/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30112259
>>30112262
Nano scammers are unable to debunk anything. All you have is ad hominem and hysteria. Your vaporware shitcoin is going to zero and your devs are pathological liars and scammers. Deal with it.

>>29624571
Nano is the only crypto that has devs/team and community that consistently use lies and distortion as their only selling point. Without your lies, nobody would have ever heard about Nano. It would have been a dead coin from the very start.
>>29624211
>>29624284
>>29624607

>>29552905
Why are you repeating your debunked lies about your Nano scam, again and again, spammer?

>>28866768
>Nano scammers lied about Mastercard VP endorsing Nano
Yeah, you only forgot to mention that it was a local branch manager in Australia that made the statement and that he posted later that ALL comments are his own. Besides for that, then it is TOTALLY Mastercard endorsing cucked scam and spam Nano as their favorite currency. Ryte, scammer?

>>28677528
>probably the best cash replacement in crypto
Are you crazy? It's run by pathological lying devs, Jewish grifters and Italian scammers. Tech is a trainwreck. Nano is Bitconnect 2.0

>>28495184
>stay seething copecel. Bitconnect moons and is one of the most popular and succesful coins there is. see you at $10. then $25. you will still be posting the same old fud. then it will hit $50 and you will be silent until it hits $100. then you will cry. while your rank 400 scam bags tank. BIIIIITCOOOOOONEEEECTTT!!

>>28437384
Bitconnect was going up in the beginning when I warned against Bitconnect. Using your low QI pseudo-logic, I lost a lot and the Bitconnect "investors" were the "winners, ryte Nano faggot?

>>24252336
>No other coin has a fudder that's this dedicated. If that doesn't tip you retards off then nothing will. Buy now or cry forever.
Using that insane investor "strategy"; you must have a ton of BCC (Bitconnect) and OneCoins together with your oh so heavy Nano bags.

>>24084371
Nano is soon out of CMC top 100 and Nano Foundation is bankrupt within a few months with a half-ass, half-finished tech wreck and multiple lawsuits. Good luck.

>>24037469
Very true, anon. Most likely they scare the living daylight out of potential investors with their rabid Bitconnect style shilling

>>17074646
>Just a friendly reminder. Nano already has working product.
Nano has no load on the network. I can also use your Nano business model and claim that people can travel the world for free using my travel agency, using volunteers to put in all the work and fund it, with zero passengers. It's still an insane business model that will never work in real life.

A global currency with micropayments must at least be able to handle 100K TPS. Nano can barely handly 0,2K before a total crash. Visa can handle 65K.
https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/corporate/media/visanet-technology/aboutvisafactsheet.pdf

The costs of running Nano with 100 000 TPS is insane. Neither you Nanoid idiots or your scammy Nano Foundation have done ever any kind of cost analysis. Do you have any idea how much CPU, IO and bandwith will cost to run a 100 000 TPS Nano network? If you and the Nano devs/management team have not even done basic cost analysis, then why not and who on earth would ever trust you scammers?

>>16644935
Nano's claim in their whitepaper is absolutely rubbish. It's just as crazy as me stating that I will go the moon using my bicycle, proudly claiming that my speed is unlimited, only restricted by my muscle strength and I am getting stronger and stronger for each day and very soon I will be strong enough to get such a high speed that I will jump to the moon. Ridiculous. Do they have any written plan for 100 000 TPS? Any cost analysis? ETH and other competitors will roll out 100K to 1 million TPS in a matter of months/year.

Nano has done zero cost analysis for 100 000 TPS bandwith, CPU and IO. Random volunteers are supposed to take costs involving millions of USD each year, working on the network 24/ with no downtime, holidays, Christmas etc. Nano has done nothing to provide how it is feasible for Nano to reach 100 000 TPS within the next years. However, imagining it's possible, Nanoids admit that Amazon and large operators like them will take all the costs and burdens of operating the system. That's a clear and open single point of failure (SPOF) and is the very reason why people choose crypto currencies over banks and centralized payment systems. That Nano is not able to identify a clear and basic SPOF in their system is worrisome on multiple levels.

>>16327685
>>16327698
I criticized your crashed Nano tech and utterly insane business model, and this deranged garbage is what I get back:

>If only thou were a dog, so that your actions would be forgivable...
>But nay, you sir are worse, close to the ground with a spine a snake would refuse

>>14967947
>but that doesn't in itself mean it cannot work.
No, it does mean it cannot work. What would you say if I came to you with a business model where volunteers should clean our houses every single day for free? Would you invest any money in that business model?
>it is being used. more and more each week
Compared to the load on the network if a global currency with micropayments, this is absolutely nothing. To use current traffic as a benchmark is utterly ludicrous.
>only a peak, non-sustainable figure
VISA can sustain 60 000 TPS as long as they want. Nano would crash. Only a few months ago there was a small spam attack and Nano crashed. Less than 1000 TPS. It's a total joke, talking about Nano as a the future of interne payment.
>Those are centralized to shit,
Normies don't care. Ethereum will have an ecosystem, smart contracts etc that Zuckbucks will not. You are competing directly with Zuckbucks and will crash, even if your failed tech, failed business model with volunteers taking the all the network costs for nothing etc, worked, Zuckbucks will smash Nano. There is no future for Nano, at all
>RockmSockmjesus
For Nano foundation to use a guy like that as a community manager only further conveys, on top of Bitgrail, that they are either incompetent, evil or both.

>>14854297
Sure, a Nano dev took the time to "refute" my points, but sadly no nanoid ever took a single screenshot of it, so all you can do is to make the claim that he refuted me with zero documentation whatsoever. Sadly non of you nanoids could reproduce the "arguments" by the dev, nor can you present them here. Right? That's what you are telling potential investors?

>>14340550
>Nano is infinitely scalable
Nano has a broken model. There is no way in hell Nano has infinite scalability, in the whitepaper they claim only restriction is hardware. That's just as insane as claiming that a bicyclist has infinite speed, only limited by muscle strength and will soon have supersonic speed. Clown world.

>and has a cult-like following...

>>13792829
>How much bandwith will any currency need for 100k tps? Do you have any idea?
Typical Nano investor. No clue and investing only on feelz, rumours and slogans.

>>12619848
>you didn't even open the link I sent you
I have opened too many virus and tracking links from you nanoids to trust you. Elastums twitter account is deleted. Facebook has 17 likes and is deleted as well. When did you get listed and how large is the consumer base?

>>12613850
Why use facts when you can just lie in true Nanoid style? I got the very same comments from the Bitconnect community when I criticized their shitcoin/devs/management.

Nano is Bitconnect 2.0

>>12587515
You are delusional, nanoid. Thanks for showing the world that Nano is indeed Bitconnect 2.0

>>12571294
>Yes they are, even got a security audit and the auditors were amazed at how solid the code is
You mean just the node software, right? Have they finished the full report and what did they say about spam attacks? December 23rd Nano said that the full audit would be done within weeks. Any new info after that?

>>12468977
>> how can the fasetest first layer chain become a global currency
The whole point with a second layer is that they have their security in their first layer. BTC and ETH have that. Nano does not.
> why did (scamming) devs leave the project
Nobody knows, as nano's marketing and communication strategy is insane and/or non-existent. How man millions of dollars did scamming Zack take with him?
> what is delayed proof of work
How will that stop spamming?
https://www.reddit.com/r/nanotrade/comments/7vwl86/what_are_the_faults_of_nano/dtvnt8x/
https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/90wu2v/what_are_the_negative_things_with_nano/e2tskr8/
> all exchanges will always run a node, many others will for other reasons.
That means crazy centralization.

>>12421978
As usual when the stupid nanoids crash and burn, they run away, hide and then start a new retarded thread. Just a few hours ago you idiots had this trainwreck
>>12418693