/biz/ - Business & Finance

Literally stealing at these prices

30 min chart

https://twitter.com/search?q=%24nano

>>14056964
Let it flus down the toilet in peace, anon.
And yes, go back !

>>14056964

>we

you have to go back, subnhuman nigger

no one cares about your shitcoin

>>14056972
FPBP
kek

Tribalism is a poor excuse for logic and rationality. Regardless, I am not here to shill. I am here to make money. If you can recognize patterns and movement, you know what to do.

Fucking love NANO, feeling very very comfy.

>>14056964
Fast cheap payments is not a strong crypto usecase. Venmo and stripe are almost there and the next generation of fintech will obliterate that market. If that's all your coin does... You're toast.

>>14057408

Are you paying attention? I am.

As much as I have lost a fucking tonne on NANO, I can't doubt how good of a payment system it is.

The devs have really got their shit together, I hope it takes off. This is the crypto we need for micro payments, bitcoin can stay as digital gold once we have this for all other payments

>>14057473
It's sad that you think you're intelligent. Bad news: your poor grades weren't because "school is boring".

>>14057383
kek absolute based

>>14057494
Elliott waves son.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_wave_principle

>>14057506
Nice personal attack and assumption, you don't know anything about this anon. Not in the slightest.

>>14057535

>this anon

>Can see post ID

>samefag

Those who speak to id or ego on an anonymous message board, clearly have little of substance to offer. These boards are for education and exchange, not knuckledragger type in groups.

Get the fuck off my board.

The king of shitcoins.

I feel bad for anyone still bagholding it.

>>14057563
>doesn't realize "this anon" is self referential

Get the FUCK off my board

>>14057620

Make me

This is just a samefag thread, 13 posts by this ID. Only 23 posts. 2 of which were mine. Get fucked

>>14057636

GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD

>>14057383
LMAOOOO

>>14057494
too bad that Nano can't handle spam at all, and before you say it the next update with dynamic pow changes pretty much nothing. the core idea is beautiful but the code is trash. shittily optimized. consumes a ton of bandwidth. they hired shitty developers such as Zach who built the mobile wallet and couldn't even implement a good random function.
again, the block lattice is interesting but I don't see a future with the current development.

>>14057535
You just proved his point retard

>>14057642

Thank you for your concern. Here's the rest.

>>14057704

Apologies meant to post this.

>>14057704
Jesus Christ whats wrong with you

>>14057670
V19 is 94% complete, this is one of the largest updates to the protocol as of yet. We will see whether dynamic pow will stand up to the test when it is released.

You are factually incorrect about the bandwidth however. Remember me when we 20x this year.

>>14057719
He bought all the memes

>>14057700
The only retards here are you two who do not understand common English euphemisms. I wonder why that may be?

Twitter is waking up, anon.

>>14057735
Buying them is one thing but keeping that OMG...

>>14057726
actually I'm factually correct about the bandwidth. if it shows signs of life I will buy a bag just because I know that its obnoxious community is insidious and will shill it to every organism on earth.

>>14057776
Demonstrate your claims. Here are mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JChBTohSHlM

>>14057789
you just ridiculed yourself.

>>14057829
While energy consumption is not the same as bandwidth, they are indeed correlated when it comes to a network such as this. The network can confirm transactions completely in less than a single second at times.

Please explain or provide evidence that this consumes a ton of bandwidth. I think you don't have a leg to stand on, honestly.

>>14057789

Video by NANO... proof

>>14057858
you want proof? just think of all the last spams that occurred on the network and tell me again how many nodes could handle the load.
each fucking time most of the nodes went out of sync and the network didn't confirm. don't be blind, you know very well how weak nano is to spam attacks.

>https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/8782jz/what_server_do_you_use_for_your_nano_node/

It says that the average of those polled, said 26w/h for their nano node. Let's just say all 350 representatives that are online are using the max 90w/h reported, that is 788.4 kwh/node, or 275,940kwh for all 350 nodes, which is $41k/yr in energy. But the average energy consumption said 26, so it would be 79,716kwh for the entire node network, or just under $12k/yr in energy.

Obviously, these are just ballpark numbers because it would be near impossible to figure out exactly how much energy the entire network cost, since a lot of those nodes are in computers that are used in other things as well and some of these are powered by a fucking raspberry pi. Also, the more transaction that are made on the NANO network will drive down the energy cost of each transaction for the nodes.

Either way, it is a hell of a lot less energy than bitcoin and other currencies take:

For a bitcoin transaction, it is is reported to be 931 kwh: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Or about 85 bitcoin transactions per year for the entire nano network An estimated 200,332,771 wkh was used by bitcoin network yesterday. If constrained to how much energy the nano network uses per year (estimated), the bitcoin network would only last 34 seconds... Or about how long it takes you to read this post.

Ethereum, is 89 kwh/transaction: https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption

Or just under 900 transaction for the entire year for the nano network. An estimated 56,656,831 kwh was used by the ethereum network yesterday. If constrained to how much energy the nano network uses per year (estimated), the ethereum network would only last two minutes.

So enough of this talk about how much the entire nano network costs in energy, it is LITERALLY NOTHING compared to other crypto currencies and even the banking systems.

>>14057892
Colin is one of the most dedicated and authentic devs in the space. I am eagerly awaiting to see the results of his work with the upcoming version release. The network went down because a lot of the current nodes are using the bare minimum server requirements and hosting the network on a cloud. As superior nodes are delegated votes via POS (every nano wallet lets you elect a node with your holdings, no staking either), the resiliency will only increase with time.

Fantom will be faster, have smart contracts, and integrate with ETH. stop talking about this reddit coin

>>14057892

08/16/2018 46.31 GiB | 38.63 GiB | 84.94 GiB | 8.25 Mbit/s
08/17/2018 49.24 GiB | 46.40 GiB | 95.64 GiB | 9.29 Mbit/s
08/18/2018 52.07 GiB | 40.44 GiB | 92.50 GiB | 8.98 Mbit/s
08/19/2018 32.84 GiB | 28.72 GiB | 61.56 GiB | 5.98 Mbit/s
08/20/2018 42.21 GiB | 33.49 GiB | 75.71 GiB | 7.35 Mbit/s
08/21/2018 40.43 GiB | 29.19 GiB | 69.62 GiB | 6.76 Mbit/s
08/22/2018 32.09 GiB | 30.45 GiB | 62.54 GiB | 6.07 Mbit/s
08/23/2018 3.60 GiB | 13.62 GiB | 17.22 GiB | 1.67 Mbit/s <-- v15.2
08/24/2018 2.79 GiB | 14.17 GiB | 16.97 GiB | 1.65 Mbit/s
08/25/2018 2.14 GiB | 12.12 GiB | 14.26 GiB | 1.38 Mbit/s
08/26/2018 2.22 GiB | 15.31 GiB | 17.53 GiB | 1.70 Mbit/s
08/27/2018 2.08 GiB | 10.59 GiB | 12.67 GiB | 1.23 Mbit/s
08/28/2018 1.43 GiB | 9.53 GiB | 10.96 GiB | 1.06 Mbit/s
08/29/2018 1.13 GiB | 7.01 GiB | 8.14 GiB | 790.13 kbit/s
08/30/2018 1.33 GiB | 8.51 GiB | 9.84 GiB | 955.13 kbit/s
08/31/2018 1.08 GiB | 4.59 GiB | 5.67 GiB | 550.13 kbit/s
09/01/2018 1.27 GiB | 3.63 GiB | 4.90 GiB | 475.57 kbit/s <-- Vote by hash
09/02/2018 98.64 MiB | 204.37 MiB | 303.01 MiB | 256.19 kbit/s
------------------------+-------------+-------------+---------------

>>14058011
FTM can never be faster than NANO as it is not a light weight protocol and is designed to execute smart contracts. Nano is designed to be as light weight as possible. You cannot make a faster protocol using the same technology with all the bells and whistles attached. FTM also has not demonstrated a working product to the public yet, so it isn't worth my time to even talk about.

>>14057924
I already know perfectly well how nano works, no need to explain.
if you want you can hope for something that won't come. the dev team has been promising things since dec 2017 but the situation is still pretty much the same. you'll always hear that "improvements are in the pipeline".
the fact is that nodes can't handle the load. a tiny spam kills the network. now tell me again why it's a fantastic medium of exchange, please.

>>14058024
very nice. what was the load again? 0.01 tps?

>>14056972
I feel bad a coworker of mine bought at like $25 because I mentioned it to him. I did tell him when I sold at $28 but he held and still has this garbage.

>>14058024
also did nodes vote on every block back then? I'm not really sure.

>>14058058
its a 90% reduction to bandwidth across the board. You feign ignorance like a cornered jew.

The Nano team has been working around the clock all of the bear market. Their github activity speaks for itself. https://github.com/nanocurrency

3797 commits

https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/commits/master

>>14058124
ok I am about to destroy you. the numbers you shared do not represent the current bandwidth consumption. probably as I already said at the time nodes didn't vote on all blocks yet.
now, from present data taken from https://repnode.org/network/bandwidth
you see that the average rate is about 4 Megabit/s, and the average tps is 0.1.
I would say that a good medium of exchange should be able to handle AT LEAST 100tps, which would be a 1000x multiplier from the current rate.
now, assuming that bandwidth increase linearly with tps, which is a perfectly fair assumption, that would put you at a comfy 4 Terabit/s internet connection in order to handle 100 tps.
now, retard, tell me again why it's a fantastic medium of exchange.

>>14058286
Nano has been demonstrated to handle 200+ tps during the last stress test with only improvements to come. 7,000 TPS was reached in closed test net. You are simply trying to FUD.

>>14058700
confirmed retard. 200+ tps was before nodes voted on every block and the 7000 tps figure means literally nothing.
I know very well what I'm talking about. I just did some quick math to show you that the network just can't handle the load. read it again if you didn't understand, the truth is right in front of you. not FUD, pure facts.

>>14056964
how much did you get paid for fudding this? I want to get paid too

I’ve heard late next week will be good. Been holding nano since last year (rekt), but bought a shitload more since .86 cents. Comfy as hell.

>>14056972
the guy who made that comment on reddit was literally a nano fudder in every other post but that one, it was a planned fud post that was only gonna get screencapped if the price went down brainlet

>>14058804
the IMF pays every nano fudder $1,000 mailed in cash every week. just put ur postal address in the options field
happy fudding

>>14057473
that is 100% the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Ever heard of Amazon?

>>14056993
Sell signal. Normies are doing money

>>14059509
he made that prediction in the 90s, in the new york times iirc
he's now stating bitcoin will go to 0

>>14058286
>the average tps is 0.1
Hahaha fucking hell nano what are you doing