Where's your head at
>>62855079why am I still holding? I have no idea. I know I should unstake and sell, my former position in the pool being instantly filled by bots, but I just can't bring myself to do it. the fuddies were right. just think about it, they're all millionaires from selling their link and buying literally anything else, and yet every day they rolled up their sleeves and waded onto biz to warn us about chainlink. that's real heroism, and we took it for granted
the jig is upthe only narrative the linktards had going for them was le "tokenization" and that narrative is collapsing as we speak
>>62855079>link up to 11.7 in 2 secsLink 1000$ is finally real?
>>62855240that's through okx and icetheyre going right onto dtcc
Someone explain the oracle thing I thought link was conciselyI don't hold any but I thought there was a little merit to the 'it should be worth more'
>>62855314>>62855301Who even cares at this pointAnything substantial with Chainlink that could make the price go up is still like 5-10 years away, and that's if they don't collapse in the meantime or IPOI don't give a fuck about any more of their 'bullish' news, they never result in anything
>>62855336Holding a memecoin and hoping for random pumps made me more than chainlink ever would have
>>62855336>>62855346DTCC uses CRE rails for everything, which will generate ridiculous link fees in production. Go buy all the shitcoins you want. I'm not budging an inch.
>>62855309Basically we're at a point where individual chains are becoming irrelevant, and banks are all saying they'll use a whole bunch of different ones at the same time.The only thing that will see near-exclusivity in the upcoming mass adoption wave, is the meta infrastructure that connects all the chains together, and to the outside world. That's Chainlink.>>62855336>Anything substantial with Chainlink that could make the price go up is still like 5-10 years awaySwift and DTCC are launching their own chain ON TOP OF multichain adoption. And the banks are following suit, see Morgan Stanley just today.Crawl back under your rock faggot
>>62855351>willYeah been hearing that for nearly a decade alreadyGo fuck yourself shillCCIP was already supposed to generate ridiculous fees and it makes like 500 dollars a day>>62855366>IT WILL BE IN PRODUCTION SOON FOR REAL THIS TIME WITH THIS LATEST LIMITED PILOT I PROMISE GUYSDie shill
>>62855376go to Swift and DTCC's website and socials and see for yourself. Are you retarded by any chance? Like legit diagnosed and everything?
>>62855393Price and chart baggie
>>62855405Flamewars on 4chan aren't going to change reality.
>>62855376>CCIP was already supposed to generate ridiculous feesyeah, from things like Swift. Not from fucking Defi.
Sad. I could've retired in 2021. Now I am so far away and price action is pathetic regardless of how great the news is. Still no confirmed revenue or anything tangible that actually points towards link usage. No updates to stakingIt would be ok if I had any idea what else to invest in. 2018 etc. There were so many optionsTruth is, BNB is what link promised. They were the same price then and BNB hit what, $1200 or something? We hit $50 once and never even looked like getting there again/ Honestly, feels further away than ever.Still holding because of staking and long term I think the play is still a good one, but long term could be 10-20 years from here, not from 2018.
>>62855376>willYeah, based on documentation, the fulcrum demo and 50 trillion in unlocked collateral + tokenization of everythingWhat do you have in opposition? Your own shitty feelings on the matter? Get fucked, you pussy faggot. Go buy some shitcoin.
>>62855454>Still no confirmed revenue or anything tangible that actually points towards link usageCurrent Link usage is documented through things like node fees.Current Link usage is also the same as all crypto usage: relegated to crypto.The whole point of Chainlink was mass adoption. And that's about to happen.
>>62855466>The whole point of Chainlink was mass adoption.and of crypto, obviously
>>62855454Pretty sure staking is getting canned and they have no idea how to actually give the token value.Hence the desperate rushed pivot to the 'Reserve', which is a fucking joke because it's just locking up tokens to dump later.
>>62855493>they have no idea how to actually give the token valueThey already did back in 2019.Chainlink usage at full scale adoption means millions of Link tokens every day get scooped up just for fees.
shrodinger's utilityit's already mass adopted and used in production with SWIFT and DTCC, yet at the same time it's about to happen (again)the linktard has been using the same exact shilling narratives for almost a decade, every year it's the same shitif you keep falling for their shilling, you deserve to lose everything
>>62855542>it's already mass adopted and used in production with SWIFT and DTCCkek says who?Quote them in this thread right now, you imbecile.
>>62855460>duuuuuuuuuuuude i'm in on LE SECRET investmannnnnt!!!!bahahahow do people like this guy still exist???somehow in his mind if he just keeps spamming buzzwords eventually it will make his one in 50 million special altcoin pumpstuck in a mental prison of his own creation, and can't get out all because of ego. you see he can't admit he was wrong, not even to random dudes online. meanwhile in reality he's down untold amounts in recent yearsthat ego has proven very very expensive. i guess you could say hubris was his downfallTHE Cuckolds of crypto
WHAT. LE. FUCK.
>>62855466It's been about to happen for years. But I also disagree that it's happening soon. There is still too much testing and piloting, suggesting that we are quite far away from large scale real world usage that is trackable in some way by people like us that would significantly affect price >>62855493Reserve makes no sense - they're just moving tokens from one area to another. They had their 700m tokens or whatever, which they then started to mix usage of, and this is a way of building back up that bank. I don't see how it benefits anyone other than Chainlink, the company. The quantity being stored weekly is far too low to have any sort of affect on price>>62855499In theory this is correct, but doesn't feel like this is going to happen any time soon.
>>62855553
>>62855552Ah, it's just you, Adem. Sending love your way, champ <3
>>62855592>It's been about to happen for yearsYeah but it's happening right now, see >>62855553>>62855597>>62855599>Sending love your wayHe needs it, his XRP community on X is imploding as we speak.
>>62855618Na, he's fine. He's a stockbashing mercenary out of the netherlands, has a whole stable of various thirdworlders to direct and assist, I think. A very layered individual :^)
>>62855336>fudcuck makes retarded claim>holder responds with how that does involve dtcc link>w-well who cares anyway!Just fuck off back to your sissy gooner fuddie twitter chat, you worthless brown fag.
>>62855599Its wasted on him. The only "love" Adem is interested in is watching niggers fuck pornstars he likes on the other screen in his mums basement when he isnt posting about nigger dicks on twitter and cooking up dogshit tier link fud on here.
>>62855618Q1 2027, so more waiting
>>62855657That's the exact type who needs it the most. Pray for his soul, this type of 'work' must be damning
>>62855079>wholeheartedly deep throat the admin for some exit liquidity>get 3 seconds of air time at a Trump address>entire country hard flips blue shortly after>Democrats already drafting plans to go after every crypto that Trump ever touchedK W A B
>>62855663no, you don't understand anon, it's happening right now
>>62855771Answer me you cuck >>62855549
>>62855771only thing that is happening right now is the cuckening of stinkies :} (as usual)
>>62855779https://www.dtcc.com/press-releases/2026/dtcc-tokenization-service-goes-live?utm_source=chatgpt.comDTCC is live RIGHT NOW, and according to you and all the shills, it IS using Chainlink
>>62855812ok and yet price + charti.e. link token not being used in any appreciable amounti.e. you lose, stinkbag
>>62855812"Live right now" =/= in full production usageJust like how "hit the gas pedal" =/= instant max speedBanks are literally only just beginning to go live.>>62855823>i.e. link token not being used in any appreciable amountNot yet, no. That comes with full production usage.
>>62855841and we went full circle to my original point, it's always "literally just beginning the initial phase of the preliminary pre-pre-pre production of the limited trial pilot experiment", the same exact shit that shills have been preaching for almost 10 years now
they've been in-production for 2-3 years now, and the "real, AKSUAL adoption" is always imminent pic rel
sounds earily familiar linkies
the very fact that Chainlink KOLs cannot even acknowledge the fact that equity undoubtedly exists is a red flag>implying Sandro Salsano WAS NOT A VCwell, the SEC themselves seem to have a vastly different view>https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1852025/000119312525277993/link_s-1_amendment_1.htm>The open-source structure of many digital asset network protocols, such as the Ethereum Network, means that developers and other contributors are generally not directly compensated for their contributions in maintaining and developing such protocols. As a result, the developers and other contributors of a particular digital asset may lack a financial incentive to maintain or develop the network or may lack the resources to adequately address emerging issues. Alternatively, some networks, such as the Chainlink Network, are support by developers that are employed by companies, such as Chainlink Labs and the Chainlink Foundation, whose interests may be at odds with other participants in a particular digital asset network. A failure to properly monitor and upgrade the protocol of the Chainlink Network could damage that network.tl;dr if you still hold LINK in 2017+9 you're a moron, sorry
>>62855851>>62855866>comparing individual banks and companies to FMIsYou really are retarded.Why do you think Swift was always the biggest thing brought up whenever talking about Chainlink? Because it's 11,000 banks, not just "a" bank. A bank on its own can't do shit, they all need to connect and agree with each other.>>62855911>Chainlink KOLs cannot even acknowledge the fact that equity undoubtedly existswhat in the absolute shit are you yapping about now?
>>62855926>he doesn't know about chainlink KOLsngmi
>>62855911I distinctly remember the fish guy acknowledging equity as a possibility around the time Venice AI announced they were raising for IPO since he loved to FUD Venice
>>62855336>Who even cares at this point
>>62855414They aren't going to change price & chart either, are they?
>>62855366*uses expanded CCTP that's been moving trillions instead of CCIP*Your turn.
sold most of my stack, holding some sui stacks for the memes and as lottery tickets. i rarely check price, rarely read updates, don't follow any Link content on twitter. occasionally i argue with advocates on /biz/ just to bait them to reveal substantive updates (they never do, the message hasn't changed for literally 5 years). i treat chainlink sort of like former friends that stopped growing but who i occasionally catch up with
>>62857086this :}linkies are the failure cousins you see at thanksgiving once a year lmao including you btwsell your stacks
>>62857182
>>62857184
>>62855079>$11 stinkerinos
LINK is unironically a more attractive bet now than it was in 2019/2020.
>>62856869>CCTPCircle uses a centralized attestation service API that they run.CCIP uses DONs.That makes CCIP much more secure, provides more different transfer mechanisms other than just burn-and-mind, and also makes CCIP fully self-serve.
>>62857188>creating utility for tokenized assets requires data, interoperability and orchestration>creating utility for tokenized assets requires stupidly large amounts of moving parts which TOTALLY doesn't increase the number of points of failure. Here, look at this crazy flow chart that is absolutelt NOT an opioid smokescreen for to lure low IQ retards.Good luck goyim lol
>>62857184Good God what a load of absolute shit. Not a single bit of anything but handwaving.
>>62858667>Not a single bit of anythingHe's describing a system that lets you fine tune the limits of what AI agents can do when trading for you. Shit makes perfect sense.
>>62858701I'll admit, it's going to be fun when the 9 people who eventually use this lose everything when their retarded AI agent gets a ticker name wrong and zeros their whole portfolio.
>>62858712The system he's describing is meant to prevent exactly that.
>>62858715Oh sure sure. It probably also prevents them from giving bad advice or investing in things that are going to go down too. Or making sure that it limits the agent to only investing in things that are guaranteed to go up 200% this week. There's no limit to the power!
>>62858584clearly nobody gives a shit about that autistic level of "decentralization"where have you been the past few years? how decentralized are the biggest winners of the past 5 years?
>>62858771And I'm putting it in quotes because DONs are literally KYC'd and whitelisted nodes at CLLs discretion, fucking clown.
>>62858771>clearly nobody gives a shit about that autistic level of "decentralization"No serious financial institution in the universe is going to rely on randos on the internet to facilitate and keep their ledgers. It is beyond a pipe dream to think it'll ever happen. It's transcendental 8-dimension hyper hopium. Cryptards keep believing in it though because it makes them feel smart because they "know computer".
>>62858771>clearly nobody gives a shit about that autistic level of "decentralization"banks actually love it, as it means the security of their billions doesn't depend on "an company"
>>62858783"an company" is themselves. Something they have 100% control over. You're purely deluded (although in truth, just lying) if you think they'd prefer unvetted randos doing the work for them.
>>62858781>No serious financial institution in the universe is going to rely on randos on the internetDecentralization doesn't mean randos. It can mean a variety of certified entities.What they definitely won't rely on is a single API run by a single company.>>62858789>"an company" is themselvesIn the case of CCTP "an company" is Circle Internet Group Inc.
>>62858794>It can mean a variety of certified entities.Oh so it's not REALLY decentralized is it? It's a list of certified entities, presumably controlled by the financial institution. Or, to put it another way, a limited set of pieces of computing hardware doing some work. Can you explain how that is fundamentally different than just "a database running in one or more data centers"? Something which has been going on for oh I don't know, 50+ years?Seriously, do you guys ever listen to your own words?
>>62858804>Oh so it's not REALLY decentralized is it?Yes it 100% is.You're conflating decentralized with permissionless. Because you're kinda dumb.And not only that, but in the case of CCIP users can choose whether their DONs are permissionless or not. You can build your own CCIP rails yourself with the open source code, and allow any kind of node you want.In the case of banks, they'll go with certified nodes. No question about it.
>>62858814Cooked that faggot
>>62858814>In the case of banks, they'll go with certified nodes. No question about it.If they're going to go with "certified nodes" that means the entire endeavor (Chainlink or any other retarded crypto system) is completely pointless. You could use any number of standard distributed query engines (Apache Spark, Photon, Presto, or a couple dozen others) to do the same work 10000x faster on dedicated hardware, all under your own control.
>>62858822>If they're going to go with "certified nodes" that means the entire endeavor (Chainlink or any other retarded crypto system) is completely pointlessIt's not.It means their security relies on a variety of certified entities, rather than a single one (e.g. Circle Internet Group Inc.)
>>62858827But "certified entities" means "a list of people we trust" which also means "a list of people we can modify as we like". And that means there's nothing decentralized about it. The bank has the ultimate centralized power. And if they have the ability to pick and choose who runs the hardware, why even go through all the trouble to use some ridiculous rube goldberg machine instead of prebuilt, high performance tools on dedicated hardware? There's no world where it makes sense.
>>62858831>which also means "a list of people we can modify as we like"1) modifying multiple entities is much harder than modifying a single one2) the banks don't trust each other and will do their best to find entities that are as impartial and accountable as can be
>>62858838>modifying multiple entities is much harder than modifying a single oneSo...they can't easily modify who is "certified"? Then I guess my original point stands. No bank in the universe is going to entrust their records to a system where they can't even remove suspicious computing nodes.>the banks don't trust each otherThis is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Banks have to inherently trust each other otherwise there would be no financial system. They are all heavily regulated and audited. Just like above, there is no universe where they're going to trust random "certified entities" (who you just said they can't easily add or remove) over peer giant financial institutions who all operate under the same set of gargantuan banking laws.
>>62855079Similar place as when I first saw CL: I should make gains elsewhere so that I can have even more for the take-off. If I had bought link when I first saw it I'd have made a lot less by now.
>>62858831>being able to modify entities bad>>62858847>being able to modify entities goodexplain yourself
>>62858872just exit the thread bro, this is embarrassing, he bodies you and that's all you can come up with
>>62858872I don't even know what you're saying. My position is this: No bank is going to use a decentralized system that they cannot reliably control by having the ability to remove "certified systems". They will require absolute authority over their own data and what computing systems see it. You specifically said "modifying multiple entities is much harder than modifying a single one" which implies once their shit is on this network, they really can't control who touches the data. This is obviously very stupid, and so I assert banks would never go for it. What banks WILL go for is a system where they have full control, like they do now. But that is not what your idiotic rube-goldberg device provides, apparently.I get that you're a simpleton, so I'll give you an example of how strict data controls are in finance. There's this concept of encryption of in-flight data. Which means, data that is being transmitted on purely internal physical hardware MUST be encrypted. In other words, even moving from machine to machine in a single data center, the packets in flight have to be strongly encrypted. No financial entity that works under such strict conditions is ever going to sign up for storing data on "certified entities" whose certifications they cannot even revoke. It's beyond fantasy.
>>62855079It feels like I'm stealing at these prices...
>>62858884> they cannot reliably control by having the ability to remove "certified systems"Of course they can remove certified nodes if they're bad or suspicious.>What banks WILL go for is a system where they have full controlBanks don't want a system that is fully controlled by a single bank or company
>>62855240This was always such a random and pointless idea. Oh boy, let's take stock and atomize it into pieces because....because well, people like trading pieces instead of stock! And also let's....put it on some random computers on the internet, because tracking it on 100000 machines makes it much harder to quickly update and that's....good? I guess?Not to mention that fractional stock trading has already been a think for ages now. This whole thing is just literally technobabble attempting to fool morons into thinking it's somehow meaningful.
>>62858903>Banks don't want a system that is fully controlled by a single bank or companyUh, yes they do. The want the system that is controlled by them. I am bank A, I have my own hardware, security and software. I'm all good. Bank B also has their own system, which they control. We can talk to each other and perform transactions in a standardized way. That's the entirety of it. There's no ridiculous mechanism between us that involves a bunch of Pentium IIs running Dollas@Home doing the work and storing the results.
>>62858912>Uh, yes they do. The want the system that is controlled by them.You just contradicted yourself>>62858907>hurr tokenization badYou should write a strongly worded letter to the banks. That'll learn 'em.
>>62858914>You just contradicted yourselfYou're just making shit up now. This has been my position the entire time. Banks will never go for a system they don't have full control over. It's very simple. Their hardware, their software, their security, their data. They're not going to subcontract that out to a bunch of shitters on the internet.
>>62858923>banks want a system that is controlled by a single bank>banks want a system that is controlled by all banksWhich is it?
>>62858929Ah, playing the simpleton again. Ok, I'll try and be even more clear:- Bank A has it's own system and maintains it's own centralized ledger. The opposite of "decentralized", yes?- Bank B has it's own system and maintains it's own centralized ledger. - If Bank A and Bank B want to do a transaction, they do it directly, using a standardized protocol.- Both banks have complete and full control of their own data and where it goes. And in fact, it only ever goes to another bank that operates under the same strict rules.In this setup, there is no random entity on the internet ("certified" or otherwise) who is in control of the inputs or outputs of the transaction. Just two banks exchanging information and updating their internal ledgers. No handoff of critical financial information to cpus in the cloud, operated by god knows who.
>>62858937>- If Bank A and Bank B want to do a transaction, they do it directly, using a standardized protocol.>- Both banks have complete and full control of their own data and where it goes.And what about the "standardized protocol"? Who controls that?
>>62858945Do you understand what a protocol is? That is - an agreed upon way of conduction a transaction? There's several of them, all of which are internationally recognized and agreed upon (like SWIFT, or ISO20022). You know, important things that get a lot of resources dedicated to them by nation states to ensure stable economies. Not bullshit that comes from 100 dudes in California that took 10 years to even prototype (10 years is an eternity to roll anything out, even in finance).
>>62858964>like SWIFTboy do I have news for you
>>62858972Yes, I'm sure you're going to announce a PARTNERSHIIIIIIIIIIIIP! Also with DTCCCCCCCCCCCC!!!!!!!!!!!!! Announcements and promises is all you grifters have. Nothing of actual substance.
>>62858814>certified nodesThat's the very definition of centralised. One person, at the top, certifying and decertifying who can join in. And you think otherwise because you're a fuckhead, just like every cringe-marine
>>62855366>The only thing that will see near-exclusivity in the upcoming mass adoption waveThe only thing that will see near-exclusivity is going to be the tears of you morons in another decade when nothing but toy prototypes have ever been rolled out. At that point, maybe, MAYBE you will be capable of admitted you were scammed.
>>62858983I love how you just agreed that there would be a "standardized protocol" and that it would be a neutral system agreed upon by the banks collectively through something like Swift, but then you get angry with the way Swift is announcing this standardized protocol.>>62858993>MAYBE you will be capable of admitted you were scammedIf we were scammed, then we were scammed by swift and dtcc.>>62858985>multiple certified nodeS>one personpick one
>>62855079In your fear and uncertainty it will be tempting to put your trust in some person or group who emerges and claims to have a "way out", which will involve sacrificing some of your liberty. You must resist this urge. These self‑proclaimed saviors may appear in many forms, under any number of banners: "intellectuals", "influential people", "progressive thinkers", "billionaires", "the UN", "the EU", "self‑selected multinational coalition", "global leaders", "world governments", "radicals", "revolutionaries" or some combination of these. They may appear charismatic. They may appear to have your best interests at heart. They may stand united, arm‑in‑arm, proclaiming "We know the way forward", advancing some form of "people's revolution" or "Global Reset" where "you will be in charge", hawking various "‑isms" and promises of a better tomorrow. These people are not your friends. They are not to be trusted. They are the same global banking elites using the same fear tactics, shilling the same magic potions and snake oils as always. They want only one thing: power.
>>62858838>1) modifying multiple entities is much harder than modifying a single oneOh my god, I just realized where you were going with this. You were going off on the whole "you can't hack a distributed ledger" thing. You legitimately didn't understand what that conversation was about, did you? We (or at least I) were talking about centralized vs decentralized and how any kind of "certified nodes" meant it was de-facto centralized anyway. But in your stupid brain, you thought "certified nodes" meant "dudes who don't seem to be bad guys" because "modifying multiple entities is much harder than modifying a single one". But of course the big point here is - no bank is going to put themselves in a position where ANY of that is possible. Good lord I didn't see how dumb you are - I apologize.
>>62858997>pick oneYou've just defined the Federal Reserve as decentralised. Congrats!
>>62858997>but then you get angry with the way Swift is announcing this standardized protocol.The protocol isn't the point, but maybe you're not capable of following this thread. The point is who controls the data and where it resides. Any arrangement where the data is not fully (at-rest or in-flight) controlled by the bank themselves is a non-starter, and you're going to be disappointed forever if you think it'll ever amount to anything other than a toy project.
>>62859029>any kind of "certified nodes" meant it was de-facto centralized anywayIndividual nodes are centralized, yes.As soon as you put together a bunch of nodes, it's decentralized. Whether these nodes are certified and identified or random and anonymous.>>62859031No I didn't.>>62859045>Any arrangement where the data is not fully (at-rest or in-flight) controlled by the bank themselves is a non-starterIf banks want to transact with other banks, they're going to use a protocol that isn't controlled by a single company (or worse: one other bank)
>>62858997>I love how you just agreed that there would be a "standardized protocol" and that it would be a neutral system agreed upon by the banks collectively through something like SwiftNigger, swift IS a protocol and it's over half a century old.>a set of syntax standards for financial messages (for transmission over SWIFTNet or any other network)You're speaking as if we live in Cyberpunk 2077 and corporations are sending death squads against each other to steal secrets and money. But in fact, it's just banks talking to each other all day sending money back and forth. Your stupid crypto shit is just an attempt to inject a (worse than) useless layer in the middle.
>>62859063>No I didn't.Your small brain can't understand that it did.You genuinely think that not having one person in charge of certified nodes - which describes the Federal Reserve - makes it decentralised. The other only option is that you're unable to explain the simple thoughts in your own head.
>>62859063>protocol that isn't controlled by a single companyProtocols aren't controlled by a single company, dumbass. They're internationally agreed upon standards. You know, like how in the US, all power companies deliver 110v at 60hz? Standards. Say it with me Corky. "Single companies" maintain control of their own data, their own ledgers. That's the part your retarded mechanism wants to fuck with.
>>62859083>Nigger, swift IS a protocol and it's over half a century old.Swift is not a protocol, it's a bank cooperative where banks come together to decide what protocols to use.>>62859094>Protocols aren't controlled by a single companyTons of protocols are controlled by a single company.>>62859090>one person in charge of certified nodeskek why would you even think this?
>>62859063>Individual nodes are centralized, yes.>As soon as you put together a bunch of nodes, it's decentralized. Whether these nodes are certified and identified or random and anonymous.You continue to impress with your stupidity. "Certified nodes" implies that some centralized authority (that which certifies authenticity) can add and remove nodes. Therefore "random and anonymous" cannot be considered certified. Therefore what you're left with is nodes that are certified, known and arbitrarily removable. And that is exactly how centralized systems work. Are you getting confused by the concept that "multiple computers" can be involved, but it still remains centralized? Like, if you have a datacenter with 100 racks in it, that's 100 different computers, but it's all under control of say, Youtube. And if youtube has 100 of these datacenters in different places, it's still centralized because they have 100% control over all of it. "Decentralized" would imply youtube couldn't just arbitrarily nuke some random node that was serving up Hitler videos or whatever.Look, I'll give you an out here. I'll pretend that I've been getting trolled the whole time and you can go "ohhh yeah boy, I've been fucking with you all along" and save face.
>>62859121>"Certified nodes" implies that some centralized authority (that which certifies authenticity) can add and remove nodes.no it doesn't.Certifications can be provided by a broad variety of certifying bodies, and each node can have several or one and maybe none are the same. And then the banks come together and vote as a collective on which nodes they want to use.
>>62859134>>"Certified nodes" implies that some centralized authority (that which certifies authenticity) can add and remove nodes.>no it doesn't.Ok, so now we're waaaay back to a few hours ago. No one can revoke certifications. Which means a bad actor who is certified can start fucking with things and welp, sorry! Nothing we can do! All your money's gone and just like with Bitcoin there's nothing we can do so sorry. No bank is going to do this, you must understand this.
>>62859141>No one can revoke certifications.The certifying body can.And the body of banks that decides what nodes to use can choose to include/reject/remove nodes, using the certifications as part of their decision making process.In short, the banks can choose nodes that aren't certified (unlikely), and can reject nodes that are certified. It's up to them.
>>62859134>And then the banks come together and vote as a collective on which nodes they want to use.Making the banks - wait for it ... - the CENTRE of a network
>>62859153Ah ok. "Hey buddy, look, that 100k that disappeared from your account? We can't get it back, but we've initiated a vote with the governing body and they're going to revoke the cert for the bad guy who did it. Maybe a week from now. Thanks for finding him for us. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeee".That's never going to be a position banks will accept.
>>62859163>thousands of banks>centralizedpick one>>62859164The whole point of using many nodes is so one "bad guy" can't cause fuckups like 100k disappearing.
>>62859163>Making the banks - wait for it ... - the CENTRE of a networkI honestly believe that he thinks the fact that it's MULTIPLE COMPUTERS is what makes things decentralized. Doesn't matter that the structure of the network is completely under the control of the banks. It's....multiple computers in different places!
>>62859173>The whole point of using many nodes is so one "bad guy" can't cause fuckups like 100k disappearing.Examine your statement and compare it against the last 4 years of finance. How many times has decentralized crypto been hacked one way or another, with no possible way of getting the money back? Many times. By way of comparison, if someone gets their bank account hacked, typically everything gets frozen and they get it all back. Sincerely, how do you with an honest face contend that:- This will be a decentralized system that can't be hacked by anyone- Banks are completely cool with this even though it implies if people get robbed there's literally nothing they can do.OR- If the banks CAN get it back (which I'm sure is what you're teeing up), it still somehow isn't a centralized system.
>>62859187>How many times has decentralized crypto been hacked one way or anotherI can't really think of a single time. It's pretty much always some centralized part that gets attacked, or some really thin liquidity avenue.It's pretty much never the actual decentralized consensus system.>with no possible way of getting the money backThat's entirely down to the guarantees that are put up.Money that's stolen is rarely recovered from the thief, be it in crypto or tradfi.>>62859177>MULTIPLE COMPUTERShow about: THOUSANDS OF BANKS?
>>62859121NTASure, Chainlink’s node registry is permissioned (the team/multisig can add or remove nodes), but that’s not the same thing as YouTube’s infrastructure. YouTube can run 1,000 datacenters and it’s still one legal entity with unified control and a single kill switch. A Chainlink DON is made up of legally independent organizations (Deutsche Telekom, LexisNexis, Swisscom) running their own infrastructure on different providers. YouTube’s servers do load balancing and failover for one central backend. Chainlink nodes each fetch, sign, and aggregate off-chain data on their own and reach consensus before anything gets submitted on-chain. No single node can manipulate the output or speak for the network by itself.So yes, a permissioned node set means it’s governed by CLL rather than being fully permissionless. But centralizing who gets to be a node doesn’t get rid of Byzantine fault tolerance at the execution layer.
>>62859199Will you answer this? It's really the crux of the entire argument.>Sincerely, how do you with an honest face contend that:>- This will be a decentralized system that can't be hacked by anyone>- Banks are completely cool with this even though it implies if people get robbed there's literally nothing >they can do.>OR>- If the banks CAN get it back (which I'm sure is what you're teeing up), it still somehow isn't a centralized >system.Either banks have to accept that money can be stolen with no possible recourse OR the system is setup in such a way that they can just grab it back, implying a centralized architecture. That is as simple as it can be stated. You cannot argue any other way because the core selling point of crypto is "the distributed ledger prevents ANYONE from locking me out and taking my shit"
>>62859205>a permissioned node set means it’s governed by CLL rather than being fully permissionlessYou can build DONs yourself with fully permissionless nodes, and use them for your products that you built.>>62859210>Either banks have to accept that money can be stolen with no possible recourse OR the system is setup in such a way that they can just grab it back, implying a centralized architecture.k?My point was that banks won't use a system that's controlled by a single bank or company.What the fuck are you even arguing anymore?
>>62859239>My point was that banks won't use a system that's controlled by a single bank or company.You're just playing word games. Every bank maintains a centralized ledger. That's how it works today. They communicate with each other in standardized ways to move money between these ledgers. Because of this, it's strictly controls. Something goes wrong, there's a record, etc, etc. No one bank controls the entire system. What you are saying though is that you think banks will allow their individual centralized ledgers (complete with all the hardware and software that maintains it), toss it into a decentralized mess managed by effectively random hardware on the internet. One of the consequences of that decentralization is that if something gets stolen, nothing can be done.You are saying banks will willingly go to this decentralized mechanism, which is ridiculous. It provides neither them or their customers with any benefit. I mean, just say it: "I believe banks are totally fine with unknown hardware holding the actual data containing my customers information, and if they get robbed all I can do is shrug". Because that's the primary implication.
>>62859280>What you are saying though is that you think banks will allow their individual centralized ledgers (complete with all the hardware and software that maintains it), toss it into a decentralized mess managed by effectively random hardware on the internetYour wording is more emotional than descriptive.It's impossible to know what you even mean by this.
>>62859301It's pretty clear, you're just being obtuse:- Banks use a centralized ledger now. That's the way it's always been. They have strict control over the location and modifications to the data.- You are suggesting that instead of using a centralized ledger, they are willing to use a decentralized ledger which they have no control over. If a customer gets their account drained, there is quite literally nothing that can be done.You're championing this whole chainlink thing as being what banks are clamoring for. At least have the conviction to admit this is the arrangement you think is going to happen.
>>62859325>- You are suggesting that instead of using a centralized ledger, they are willing to use a decentralized ledger which they have no control over.I never said this.Tons of banks are using their own in-house DLTs.
>>62859334LOL! So it turns out all this decentralization talk was just pointless! It's just all going to be run completely in-house, like any other centralized solution. Just with some random piece of software acting as the back end. Fucken LOL. Good luck with your retard investment. AAPL is up 30% in the last year btw. Good lord.
>>62859352>So it turns out all this decentralization talk was just pointless!No it wasn't.You're just really really really dumb.They each have their own in-house (distributed) ledgers, but they obviously want to connect and communicate with competing banks to make transactions. This means they need a communication or bridging system, hence the CCTP/CCIP comparison itt.
>>62858907>t. never heard of fractional sharesIt's still a stupid idea, though. It's just a shittier, less anonymous way of doing something that already exists.
