/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>10742014
cons
-insecure piece of shit

I got in at $10, got out mid twenties and now getting in again. This coin is staying, it just had some really bad weather.

>>10742014
Cons
>Hackable piece of shit (remember BitGrail?)?

>>10742046
The coin never got hacked, the exchange was faulty. This coin can only be hacked if you have 51% of all the coins.

Bad fud.

>>10742014
> it doesn't safe transaction data.

sounds worthless then.

>>10742014
drew a little thing for you

>>10742014
Reddit coin no thanks I like to be in good company

I love how no one is able to fud it with actual facts.

This stable coin based on nano code is also very interesting.

https://nos.cash

Also, Bittrex and PayPal soon.

I feel bad for people that fall for this.
It was airdropped. Show me the coin distribution? You cant...?
Its untested DAG technology? love me some double spends

>Had to rebrand to distance from bad name and its dodgy past
>Thinking speed is what makes a cryptoCURRENCY great.
>B B But R R Reddit likes it, its really the future!

>>10742081
>>Thinking speed is what makes a cryptoCURRENCY great.
>>10742081
The fact that it got airdropped is a huge plus, it's the only coin that was fairly distributed.

No one has been able to double spend a coin.

Cons- Moving money from Bank account A to Crypto/fiat onramp to Exchange to Nano wallet A to Nano wallet B to Exchange to crypto/fiat onramp to Bank account B is a massive fucking pain that no normie will ever do, when they can just send it from Bank account A to Bank account B, regardless of fees. On-network transfer times don't matter either, when the whole process is so convoluted it takes many times longer than a simple bank transfer.

>>10742114
That's not nano specific but a problem with fiat gates to crypto in general.

>>10742119
Yeah and it's why any "send money with crypto" project has a huge number of hurdles to overcome before it is anything like a competitive product. Considering NANO's main selling point is "send money quick and easy", it's relevant.

There's no need to shill this on biz. We win either way.

>>10742114
What's the point of Bitcoin then?

>chinese miner can permenantly cripple the network via ddos with 500 gpus at no cost
>double spending is far easier than on proof of work
>the scaling solution is hoping that there will be an exponential amount of charitable people providing free nodes
>these nodes become more and more expensive due to the size of the network

DAG's are literal coins for brainlets who think they are smart

back to leddeet faggot, enjoy your venezuelan bags

pros
?
con
its a currency

Centrilized feeless (worthless) shitcoin. Take this POS and use it at your socialist commune hippie reet. I'll take my nigga DGB all day, I admire a commitment to decentrilization in terms of currency projects.

>>10742324
>Take this POS and use it at your socialist commune hippie reet.
You actually can. You don't need to be online to use Nano so spending it in your 100 people hippie commune would totally work. Can your shitty Dragonballz or whatever crap you're advertising do that?

>>10742014
>-completely feeless
Free lunches don't exist. Who is able to run nodes and how are they incentivized? If it runs on charity, it's not viable long term.
Smart contracts aren't as important as people say they are. Most people think that crypto already failed being a global currency and smart contracts are the only hope. Actually they both just need much more time to be adopted.

First rule of money is it must be secure. Nano is not secure.

>>10742360
>If it runs on charity, it's not viable long term.
Firefox, Wikipedia, Ubuntu.

>>10742364
It is secure.

>>10742367
little bit of a difference between hosting a website / organizing development and processing all global transactions

>>10742417
........................................................................
Stop posting, you literally make farting noises when you try to think.

Anyway Nano doesn't need biz. The fewer of you toxic fucks are around, the better. Closing tab.

>>10742052

How can someone hack Nano if they have 51% of all the coins? Like I get 51% attacks for PoW but how does it work for Nano?

>>10742440
>Some raises a legit concern
>You're a retard, we don't need you.
what a way to promote your community, can't wait to buy your bags and be asshurt together

>>10742562

You can't 51% POW with 51% of coins. You need 51% of hashrate

>>10742590

no shit, that's why I get how a PoW 51% attack happens. I want to know how a 51% attack is poosible on DAG

>>10742311
the only smart anon ITT (besides me)

I love /biz/. When you cannot come up with a valid counter arguement, just use buzz words or flat out lie.

Nano is decentralized, eco-friendly, feeless, and instant. It is literally the future of online currency.

>>10742650
Thanks Andy

>>10742311
>>10742650
proof nano users are brainlet redditors, no understanding of tech, can't respond to basic criticism

just MUH TPS WOW MOON IT

>>10742062
why whould you ever use nano instead of xrp

>>10743719
Some of us want to get away from banks...

>>10743733
you don't need a bank to use xrp

lol, you guys will look so dumb when Bittrex and Paypal partnerships are announced next week.

>>10743733
Good thing the existence of XRP doesn't impair in any way your capacity of using other cryptos

>>10742650
You realize this is exactly what you just did, right?
>I love /biz/. When you cannot come up with a valid counter arguement, just use buzz words or flat out lie.
>Nano is decentralized, eco-friendly, feeless, and instant. It is literally the future of online currency.

>>10742114
This. Retards can't see that the pure currencies coins have to not only overcome the network effects of much more established projects (BTC), but also require adoption from EVERYONE in order to work.

Backend tokens are the future of crypto payments. Bitcoin is cool because it's the first of it's kind and can work as a store of value. Litecoin sucks because it's just a copy of bitcoin. Nano sucks because it's a less secure version of litecoin.

In short, Nano can get fucked from a million different angles.

I don't understand this general thought here that Nano is less secure than a pow coin.
Don't get me wrong I do not want anything to do with communism , but DAG and specifically derieving voting power from token owners choosing nodes reps seems swell to me.
Isn't this kind of the plan for Eth to go POS with node holders staking instead of the votes derived from clients?

The way I see it the security is actually better from a transaction perspective, the problem is in that it can fall to a cheap spam attack that will clog the network.
As far as I understand though there are settings you can setup on your nodes to set a transaction amount minimum and eventually with ledger pruning you can shard away the spam and only care about the end result token balance.

>>10742046
fake and gay. exchange hacked, not NANO protocol
>>10742080
nice
>>10742217
this. /biz/ doesn't deserve the gains
>>10742311
false on all claims. how do you live thinking you know things you don't?

>>10742417
hosting a website costs more than running a NANO node.

Bitcoin has monopolized mining, Nano has monopolized voting, both can be changed, but with nano, it only requires adoption, with nano you don't need to invest in mining farms to drive decentralization, you only need to change your representative, which is a matter of 1-2 minutes.

So at the end of the day, the "not secure" meme is flawed, because you can also apply it to BTC or any other coin who is monopolized by a third party (e.g. Bitmain).