/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24153017
Ah, yeah, I remember you from the Bitconnect times, before all the fudders ruined the great project and we moved over to Nano, pic.

You also had the same pic calling out the shills against Bitconnect and now Nano. So are you selling everything and going all-in again in Nano, just as you did with Bitconnect?

>>24035728
>this confirms you're all poor pajeets fudding
This makes zero sense. Are you unable to use basic logic? Bitconnect and Nano are highly correlated for a reason. Pic related.

There is no way in hell that Nano can be a global currency sub 10K TPS. Visa alone has 65K TPS and is not serving the unbanked and not meant for micro-transactions.,
https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/corporate/media/visanet-technology/aboutvisafactsheet.pdf

If Nano had the minimum TPS for a global currency, 100K, the costs of running nodes (IO, CPU and bandwith) would be astronomical. Your moronic business model says that node operators shall do it all for free 24/7, all holidays etc. A few seconds without node operators doing it all for free and your whole shit network crashed. You have zero guarantee that the network is stable and usable at all times. Who the hell would invest and use such a shit network?

>>16644313
Colin and the rest of the sociopathic Nano core, kicked Bitgrail victims off their Nano reddit, and Nano community post Bitgrail is mostly people from Bitconnect community. Pic.

>>16623103
>>16623115
No wonder your stupid community believes proven scammer Colin that you can have a global network with insane costs for free. Pic related.

>>16610289
I know you Nanoids don't care. That's part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that most of you post Bitgrail are from the nasty and aggressive Bitconnect community. Your comment and pic.

>>16610315
Not Jason. If you have his tweets, post them here. Sorry about your Bitconnect and Nano losses.