I have seen a lot of discussion on the headline which seems to have jumped the gun on the stablecoin assumption which proved untrue..but does this mean that SWIFT are not using LINK for messaging? I haven't seen anyone talk about this but it seems true?
>>61007555Checked. If it isn't using it for messaging or settlement, what even is it using it for? Just price data?
It’s different systems that swift is testing: blockchain messaging vs blockchain interoperability. They’ve already tested and confirmed that chain link works for interoperability, now theyre testing on chain messaging with ZK Rollups for confidentiality, which is not what chainlink does.
>>61007555there is literally no evidence that swift is doing anything with linea
swift messages will remain the same as always. chainlink will take those finalized swift messages and put them on chain. linea is just the chain of choice. doesnt really matter though since ccip will make it available to all chains but it sounds like linea will just be the first.
>>61007596You know what happens to anything that might be seen as a competitor to link…Probably time to load up on Linea. I liked it when they mooned QNT just to fuck with us.
>>61007555SWIFT is trying to on board multiple different chains at once while leveraging CCIP to interact with chains outside their network. For example if China had their private chain for national use and they don't want to use XRP for whatever reason. All they would need to do is enable CCIP for seemless transactions.
>>61007597But if linea is handling the financial messaging, what data exactly is link handling and how valuable is it? I was expecting them to internalize all messaging to CCIP using link. What data is link going to handle?
>>61007622>what data exactly is link handlingall data and messages that are being sent across chains.
>>61007644Right but how exactly? Why do they need linea if link is handling the messaging? Are they both performing the same service for the same fee? Does link connect networks to those providing the service?
>>61007609You have the coolest ID in the history of this board if you didn't notice.
>>61007655>according to @TheBigWhalegreat source m8
>>61007655linea is the L2. meaning that in that graphic it is likely the source blockchain, or part of the "MT with signed blockchain message". They are working together to solve the same problem. >Does link connect networks to those providing the service?yes
>>61007660The OP picture includes a graphic that is clearly made by SWIFT in their exact style. My question is: If linea is handling the messaging and other networks are handling the settlement, what exactly is the link token doing or collecting fees on?
>>61007663I think the implication would be that they handle the sender and receiver messaging described in the blueprint atop each other, wouldn't it? Both of which are outside the CCIP node. So what is link being used for exactly?
>>61007669you mean the swift logo? or the third world gradient website screenshot.
>>61007655Chainlink locks/burns and mints the RWA across chains to facilitate the compliant DvP transaction, paid for in link or (soon to be) abstractly in link. Hong Kong/Europe/US asset mints and your Chase custodian will unlikely be on the same chain.
>>61007555Once again some other shitcoin steals the spotlight from chainshit and will pump 10,000% completely demoralizing linkfags for the 1 billionth time this year.
>>61007690The graphic just looked very much in their common font and style but maybe it is not? Are you saying that you don't think they are using linea? I have seen multiple threads of us celebrating that they were and I don't understand how that's a good thing for us. What is your opinion?
>>61007698So link is not handling messaging or settlement but handles charges fees on RWA crossing from one chain to the other? Am I understanding this correctly?
>>61007731It could be both. The chainlink runtime environment might be posting the messaging on linea. Who knows without more information directly from a swift pilot announcement.
>>61007800How would that work in the flowchart that shows messaging outside of before and after CCIP?
>>61007821I had never considered the specific sections of this picture before
>>61007821I mean fair question, Chainlink’s aim is to create a golden record for their oracles. But the link token itself is not a zk rollup, it’s just a fee token.
Now that retail has left crypto...is it even worth trying your luck with coins like this? I was tempted to throw $500 into it as a whatever, but I think there is almost no point. Normies just aren't in the market anymore so who would even buy my bag? where would the pump come from? I think you have to kind of just hope and pray a whale comes along and blows the price up and that's a long shot. Who knows what those jews are planning?
>>61007930Why would you? Doesn’t linea use eth as gas? What would the actual value prop be for linea?
>>61007555zero confirmation on this but you have to do some basic research in any caselinea is an evm blockchain, dime a dozenchainlink provides the plumbing to connect blockchains to the swift networkchainlink doesn't care which blockchains are used, could be mainnet, could be linea, could be avalanchethey are agnosticchainlink
>>61007975Since when does value proposition matter? cunts got rich off Shib and other bullshit. I'm just trying to spot the wave and ride it.
>>61007555i swear this whole forum has become a cesspool of retardsoh no a layer one! how will my oracle network compete?seriously, just sell your link bag of like 1000 link and move on you fucking new fags
>>61008041But how is the link token actually utilized in the process is my question?
>>61008110It took me a long time to accumulate my 1000 link
>>61008192linea will pay 50 million to chainlink labssirgay will dump those 50 million on linkies to keep the price and morale low
>>61008208you'll have a million within 2-3 years but just chill out and understand what you're holdingyou need to have patienceit is obvious as shit this is the protocol layer for tokenization for the next 100 years but this doesn't happen over night.chainlink has JUST proved long term stability in DeFi. It's been like 8 fucking years, chill out.this is supposed to scale to secure over 100 trillion dollars in assets and has been hand picked but it takes TIME.be smart, pick a good job, stay stable, and hold till 2030. I'm not fudding. most of us who accumulated 10-30k+ will be long out by the time it stagnates between 200-400 dollars a piece.you will be a rarity with your 1k link one day
>>61008250>chainlink has JUST proved long term stability in DeFi>DeFi>100 yearsSwift said all over their partners are free to use competitors to link. There's a new "DeFi" option available every couple of months now.
>>61008315interesting as swift has built in a new xml field directly wired to blockchain interop settlement that indicates to CCIP where and how to settleinteresting take, and by interesting, i mean lol retard
Amazing that they've kept it hidden for so long.
>>61007690do you need pretty moving pictures to understand?
>>61008320>lol retardIronic. See: >>61008315>Swift said all over their partners are free to use competitors to link.This is just a fact. Not everything is going to use CCIP, and what is using it will not be using it for "100years". You're essentially saying:>"Swift did one update after 50years and will continue to stay technologically stagnant for another 100 years after this." If you honestly believe that you're retarded.
>>61008356No, I just didn't understand the LINK fud and figured it was unfounded since the twitter source was someone who goes by The Big Whale who I assume is probably big but more likely a slovenly plump third worlder than a millionaire genius.>linea replace xrphttps://docs.linea.build/get-started/tooling/oracles/chainlink
>>61009278>TCP/IP.>This really important thing that actually generates zero ROI despite everything using itLol. Sounds familiar.
>>61007555right now theres a million times more evidence swift is working with Chainlink for interop than swift working with lineaI mean for gods sake, just watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdLjIVlA_DA&t=7s
>>61007930>Normies just aren't in the market anymore so who would even buy my bagThat's been the case for every bottom buyer in history.
>>61007555They will pump our bags, dump link and buy LINEA! (backed by consensys)I highly recommend you guys to selfcustody your Linea, because it's confirmed that linea holders will receive the metamask airdrop when the TGE happens...If you buy and let it on a CEX you'll get cucked
Also just realized, it doesn't even fucking matter if its linea because guess what, it BUILDS ONTOP OF CCIP HAHAHAH LMFAOOOO>https://docs.linea.build/get-started/tooling/cross-chain/ccip-read>https://linea.build/blog/ccip-read-on-linea-use-cases-for-cross-chain-communication
>>61009359>To use CCIP services, you need to have LINK available to pay node operators, a cost referred to as CCIP fees. See the token contracts for LINK on Linea.OHNONONOOO FUDDIES HAAAAAHAHHAHHAHAHA
>>61009359>>61009363Are you retarded or just pretending? CCIP here is the ENS protocol not Chainlink's.
>>61009389holy shit are you illiterate or something
>>61009517CCIP Read is a specification. Any implementation could work. See Cloudflare Worker.
>>61009560The CCIP in CCIP read is literally Chainlink's CCIP. Anything done with CCIP read uses Chainlink nodes.
>>61008208>tfw still 3 digitplease just a little bit more and I'll reach 4 digit heaven...
>>61009569Not true.https://docs.ens.domains/resolvers/ccip-read/
>>61009577What makes you say that?
>>61009587I'm showing you that CCIP Read is a standard. Has nothing to do with Chainlink.https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3668
>>61009605>Has nothing to do with Chainlink.You may be the dumbest person on this board right now.
>>61007555Yes, but the price ?
>>61009614almost like he has a conclusion and is scrambling to find evidence to support itdisingenuous, lazy
>>61009614>>61009689You two obviously have never worked on any technical project. Standards have different implementations. Saying HTTP is the standard that extends Chrome's implementation doesn't necessarily mean we're using Chrome's implementation. It's just an example. I could be using any different implementation of HTTP.
>>61008336i am actually surprised they did it in 18 months out of the 12-24 timeframe they giveguess i was just too jaded from big serg betraying in 2022 on the promised timeline
>>61009707What a load of absolute gibberish.CCIP read literally uses Chainlink's CCIP. Chainlink even gave the team a grant.
>>61009717Read the links I provided. Not once was Chainlink mentioned.
>>61009717Actually anon here >>61009707 is correct. That's essentially how it works.
>>61009707LINK is a fundamental part of CCIP as a critical security mechanism. Are you memeing? Is this like the shadow fork fud? Sorry, I'm autistic and have 15k staked LINK.
>>61009707maybe you are blinded by your knowledge?engineers think they can build smartcontracts and get blown out because value transfers are inherently social and their autism keeps them focused on atomized systems.Read the pages you linked. THINK about how value transfers. Sure you have a standard for call and response that you can add to any contract you want but who cares? If all you are doing is complying with a standard ask/receive function why are you building on a blockchain?CCIP has many parts (CCIP Read included). The value of CCIP is as a system.
>>61009730Except HTTP has no built-in economic model that relies on a cryptographically secured token for its functionality. CCIP does.
>>61009731How is it like fud at all? Anon just gave an explanation
>>61009743It's the shadow fork fud in disguise.
>>61009742He used that as an example he obviously didn't mean it was 1-1 clone of HTML. You're retarded anon.
>>61009727>>61009730>>61009743>>61009749You need help
>>61009749Is he not saying CCIP doesn't need LINK and they'll just implement CCIP themselves? Is this not what he is saying? Is he not saying they will just fork CCIP? Are you sure? I don't know man, think you might be the retard.
>>61009749>HTMLHTTP* i realize the irony
>>61009752Notice how CCIP Read and Chainlink's solution are separate. This doesn't change what I posted previously.
>>61009756That's not what he said at all you just can't read or look at the links retard.
>>61009768What did he mean by >>61009727?
>>61009777Don't bother responding, trips of truth. Sit.
>>61009756>>61009777Checked. Anon, you're confusing CCIP Read the standard and Chainlink CCIP the protocol.
>>61009764>Notice how CCIP Read and Chainlink's solution are separateWHATThe lead developer of ENS calls it "ENS and Chainlink's solution".Notice how solution is singular.What the literal actual fuck is wrong with you.
>>61007609Nice ID
>>61009752>>61009764"solution"heh, I have a "solution" for them
>>61009787Why are you posting an example of one implementation of CCIP Read as a gotcha?Why do these two links not mention Chainlink?https://docs.ens.domains/resolvers/ccip-read/https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-3668
>>61009768That's actually exactly what >>61009389 and >>61009560 are saying though. They are saying that "Extends" in this context means "improves upon", and it's actually a separate protocol that doesn't require any of Chainlink's infrastructure to function, i.e a shadow fork (but with the blessing of Chainlink, or at least that's what I assume when they credit CCIP in their docs).What >>61009731 is saying is that you can't just "extend on" (or fork) a protocol like CCIP without also leveraging the infrastructure (nodes and stuff) behind it, because you'll get exploited. I can't be arsed to find out who is right at the moment. Any takers that want to dive into the technical docs? If no calls are made to CCIP proper, CCIP Read is a standalone protocol.
>>61009786I understand that it's a standard that could be implemented by anyone, I'm saying there are no alternatives to Chainlink CCIP and to suggest it could even happen is the shadowfork fud in disguise.
>>61009809>one implementation of CCIP ReadThe lead developer of ENS is referring to CCIP Read as a whole.He even describes the entire basic premise of the system.Unfuck yourself, holy shit.
>>61009814This anon gets it. The value of CCIP Read is not in the standard, but the node network. Just like how the value of BTC is not in the source code. Why am I even explaining this? Sibos will be a nothing burger along with SmartCon and we'll be bouncing around in 2-digit territory until the sun burns out. Fuck this I'm going to beat my dick.
>>61009814Yes, that's exactly what's meant by "extends.">>61009816Here's some alternatives. There will be many in the future.https://docs.starknet.id/architecture/ccip/tutorialhttps://www.npmjs.com/package/ccip-resolver
>>61009860Those look like documentation for development and testing. Instead calling Chainlink CCIP, it instead calls a custom API of your own design. I assume this is for testing purposes as obviously these implementations do not inherit the security of Chainlink CCIP and so near zero value will be captured through the implementations you provided in the links. No?
>>61010005>Instead calling Chainlink CCIP, it instead calls a custom API of your own designThat's like saying "instead of driving on roads, it drives on a custom car of your own design".
>>61010005>>61010010I only post facts. You claimed Chainlink is the only solution. I provided two alternatives. I'm not interested in discussing your opinions on the matter.
>>61010044>You claimed Chainlink is the only solution.I claimed that the CCIP in "CCIP Read" by ENS is literally Chainlink's CCIP.And the lead developer for ENS confirmed it.
>>61010044Here's a fact, you are a nigger. After all that, your big gotcha is links to documentation for testing purposes. Nigger.
>>61010063This is getting boring. See >>61009860This is my last post.
>>61010079Just say you're sorry and won't do it again.
>>61009817This seems right...FUCK.
>>61008250>>61008208what youve got to understand nuanon is this: sergey doesnt want a target on chainlink by regulators. He doesnt want them to be forced into a situation where it gets so much attention that competitors start screaming that its unfair, that tech neutrality is needed etc. Theres a common conception that "tech neutrality = le good" - because the market will pick the winner. Fine. But not in oracles, which secure really important contracts. Just imagine, for poltical reasons, a state's central bank had to use an inferior product - pyth or some shit - to secure its smart contract for the printing of money in the country - or access to its treasury - it gets hacked - Richland becomes Poorland overnight as the country's treasury is emptied. Do we really want that to happen? It would KILL blockchain and tokenization forever. The only way we avoid that is by making sure chainlink wins - the only way we make sure of that is to make sure it doesnt have a big fucken target on its back making regulators want to show tech neutrality just because. If this moons 300% overnight or something that is precisely what will happen. So you have to be patient. Or dont. Sell maybe Idgaf what you do with your money.
>>61009764>>61009752lmao this is going to turn into an Oxford comma debate
>CCIP: The standard
>>61011495LESS THAN A DOLLAR IN FEES FOR EVERY CL LABS EMPLOYEE! FUTURE OF FINANCEWE CALL THIS>THE MONEY PRINTER!!
>>61011495Holy shit is this true?
>>61011506There's no way this is true? How do you check?
>>61011495uh 1 Trillion daily volume at those prices is $33.5mm in daily fees which is 12 Billion a year in revenue in just CCIP fees alone Euroclear alone transacts close to $4 trillion a day
>>61012145
>>61012145holy shit lmfao
>>61012356kill yourself immediately
>>61012388 see >>61012356>>61012422Screenshot from an old thread where I saw you argue the same and get shutdown. Look at the speaker list yourself to check and cope.https://ripple.com/events/swell/speakers/
