/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30185966
>arguing in bad faith (and coincidentally lost a shitton on bitgrail lmao).
Of course the Nano moron whining about bad faith is lying again. Here: >>30184321

>you know exactly what you're doing, it's called gish gallop
Try to debunk one of my points, Nano scammer. Do it.

>if the network is so shitty and it takes nothing to cripple it, DO IT FAGGOT,
I am not a sociopath like you and your Nano devs/team. I warn people against Nano so they don't lose money, I will not be the immoral cause that they lose money.

>you're pathetic
Yes, you truly are, Nano scammer.

>>30112621
Only for a very short time, right? Not sustainable for a longer period. Plus, as a Nano investor, you are so stupid that you clearly believe CPS is the same as TPS. It is not.

Nano scammers realized that providing 5% of what they lied about in 2017 was pathetic and would definitely scare away normies, so they implemented CPS to hide it. 2 CPS = 1 TPS, so what you Nanoid scammer is bragging about is only 750 TPS, roughly 10% of what they lied about in 2017. Worse, that is only peak and not sustainable.

>>29553747
The whole market is going up. Nano scam has crashed from top 15 on CMC to #76. When the newfags on plebbitor, that you scammed, learn the truth about your scam coin, Nano will be sub top 100 CMC.

>>29045646
Nano is unusable and a scam. There are so many projects better than Nano, but every time I mention them, all the Nano faggots will spam hate against the projects, so find them yourselves. I will not help you.

>>28887748
Are you so stupid that you believe volunteers taking ALL the costs while issuers are hoarding and dumping Nano for hundreds of millions of dollars on rekt Nano paypigs is a NatSoc model?

So you nutcase believe that running a node for a global currency (if it could be a global currency, but it can't with just a few hundred tps, while Visa has 65 000 tps) with full load is only a few dollars each month? You are either delusional, high on crack or you are so stupid that you believe the costs will be the same as now when there is zero load on Nano, and Nano network is a kitchen table hobby for a handful of node operators doing it for free.

>>28787213
>Don't care, still the most usable and technologically sustainable crypto out there atm.
Ridicilous statement. 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.

>>28768510
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.

>>28508709
>has fees
Meaning they have spam protection and incentive to run the network, unlike Nano.

Constellation has both no fees and spam protection/incentive as all small transactions are free, while large consumers must pay. Plus Constellation can scale, unlike Nano.

Solana have 50K tps and might be able to be a global currency, while Nano with 1K tps has no chance in hell. Average fee per transaction for Solana is $0.00001. Plus they have DeFi. Nano is crashed 2017 tech, where even their dev lied about their tech through their teeth. There is no way in hell Nano can compete.

>>28445622
>>28446861
>Bro we reached >2k TPS on mainnet with most nodes on average hardware + internet connection. It fucking scales
Lie. Again: Show me your documentation.

>>28432654
>lol at this ridiculous fud, ridiculous "thoughts
That's your former core dev, saying Nano is shit. Sorry dishonest Nano psycho.

>>24029157
>Countries suffering with hyperinflation may start to use it
No, they will use stable coins backed by assets, and not some childish hobby coin Colin made on his kitchen table. You didn't even have a full time dev before late 2017. Your crashed tech is a clear witness that Nano is amateur hour from hell. Pic related.

>>23903314
No. Nano will never be a global currency. Both their tech and business model is a trainwreck.

>>23889488
That's 2018, I talked about him selling in March 2019.

>>17114827
>ZERO COST
The stupidity of Nanoids. If I have a travel agency, promising customers to travel the world for free, because I will take all the costs, how long do you think that dysfunctional and crazy "zero cost" business model will function? Your Nano scammer team have done NO basic cost analysis of running their network (bandwith, CPU, IO etc) with 100 000 tps. The bare minimum of a global currency, and something your crashed tech will never achieve. Both your tech and business solution are butchered, insane and will never function. You and your Nano scammer team are con artists. Nothing more. Your shitcoin is rated D, pic.

WEISS: NANO RATED AS UTTER SHITCOIN
D+
Pic related
>"When Developers Get In Over Their Heads"
>"But in actual practice, it has fallen short of expectations. And now Nano has effectively admitted defeat, retreating back to an approach that's same old, same old.
>What a far cry from the promise it once had!"

Desperate and hysterical Nano fanbois went crazy found a blog article that was identical with pic related, bombarded Weiss with so many nasty tweets that they had to make their Twitter account private, too stupid to understand that was the blogger that had plagiarized Weiss from an email sent to all paying Weiss customers approx one month before being published on their internet site. Not Weiss plagiarizing the blogger.

>>16620876
Ryte. Then explain:
WEISS: NANO RATED AS UTTER SHITCOIN
D+
Pic related
>"When Developers Get In Over Their Heads"
>"But in actual practice, it has fallen short of expectations. And now Nano has effectively admitted defeat, retreating back to an approach that's same old, same old.
>What a far cry from the promise it once had!"

Desperate and hysterical Nano fanbois went crazy found a blog article that was identical with pic related, bombarded Weiss with so many nasty tweets that they had to make their Twitter account private, too stupid to understand that was the blogger that had plagiarized Weiss from an email sent to all paying Weiss customers approx one month before being published on their internet site. Not Weiss plagiarizing the blogger.

>>16611093
WEISS: NANO RATED AS UTTER SHITCOIN
D+
Pic related
>"When Developers Get In Over Their Heads"
>"But in actual practice, it has fallen short of expectations. And now Nano has effectively admitted defeat, retreating back to an approach that's same old, same old.
>What a far cry from the promise it once had!"

Desperate and hysterical Nano fanbois went crazy found a blog article that was identical with pic related, bombarded Weiss with so many nasty tweets that they had to make their Twitter account private, too stupid to understand that was the blogger that had plagiarized Weiss from an email sent to all paying Weiss customers approx one month before being published on their internet site. Not Weiss plagiarizing the blogger.

>>16158527
Without the devs lying about 7000 tps and Nano being pushed by Italians scammers, and now with openly satanists as community leaders, that inherently flawed sh1tcoin with a part time "dev" would have been rank #666. Pic.

Nanoids never debunked anything. All you ever do is run away from legitimate criticism of your inherently and catastrophically flawed sh1tcoin. Here, take a look and tell me what has been debunked, then present your arguments, if you can:
>>16151623