gov.in? Thank you for confirming there's literally not a single indian using a toilet in the world.

Because of you anons here can sleep comfortably knowing they made the right decision by not being born in India.

[Anonymous No.16688749]

>>16686946
Blockchains/cryptos have no native way of determining their own fiat price.
Before these Chainlink "price checkers", there were no trustless fiat price oracles for anything.

They are quite literally revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.16688762]

>>16688600
You have to pay the oracle 0.16 LINK plus the ETH transaction cost which is about 0.021 ETH atm. This adds up to $2.99 which is a price for asking a price of one fucking crypto.

As I explained this is approx. x13000 times more expensive than the "ancient", "unefficient" and "expensive" API calls.

Now, can you guess why no one is seriously adopting chainlink?

[Anonymous No.16688801]

>>16688762
>You have to pay the oracle 0.16 LINK
The amount of Link being paid on mainnet is completely arbitrary.
It's all paid by the team for the time being. Until the market dynamics are opened up.

>plus the ETH transaction cost which is about 0.021 ETH
It's about 0.06 ETH for the full 21 nodes.
Meaning about 30 cents per node right now, without ETH upgrades or Link upgrades like threshold signatures etc.

[Anonymous No.16688874]

>>16688801
>It's about 0.06 ETH for the full 21 nodes.
>Meaning about 30 cents per node right now, without ETH upgrades or Link upgrades like threshold signatures etc.
You are the one that pulls the numbers out of yuor ass. Let's spoon feed you.because you don't understand the tech. You are only talking about the gas price of oracles data. You are totally forgetting the LINK cost and the ethereum transaction cost. Okay, let's forget about the LINKprice of the data because it's artificial and chainlink team pays for it or whatever.

You. Just. Do. Not. Ignore. The. Transaction . Cost.

This is the USD-ETH aggregation contract
https://etherscan.io/address/0x79febf6b9f76853edbcbc913e6aae8232cfb9de9
There. Now, can you spot the transaction cost, it's called [TX fee]? How much is it? It seems to be approx. 0.0593 ETH. That is about $7.60 using current ETH price.

Still following? Okay. This is the price for asking the USD-ETH price using decentralized oracles. As I previously mentioned the cost of using CMC API, the price would be $0.00023300/request.

Still following? Okay. As you can see using Chainlink is about x33000 times more expensive.

Do you understand now? The threshold signatures are only compbining the oracle results into one transction which I totally ignored in these calculation. They only add up the cost.

Enough spoonfeeding?

[Anonymous No.16688889]

>>16688874
>You are totally forgetting the LINK cost and the ethereum transaction cost.
lmao I just directly addressed both in the post you just quoted: >>16688801

You feeling ok anon?

>As I previously mentioned the cost of using CMC API, the price would be $0.00023300/request.
You do realize that you have to pay the API on top of the oracle right?

You clearly have no idea what oracles even are.

[Anonymous No.16688903]

>>16688874
>it's called [TX fee]? How much is it? It seems to be approx. 0.0593 ETH. That is about $7.60 using current ETH price.
Yes, and like I said here: >>16688801
that's the transaction fee for 21 Link token transfers.
They're all listed in that etherscan link you posted.

To get the price per oracle, you divide by 21.

[Anonymous No.16688904]

>>16688874
Kys

[Anonymous No.16688907]

>>16688889
>You clearly have no idea what oracles even are.
I do and belive me, so do the companies. They can math. The cost of using Chainlink is many orders of magnitude more expensive than not using Chainlink or smart contracts at all.

As I explained, this is the reason why no on isn't using chainlink. You just lose money using it. Try to explain that to stock holders. You try so hard to ignore that fact that no one isn't using chainlink.

[Anonymous No.16688912]

>>16687534
All these new DeFi protocols rely on Chainlink decentralized data infuts. Chainlink is securing a few tens of million dollars within the DeFi industry already. This growth is going to be exponential and it will cause a raise in the demand of the token

[Anonymous No.16688914]

>>16688907
>The cost of using Chainlink is many orders of magnitude more expensive than not using Chainlink or smart contracts at all.
In the same way not using a car is cheaper than using a car.

>no one isn't using chainlink
That's the spirit!

[Anonymous No.16688918]

>>16688903
>To get the price per oracle, you divide by 21.
Fair enough. 33000/21 ~ 1600.

So chainlink is only x1600 more expensive.

Can't guess why no on isn't using it.

[Anonymous No.16688921]

>>16688918
>cars are more expensive than gasoline, so no-one will use them!

[Anonymous No.16688934]

New technology expensive!
New technology bad!

[Anonymous No.16688973]

>>16688921
The correct phrasing in this case would be
>gasoline is more expensive than cars, so no-one will use them!
because using oracles is literally many orders of magnitude more expensive than setting up the node.

And guess what? No one isn't using chainlink. What a surprise!

[Anonymous No.16688981]

>>16688903
To illustrate: here's an aggregation transaction from the early mainnet days when there were only three nodes: https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc70bce5702a2f66b6fb104fa4abcaa5749823530acdd9229cc913f2b4f654c8f

The fee per node was also about 30 cents.
And again, this is before any upgrades on the ETH or Link side.

[Anonymous No.16688984]

>>16688973
>because using oracles is literally many orders of magnitude more expensive than setting up the node.
What?
Setting up what node?

>No one isn't using chainlink
True!

[Anonymous No.16688989]

>>16688762
But you're paying for decentralized trustless smart contract inputs not api calls, mr accumulating fudder.

[Anonymous No.16688999]

>>16688989
No I'm not because it's way too expensive. And apparently everyone else thinks the same.

[Anonymous No.16689008]

>>16688999
its free at the moment, dick hole
the chainlink team pays the node operators

[Anonymous No.16689010]

>>16688999
>way too expensive
Compared to what?
Mainstream smart contracts are in their absolute infancy, this shit is unprecedented.

[Anonymous No.16689022]

>>16689008
So what happens when they stop paying for their expences? I'd guess everyone stops using it because it's too expensive for what it is.

>>16689010
Compared to not using smart contract and decentralized oracles. You know, the old shit that is cheap and works. Is it really that hard to understand? I mean even no one in /biz/ isn't using chainlink or smart contracts.

[Anonymous No.16689035]

>>16688715
Oh ffffuuuuuu
I just cooooooooooooommed

[Anonymous No.16689045]

>>16689022
>Compared to not using smart contract and decentralized oracles

So this is what the fud has been reduced to. I miss the old /biz/

[Anonymous No.16689063]

>imagine paying a hundred bucks to refresh all prices in your new decentralized smart trustless blockfolio

[Anonymous No.16689085]

>>16689063
That is a very good example.

Imagine a smart phone app that is a frontend of underlying eth smart contract that updates the prices every 7 seconds.

Refreshing it every 7 s would cost you about $100 if you want to know e.g. the price of 15 different cryptos.

Now, we do not have smart contract portfolios that get the prices from decentralized oracles. Can anyone guess why?

[Anonymous No.16689153]

>>16688462
I watched Steve delet the SA epic, I think he’s trying to be sneaky about it or maybe they just delete them when they finish now.

[Anonymous No.16689161]

>>16689085
>Imagine a smart phone app
imagine giving a fuck about the retail user market

[Anonymous No.16689199]

>>16689022
>Compared to not using smart contract
lmao
That's like saying "using cars is more expensive than not using cars".

>You know, the old shit that is cheap and works.
Sure, like horse&cart is cheaper than a car.

[Anonymous No.16689208]

>>16689085

>>price feed updates, how cool! Check MOAB token price now!
>>how much link for a gf like this?
>>thread to post x for chainlink, we live here
>>WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT
>>It keeps going up! (is at the same price)
>>DUDE LEVERAGE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE FOR NON-SOLUTION UNSOLVEABLE NON-NECESSARY TECH, DOOODE DOO IT LAMOO
>>bullshit meme photo, no context, no discussion, just a random dumbass nigger post
>>sibos
>>guys i have 700 tokens of shitty scam, please how do i make it thread
>>another link general, we need one every ten minutes!
>>guys my ex/gf/wife found me out, we're broke but have 50k link thread
>>all in, never selling, always HODL thread
>>just risked my entire financial stability on this token, y-you guys should b-buy too right?
>>LINK will reach 1000 END OF YEAR
>>Insider here, just keep buying!
>>Some vague company has increased profits, all thanks to chinklink!
>>some bullshit random thread to keep the link psychosis going
>>just non-stop chainlink posting
>>getting kicked out, have xbox and link, what do thread?
>>look at update 235098523, keep buying buds!

what other paid promotions am I missing?

This thread is solid proof of chainlink shilling from the chainlink team by Sirgay. Hurry up anons, report to the SEC, let's get Sirgay in cuffs already.

[Anonymous No.16689210]

>>16689161
Everything boils down to the retail user market.

Smart contracts are peer-to-peer contracts, they have the ability to largely cut out middlemen like financial institutions, courts, ...

[Anonymous No.16689213]

>>16688912

Either one of these services cost zero unless I were to make many calls. Let's compare. It costs me about $600 to make 10,000 calls daily... for either one of those APIs... chainlink costs about I think a third of a token?

1/3 of Chainlink, let's give you guys the benefit and say it's $1.00, so about .33 cents. Let's round down more. 30 cents. It costs me 30 cents a call.

10.000 x .3 = $3,000 for one day

vs

$600 for one day

Let's pick the shortest month of the year, 28 days. So in 28 days it would be...

10.000 x .3 = $3,000 x 28 = $84000 (a dev's annual salary)

vs

$600 for one month

Hmmm. Even if they got the cost of their API down to a fifth (which they won't) and the PRICE WENT DOWN (contrary to what the holders want), it would still, NEVER BE AFFORDABLE

[Anonymous No.16689218]

Reasons why Link will fail

1. Zero customers, zero need. No one is going to pay for information to be inserted into a smart contract. That's what an oracle is supposed to do. The problem is a x100 calls costs a x100 times whatever Link charges. If you have to make thousands of calls, that's hundreds of dollars in Link tokens. If I were a dev, it would be much simpler to just make my own call to whatever data I needed.

2. Zero development, all marketing. Link has hired shills, link started on biz and Sergey himself got the inspiration to post, network with and contact people on biz. That's why begging is not allowed on biz, because after link a lot of other tokens tried to copy them. There's a lot of disingenuous shills saying that Link was only made for business cases and biz was never supposed to discover it. Quite the opposite, it was made first as a marketing token.

3. Deceitful. The Link team lies continuously; they'll attend a conference (SIBOS) and say they're partnered with Swift which is a banking protocol that handles these bank conferences, implying that they're going to handle data for big banks. They contacted the Google dev to make an offical blogpost and thus said that they're "partnered" when in fact, it's just a mention. They stretch the truth.

4. Zero transparency. Link raised 32 million in it's ICO. Since then, we have no accounting of their funds. They market dumped twenty to thirty million worth of chainlink (we still don't know the full amount) and never said a word about it. They're still dumping here and there, even larger amounts and believe they are free to do so at any time.

5. Cult-like behavior. 90% of the memes made by Chainlink pose Sergey as this kind of messiah. They encourage zero compromise grounds that anyone should sell their token. They encourage people to buy their tokens despite; mortgages, spousal issues and even when their "investors" are homeless they'll encourage people to buy more.

[Anonymous No.16689224]

>>16689210
So chainlink for Freightwaves, Sibos, DreamForce etc. 2020? What's the play Sergey?

[Anonymous No.16689226]

>>16689213
>cars are more expensive than fuel

This is you.

[Anonymous No.16689227]

Much of that is actual token holders executing transactions because they want to pump their bags, so they execute small orders. Secondly, a lot of that is the actual heartbeat network, chainlink themselves running continual orders to "ensure" their network stays afloat, essentially make it a talking point like you have here. We know zero actual people use chainlink because there are NO DAPPS that actually use their service. Zero. None.

And there never will be, because the cost of using their API will exceed hosting costs such as AWS by many, many multiples. If they wanted to become like AWS for information retrieval in terms of cost, they would need tons of infrastructure which I haven't heard a single peep about. Just more useless marketing which devs, shills or however closely related you are to the team, post here.

The idea doesn't make sense. The service doesn't make sense. And even if it were to, the costs, gargantuan as they are, would not make sense for any company... particularly small startups with zero budget. This is why chainlink is so desperate to show some development by other tokens (the infamous MOAB deflationary token tweet) so that they can marketdump some more and continue their marketing.

Lastly, before I finish this proper spanking and send you home, the service you are referring to is just a contract side price query for Ethereum. Useless because I could do the same thing for ZERO cost with this,

https://api.coinmarketcap.com/v1/ticker/ethereum/

or

https://api.etherscan.io/api?module=stats&action=ethprice

Are you seriously telling me you retards spent over 50 million trying to do that? Create something which I can get a link for and execute immediately then send to a contract I control?

[Anonymous No.16689233]

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.

on a personal note, sorry guys but you chose the wrong horse. you even probably fudded a project that should have taken link's place. this is nobody's fault but your own and that fat walrus sirgay. it'll never happen, fr, fr this time.

[Anonymous No.16689234]

>>16689224
Smart contracts are extremely attractive to all kinds of users, including massive corporations.
Discounting the retail user market is just stupid.

[Anonymous No.16689243]

TRESHOLD SIGNATURES

are for the ETHEREUM network.

AND IF THEY ARE IMPLEMENTED

It means waiting 30+ seconds for a call

Again... adding to the time variable.

Maybe if you niggers knew anything about comp sci you wouldn't spouse such nonsense you DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THRESHOLD SIGNATURES MEANS...

Taking a bunch of transactions
>your mom
>her nig bf
>your cuck dad
>your whore sis
>your neet ass

WAITING... and then grouping them together as one lump sum.

YES. It would reduce cost.

BUT... it would increase call time by about X1000 the wait.

THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THE CAP THEORM PROBLEM, PIC FUCKING RELATED

MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

[Anonymous No.16689252]

>>16689243
>>16689233
>>16689227
>>16689218
>>16689213
>>16689208
Spambot blew a fuse.

[Anonymous No.16689312]

>>16689252
Or maybe someone really gets chainlink for what it is. Unusable expensive tech

[Anonymous No.16689315]

>chainlink is too expensive
Executing smart contracts via the chainlink network will be orders of magnitude cheaper than the annual overhead costs associated with pre and post settlement reconciliation.
Shit tons of lawyers and "experts" will become obsolete as automated trust supplants and eliminates the necessity for (((middle men))).

[Anonymous No.16689360]

>>16689315
Then why no one is using it? If it is so much cheaper and efficient why no one is adopting or integrating it?

[Anonymous No.16689387]

>>16689360
you remind me of Paul Krugman.
Must be the room temp IQ.
Yeah, thats it.

[Anonymous No.16689403]

>>16689387
Then I guess all the companies and experts working on them in the world are the same room temp IQ idiots because they are not integrating or using eth smart contracts and chainlink in any way.

Yeah, that's it.

[Anonymous No.16689489]

There are literally people on /biz/ right now who are so angry, enraged and seething over LINK and it’s board-dominance that they hang out here purely to call it a scam.

The most hilarious part?

Some of them aren’t even Mumbai natives and aren’t being paid a cent. Not a single cent!!

They’re literally doing it for FREE!

But want to know the best part of all? They’re all holding ACTUAL scams. Literal, genuine, through and through, blatant scams like BSV, RSR, FTM.

You can’t make this shit up.

[Anonymous No.16689507]

>>16689315
>Shit tons of lawyers and "experts" will become obsolete as automated trust supplants and eliminates the necessity for (((middle men))).
how in the fuck does a lawyer become obsolete because of smart contracts. the absolute fucking state of this board, every time I see this shit about lawyers getting outmoded by chainlink I want to market sell

[Anonymous No.16689571]

>>16689312
>>16689360
>nobody using it
More and more parties using it and planning to use it every week.

[Anonymous No.16689578]

>>16689403
>Then I guess all the companies and experts working on them in the world are the same room temp IQ idiots because they are not integrating or using eth smart contracts and chainlink in any way.
What is the EEA.
What is Swift.
What is Google Cloud.
What is Gartner.
What is CapGemini
etc. etc. etc.

The world of fintech is absolutely buzzing about smart contracts, and thanks to Chainlink they're on the brink of becoming reality.

[Anonymous No.16689587]

>>16689578
>What is the EEA.
>What is Swift.
>What is Google Cloud.
>What is Gartner.
>What is CapGemini
They aren't using chainlink in anyway. Are you trying to prove my point?

[Anonymous No.16689588]

>>16689489
>There are literally people on /biz/ right now who are so angry, enraged and seething over LINK and it’s board-dominance that they hang out here purely to call it a scam.
This.
Nolinkers who missed out, shitcoin holders frustrated by Link taking over the entire market, swingers desperately trying to make their play, ...

[Anonymous No.16689599]

>>16689587
All of them have shown great interest in smart contracts.
And on top of that, most of those names in that list have even either worked directly with Chainlink, or literally mentioned Chainlink by name.

[Anonymous No.16689616]

>>16689599
Yet something is stopping them. Can't guess why but maybe it has something to do with the fact that smart contracts and chainlink are slow, inefficient and expensive

[Anonymous No.16689626]

>>16689616
>smart contracts and chainlink are slow, inefficient and expensive
Actually, smart contracts and chainlink are fast, efficient, and cost-saving.

[Anonymous No.16689630]

that's nice

[Anonymous No.16689634]

>>16689626
Maybe you should tell that to companies and institutions because they clearly disagree by choosing not to use chainlink.

[Anonymous No.16689651]

>>16689634
Chainlink is in its infancy anon.
Paradigm shifts don't happen overnight.

[Anonymous No.16689678]

>>16689634
They're waiting to see how the test market functions. Synthetix and Loopring are the test markets.

[Anonymous No.16689688]

>>16689651
Live mainnet up for 6 months is not infancy. The testnet has been online for over a year.

Still no one adopting or integrating chainlink. I guess realizing this doesn't happen overnight.

[Anonymous No.16689689]

>>16689678
>Synthetix and Loopring are the test markets.
And Ampleforth. They also have mainnet feeds.

[Anonymous No.16689692]

>>16689688
No one said its gonna happen overnight retard

[Anonymous No.16689694]

>>16689688
>Live mainnet up for 6 months is not infancy.
lmao of course it is

>Still no one adopting or integrating chainlink.
Synthetix, Loopring, and Ampleforth are literally running Chainlink right now.
And then there are the dozens of partners lined up to implement Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.16689701]

>>16689694
>Synthetix, Loopring, and Ampleforth are literally running Chainlink right now.
Because chainlink team is paying for it. Otherwise it would be too expensive and they wouldn't be using it.

[Anonymous No.16689721]

>>16689701
We don't really know if that's the case. And we do know that for what you get, Chainlink is pretty inexpensive. You're not getting a singular API call, and measuring it as such is dumb. You're getting 13-21 API calls at the same time, so that you don't get fucked by a fraudulent API actor. 3 bucks for that is...pretty good.

[Anonymous No.16689730]

>>16689721
>3 bucks for that is...pretty good.
this. MKR's oracles for example update once an hour, 24 times a day. That would be $3x24x365 = $26,280 per year to secure hundreds of millions of dollars, before any of this gets cheaper due to more jobs per node

[Anonymous No.16689734]

>>16689701
Chainlink isn't "paying for it", all nodes are still operating under Chainlink's umbrella and the fees in Link are set by Chainlink themselves as an example.

Once the node market is opened up, the actual fees will be settled by the market and it will be no different from paying tx fees.

[Anonymous No.16689759]

>>16689721
>We don't really know if that's the case
check >>16688600 >>16689008 and >>16689734 I'd call them retards and I think you'll agree

>Chainlink is pretty inexpensive
False. The calculations are present in this thread.

>You're not getting a singular API call, and measuring it as such is dumb. You're getting 13-21 API calls at the same time, so that you don't get fucked by a fraudulent API actor. 3 bucks for that is...pretty good.
Most of the exchanges provide API calls for free as long as you don't spam them. And the one place that actually charges you is CM which is still x1000 less expensive than chainlink, give or take.

Did you find any reasons why no one is adopting chainlink? It shoud be pretty clear by now, but if you need to adopt this information overnight or +6 months let me know.

[Anonymous No.16689765]

>>16689759
>Most of the exchanges provide API calls for free
And do they put them on-chain too?

[Anonymous No.16689789]

>>16689765
No because it's too expensive and inefficient. How hard is this to comprehend?

[Anonymous No.16689793]

>>16689759
Yeah, I used your calculations. 2.99 for a call that consists of 13+ API calls is less than a quarter per functional API call. Which is still more than the baseline CMC cost per call, but you're getting more value out of the Chainlink call.

1) Call data gets put on chain
2) Your contract doesnt care if CMC experiences a service outage
3) Your contract doesnt care if someone hacks the CMC API to defraud people

[Anonymous No.16689803]

>>16689789
>No
So no use in smart contracts then.

>too expensive and inefficient
Smart contracts automate transactions.
They're going to save costs to an extreme extent.

[Anonymous No.16689831]

>>16689793
The solution is to use e.g. +5 free APIs in case of single point of failure and not using smart contracts at all..Way cheaper, faster and simpler.

Can you guess now why there is no adoption? Can you, seriously?

>>16689803
Yes you don't use smart contracts. You can automate transactions without smart contracts believe it or not. You have not provided a single believable calculation from the real world that would support your arguments.

[Anonymous No.16689843]

>>16689831

>The solution is to use e.g. +5 free APIs in case of single point of failure and not using smart contracts at all..Way cheaper, faster and simpler.

Who's gonna look up those API calls for your manual contract? You gonna pay someone to do it? No? Well, how are you going to automate it?

[Anonymous No.16689846]

>>16689831
>You can automate transactions without smart contracts believe it or not.
Not trustlessly.

There's a reason major companies are only now starting to believe in smart contracts, even though they were invented as a theory in the 90s: blockchain is the first true platform for them.

>The solution is to use e.g. +5 free APIs in case of single point of failure and not using smart contracts at all.
Who verifies what APIs were used? If they were used at all?
Who verifies that the contract clause should be triggered?

[Anonymous No.16689880]

>>16689701
they have an ecosystem development fund currently worth about $700 million.

replying to you is dumb because you're not here in good faith, but trying to knock the project for not having an organic, self-sustaining market seems silly when they successfully slocked away a fortune to build exactly that two fucking years ago

at the current pace there will be more than 6 projects live on mainnet by the end of january

[Anonymous No.16689886]

>>16689843
>Who's gonna look up those API calls for your manual contract? You gonna pay someone to do it? No? Well, how are you going to automate it?
Do you think that e.g. CMC get's its crypto prices by manually updating them? Seriously if you do not understand e.g. how automating things,using something exotic e.g. python, stop posting. Just stop, please.

>>16689846
>Who verifies what APIs were used? If they were used at all?
>Who verifies that the contract clause should be triggered?
Not needed. Again, not a single company is using chainlink. How hard is it to realize. I mean the blockchain is public so you can verify that easily.

[Anonymous No.16689897]

>>16689886
>Not needed.
You cannot have automated transactions worth a shit without extreme amounts of trust.
Decentralization is the only solution to that.

Which is why smart contracts were never even considered a possibility until the rise of the blockchain.

[Anonymous No.16689899]

>>16689886
That's on their end. How do you get their automated data to your not-automated contract? You're effectively arguing for contract arbitrators and auditors. Which is fine, they work. This could work better. And we're gonna see which works better, pretty soon.

[Anonymous No.16689918]

>>16689886
>>16689897
>>16689899
whatthese guys said, also there are currently three users

including ampleforth, which literally could not exist w/out chainlink

[Anonymous No.16689927]

>>16689886
>Do you think that e.g. CMC get's its crypto prices by manually updating them?
The discussion was about automatic CONTRACTS, not automatic APIs lmao.

[Anonymous No.16689934]

>>16688934
So much this itt

[Anonymous No.16689944]

>>16689897
>You cannot have automated transactions worth a shit without extreme amounts of trust.
>Decentralization is the only solution to that.
Yet no one is using automated smart contract transaction in industry.

>>16689899
>How do you get their automated data to your not-automated contract?
By not using a contract.

Okay. How fucking stupid the two of you are? I'm explaining again and again the same things.Maybe, just maybe there is a reason for the zero adoption that is right in front of your eyes but you are too stupid to understand it.

[Anonymous No.16689953]

>>16689944
>Yet no one is using automated smart contract transaction in industry.
Because smart contracts are still in their infancy.

Imagine crying this hard about being too early.

[Anonymous No.16689967]

>>16689953
>Imagine crying this hard about being too early.
Now you are saying that timing the product launch is not necessary.

For crying out loud. It's like you are ignoring the collective knowledge of humankind in every aspect.

[Anonymous No.16689970]

>>16689967
>Now you are saying that timing the product launch is not necessary.
what?

[Anonymous No.16689980]

>>16687693
I would like to know more

[Anonymous No.16689987]

>>16689944
>By not using a contract.

lmfao thats gonna go over well in the business world

[Anonymous No.16690005]

>>16689987
The whole business world is doing fine without smart contracts.

What reality do you live in?

[Anonymous No.16690014]

>>16690005
>who needs cars, horse and cart work fine

[Anonymous No.16690024]

>>16689980
>>16690004
really jogs the noggin

[Anonymous No.16690031]

>>16690005
You weren't talking about not using a smart contract, you were talking about not using any whatsoever.

>By not using a contract.

And if you are talking about using a contract, who do you pay to execute said contract, and how much are they getting paid, and is THAT cheaper than three dollars an hour? Three dollars being your own conclusion for the price of a Chainlink call, every hour.

[Anonymous No.16690065]

>>16690024
sounds good, all in

[Anonymous No.16690148]

>>16688907
“They can math” - Pajeet detected, disregard all posts. He shits in his own street

[Anonymous No.16690161]

>>16690005
>businesses are fine. Why would they want to make more money? What business in their right mind would want to cut operational costs in favor of profits?

[Anonymous No.16690791]

chainlink is a scam

[Anonymous No.16690815]

>>16688164
What's the source on that gif? I'm working on random generation and irregular grids.

[Anonymous No.16690818]

The cost for price feeds can be shared among users. Either Sergey or the entities themselves can form deals to split these costs among everyone who uses the data

[Anonymous No.16690885]

>>16690818
chainlink is a scam

[Anonymous No.16691180]

How is chainlink under $10 is beyond me which means it probably should be $40 bc I’m highly pessimistic

[Anonymous No.16692071]

>>16688999
go to bed little joey krug

[Anonymous No.16692470]

>>16690815
https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/71210423/#q71210439

[Anonymous No.16692489]

Ok

[Anonymous No.16692568]

>>16688749
kek

[Anonymous No.16693015]

>>16688457
>0.16 Link = $2.99

[Anonymous No.16693183]

What's the deal with the top wallets

Are they still accumulating?

[Anonymous No.16693227]

>>16690148
Yeah, but it's a lifestyle choice.

[Anonymous No.16693305]

>>16693183
the top 1% of wallets never stopped accumulating and have continued buying through the rise and fall

[Anonymous No.16693321]

>>16693305
top 1% of eth wallets overall or chainlim wallets?

[Anonymous No.16693459]

>>16686932
Is LINK the only coin to have a waifu?

[Anonymous No.16693473]

>>16693321
good brainlet meme

[Anonymous No.16693483]

>>16688749
>Blockchains/cryptos have no native way of determining their own fiat price.
And why would I need that

[Anonymous No.16693487]

>Zuckerberg calls facebook a "utility"
>Sirgay calls Chainlink a "utility"

>Zuckerberg dresses with the same shit everyday
>Sirgay dresses the same everyday

>Zuckerberg can code
>Sirgay can't code but he eats McDonalds and dumps $700k link to fund his trips to Asia where he snorts blow and fucks hookers

Therefore Chainlink is a scam

[Anonymous No.16693571]

>>16689831
The Chainlink team knows the current process is too expensive for major adoption. Photo related.

This is why they are working on Threshold Signatures. This blog post explains it in detail: https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.chain.link/threshold-signatures-in-chainlink/amp/

Once Threshold Signatures are released real adoption can take place.

[Anonymous No.16693756]

>>16689967
You truly are a massive brainlet. Bitcoin as a peer to peer decentralized trustless cash system has been developed over 10 years ago, massively increasing interest in Blockchain technologies. The concept of Smart Contracts has been gaining popularity since about 2016 with the rise of ETH. In 2017 ChainLink proposed a 3rd layer on top of the former two, allowing real world data to be used in Smart contracts which is an ABSOLUTE MUST for smart contract based technology to have any impact whatsoever on established industries.

How in the fuck is 6 months mainnet a relevant amount of time considering this timescale? Come back in 5 years you short sighted retard.

[Anonymous No.16693875]

>>16688749
>Price feeds
>Revolutionary

Wew Lad

[Anonymous No.16693952]

>>16693875
>Let's lock away millions in these DeFi applications!
>Sounds good man, how will we keep track of the price?
>We'll just use CMC as an aggregator LOL
Wew, lad

[Anonymous No.16693965]

>>16693952
>0 uses still

Wew. Dead Cayman Islands scamtoken is dead

[Anonymous No.16693972]

>>16690005
You are way too shortsighted to be taken seriously. If everything is the same in 2025, I'll take they failed, but you anyone expecting this was all going to be up and running on day 1 is very deluded.

For comparison, Ethereum itself is still on its infancy, in heavy development so it can work out many of the issues it has and prove its utility to actually useful shit, something more than cat games and creating shitcoins.

Everything in this blockchain space and specially about smart contracts is very new. We are so early it is like discovering the internet in 1993. And guess what, many people thought it wouldn't be useful or revolutionary back then.

[Anonymous No.16694086]

>>16688048
source?

[Anonymous No.16694107]

>>16693571
Fuck off. No one is paying for enough decentralization where t sigs are even relevant.

[Anonymous No.16694118]

Yes yes....
Link good buy.....
Yes buy more yes
Everyone buy more link...

[Anonymous No.16694126]

>>16693972
the internet was actually useful and growing unstoppably in 1993 just like bitcoin today. link, eth, anything "blockchain" related are just scams trying to ride on the hype. they do have great marketing however, with so many idiots believing with no evidence that it will be figured out.

[Anonymous No.16694127]

>>16693972

[Anonymous No.16694130]

>>16693965
>Denying the multiple billion dollar companies that have publicly shared their uses
Wew, can't be much more of a retard than this, pack it up boys I know you've all been competing for the title

[Anonymous No.16694148]

chainlink is a scam

[Anonymous No.16694151]

>>16689360
Never give up.

[Anonymous No.16694185]

>>16688874
>>16688762

LINKlets who did not even read the White Paper absolutely BTFO.

YOU HAD 2 MONTHS TO SELL ABOVE $3 YOU STREET SHITTERS

[Anonymous No.16694194]

>>16688914

No one is using Chainlink.

[Anonymous No.16694209]

>>16689759
i think you need to adopt a rope around your neck, priced out redditor

[Anonymous No.16694225]

>>16694130
Nothing burgers...I bet you’re still waiting for news from Google and SWIFT lmfao. Enjoy your heavy bags. Bend at the knees.

[Anonymous No.16694293]

>>16688914
this is what you think is the car

[Anonymous No.16694428]

>>16689759
Fud time is over
Go and be gay somewhere else
Or are you unironically still not all in?

Faggot

[Anonymous No.16694871]

>>16688874
You literally have no idea how chainlink works. You can stop making up retard bullshit now.

[Anonymous No.16694911]

>>16694107
Not yet. Or not that you know about yet.

[Anonymous No.16695094]

>>16689153
That's one possibility. I did notice that before it disappeared they had finished all non-icebox tasks.

[Anonymous No.16695169]

Linkoids getting absolutely bottom blasted ITT.
How does it feel to have bought a funding token and not an actual cryptocurrency?

[kihohuim No.16695202]

>>16695169
ha so true

[Anonymous No.16695259]

>mfw people still argue with the fudders

[Anonymous No.16695286]

>>16693015
if only

[Anonymous No.16695309]

uh oh linkies...

LOOK WHO'S BACK

[Anonymous No.16695322]

>>16695309
imagine having "cryptojew" in your fucking name

[Anonymous No.16695382]

Bump

[Anonymous No.16695422]

>>16686932
Why not clarify with a name change to ChainPrice?

[Anonymous No.16695430]

>>16695309
That Insect sold Btc at loss and is literally a fucking WAITER. Imagine getting paid waiter wages holy fuck what a LOSER

[Anonymous No.16695434]

>>16687358
I have a 20k baglet, should I be excited?

[Anonymous No.16695435]

Lots of new stuff unfolding.

[42 No.16695957]

>>16695430
>That Insect sold Btc at loss and is literally a fucking WAITER
that's okay, he'll come around once he's man enough to swallow his pride (I hope so for his sake)
never too late to make a good decision

[Anonymous No.16696273]

>>16693875
Not "price feeds", but decentralized price oracles.

[Anonymous No.16696297]

>>16695957
holy kek, thank you

[Anonymous No.16696303]

>>16694194
A lot of people are using Chainlink.

>>16694293
No, this.

[42 No.16696351]

>>16696297