LINK is fucked

[Anonymous No.54649194]

>token not needed
>oracles not needed
project not needed

[Anonymous No.54649204]

ICP will reach $10 before LINK. Screen cap this.

[Anonymous No.54649212]

>>54649204
ok

[Anonymous No.54649277]

>>54649204
Not possible. LINK reached $10 before your piss coin even existed

[Anonymous No.54649282]

without oracles you say?

[Anonymous No.54649442]

>>54649212
Thanks.

>>54649277
Checked and fuck you.

[Anonymous No.54649456]

>>54649204
Didn't ICP used to be like $700? Epic fail lmao

[Anonymous No.54649474]

>>54649456
That's 100x+ to ATH. So bullish. Enjoy your measly 10x (not gonna happen) lol.

[Anonymous No.54649977]

>ICP
scam

[Anonymous No.54650177]

>>54649194
It's very strange for ICP users to try to attack link. I think the aim is to try to inform developers that there is an alternative and try to attact them?

Renaming oracles to canisters and bundling it under the platform isn't an innovation. ICP also uses a payment utility token called cycles. It doesn't take a genius to recognize this and draw parallels.

Alongside the rename of the function (oracles to canisters) comes the same issues paramount to the oracle problem.
How do ICP canisters form consensus? I can see there are three mechanisms which try to exclude outlying responses. What happens if multiple nodes collude and provide false responses?

[Anonymous No.54650214]

>>54650177
They have to try to remake LINK basically on the piss chain

[Anonymous No.54650270]

>>54650177
>How do ICP canisters form consensus? I can see there are three mechanisms which try to exclude outlying responses. What happens if multiple nodes collude and provide false responses?

this is what doesnt make sense to me too

[Anonymous No.54650279]

>>54650214
That's basically it, they're trying to develop the same solution with a much smaller team and far less research.
They're ultimately doing a disservice to the developers and users by decreasing their security and pulling the wool over their eyes by pretending a canister isn't the same as an oracle.

It's like trying to sail in a bath tub and refusing to call it a boat. Of course it may not be a boat but it performs the same function but at much higher risk of sinking.

[Anonymous No.54650292]

>>54649194
>canisters can fetch external data!!
>without oracles!!!!

Anon, the canisters ARE the oracles.
Shitty centralized ones.

[Anonymous No.54650306]

>>54649194
> Tell me you're technically illiterate without saying it outright

You fucking ICP faggots don't understand a single fucking thing. You're that gullible idiot who is easy to convince with buzzwords and technical jargon to think that something is better than it really is. This is not a "threat" to LINK in any way, shape, or form.

HTTPS outcalls depend on the availability of web 2.0 services they call upon. They're also a security nightmare and you risk exposing sensitive data to external parties. They can't be accurately relied upon to verify the authenticity or accuracy of the data they do receive, and while I haven't looked into it too deeply (Because why would I waste my time on something that it is immediately apparent is retarded) but they likely wont be compatible with a wide range of web services that require encryption or complex protocols.

At best, ICP will be used as a complementary service to Chainlink but will be reliant on Chainlink oracles to verify the data quality and reliability. I could go on and explain why Chainlink is fucking awesome, but why bother? You fucking retards are too stupid to understand after ALL THIS TIME.

I'll keep holdiing LINK, thanks. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.54650342]

>>54650306
>You're that gullible idiot who is easy to convince with buzzwords and technical jargon to think that something is better than it really is
the irony kek

[Anonymous No.54650343]

>>54650306
I could go on and explain why Chainlink is fucking awesome, but why bother? You fucking retards are too stupid to understand after ALL THIS TIME.

go on

[Anonymous No.54650539]

>>54650177
>How do ICP canisters form consensus?
kek, what is this 2017? consensus is a such a trivial problem compared to putting the entire internet on the blockchain.

>>54650292
canisters are basically super-oracles. can chainlink oracles host websites? yeah I thought not KEK

[Anonymous No.54650557]

>>54650306
yeah I'm not reading all that.

keep seething stinkie

[Anonymous No.54650570]

>>54650306
Fuck you chainshitter scumbag. Fucking fuck you.

[Anonymous No.54650598]

>>54650539
>can chainlink oracles host websites?
That's like saying "can your car mow the lawn??"

[Anonymous No.54650642]

>>54650598
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHe_eaLmUH4
linkies can't stop taking Ls

[Anonymous No.54650647]

>>54650539
So how do they prevent collusion among nodes?

We're talking about oracle capability here, chainlink hasn't been built to host websites. Why would they? They are building in off-chain processing via DON's.
The reason you have a web3 protocol stack is to use multiple well-developed components instead of half baked oracles or half baked hosting services. There are specialized platforms which can do it much better.
This is also why ethereum and other large chains don't try to provide every single function.

Here is some light reading:
https://web3-technology-stack.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

[Anonymous No.54650652]

>>54650642
kek, linkies BTFO

[Anonymous No.54650682]

>>54650642
>>54650652
I'm like 95% sure you're being unironic too.

[Anonymous No.54650718]

Icp niggers have negative IQ

[Anonymous No.54650733]

>>54650647
Can chainlink oracles toast bread?

[Anonymous No.54650782]

>>54650306
Absolutely fucking based. Check the seething replies, they have nothing. When you said
>You're that gullible idiot who is easy to convince with buzzwords and technical jargon to think that something is better than it really is.
You hit the nail on the fucking head. Not one of them understand what they're investing in, they're just desperately clinging on to anything that makes that less nervous about their SHOCKING investment.
Has there EVER been a chart that looked as awful as ICP's? The answer must be a resounding no.