/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15930161
A plugin for Unreal Engine that hardly anyone will use.

I read about the plugin earlier, but didn't think there were already games implementing it. Didn't they just release the plugin, like literally today?

>>15930161

>>15930175
except

Starting to rethink my take on this. Is there any actual legitimate FUD against nano?

>>15930442
NANO is a decent project, its not perfect but nothing really is. It's not aiming to be the next bitcoin, its aiming to be fast which makes it good for small payment services. V20 is out which means NANO is basically finished and it's already confirmed that forex exchanges will be using NANO for their service.

Everyone on this mongolian basket weaving forum is so indulged one sided towards LINK to the point where they believe anything that's not LINK is shit. Even the bitcoin maximalists are blind that there are things out there that are better. Everyone in this market is trying to capture something different and no one can be the best at everything.

desu anon, im heavily bullish on NANO and i'm in the top 1% of holders.

>>15931397
You must be sooooo pooooor

>>15931397
Bitgrail exchange was funded by the same guy who funded nano

>>15931411
My bad, haven't checked the rich list for a while. I'm closer to 0.08%. Kek everyone probably sold. Regardless, i've only put in $1,000 of my own money into NANO, everything else was collected back when you had to do CAPTCHA puzzles for raiblocks.

>>15931440
Thats just FUD, the owner of bitgrail was a bad actor, nothing more. I still get emails from the exchange about how they're dealing with lawsuits and trying to provide remuneration.

Raiblocks was a better name.

>>15931482
Nope, it was the only exchange listing this nano and the reason it got """hacked""" is because the original nano pump was with btc that did not exist and when people wanted to cash out they could not. The same guy was behind the exchange and the team he hired to make raiblocks, I know who he is.

>>15931482
How many Nano do you own?

>>15931576
That is bullshit and you know it. The Nano team was found not guilty and already beat the charges. Firano Franco aka "The Bomber", the owner of Bitgrail was found fully responsible for his exchange being hacked.

So I am left with the conclusion that one of the only legitimate projects can only be countered with bullshit FUD. Really makes ya think. I guess I am all in.

>>15931756
about 15k across 15 wallets.
Dont store your NANO on binance. They use your NANO for consensus, the might go against your interests with your own coins.

>>15931806
I made a decent amount from Chainlink, doing the math I could probably get maybe 40-50k nano if I sell at the right time before nano moons.

Would that legit make me a top 1% holder? Those top tiers on your chart could very well be multiple wallet holders storing on Binance, for example. Would be difficult to know how much you really have and how much others have, as long as they keep their stuff concealed on an exchange.

>>15931834
man with that much you'd be well within the top 0.1% of holders.

I still have a few hundred of these. So many shitcoins are valued higher than it by marketcap, crazy stuff. NANO is actually pretty kickass

>>15930161
shitcoin marketing

>>15930442
the token isn't needed

>>15932437
lolwut. There's just the token, there is literally nothing else. It's designed for rapid and feeless transfer of value

>>15932471
I think his saying NANO itself isn't needed.

>>15930442
Because of the fast free transactional nature of nano it is prone to hacks and there is no monetary incentive for people to be node operators. In btc miners get paid in btc for processing transactions. Both from the black reward and second from transaction fees. In nano there is no mining as the coin is already fully in circulation and also there are no transaction fees. Node operators arw centralized in mostly the developers hands because most people don't want to pay to run a node.

>>15931541
Nano is normie friendly

>>15932907
Looks like they have plenty of nodes to me, desu. I think maybe 1 out of 50 might be dev run. From what I was reading, these nodes can be hosted for something like $5 a month, aka the basic package on most web servers. Anyone who is already hosting a website can host a node without any extra cost even.

I am curious when you say prone to hacks. If this was the case, wouldn't there be a bunch of people "hacking" it, whatever that means? A transaction seems to be completely verified by over half of the network within 2-3 seconds in most cases. That is a fully confirmed transaction by way of consensus. If you are referencing the bitgrail thing, that was as much the fault of nano as Mt. Gox was the fault of BTC.

>>15932984
https://bitsonline.com/nano-announces-security-flaw-in-newly-released-android-wallet/

Thousands of wallets had their funds taken. The blockchain trilema. There are three main features of a blockchain. Scalability, security, decentralization. You can only pick 2. Ethereum and bitcoin are highly secure and decentralized but the transactional speed is super slow. Visa is super scalable and secure but it is completely centralized. Nano (xrb) is super scalable and decentrslized but it is prone to hacks.

>>15933028
>>15932984

Read the intro and the section on security to understand where nano lacks stability.

https://medium.com/@aakash_13214/the-scalability-trilemma-in-blockchain-75fb57f646df

>>15933028
That is a wallet, not the coin itself. Sucks they made that mistake, but I don't think anyone actually lost funds due to that. I recall when it happened and didn't hear of anything outside of the initial warning not to use the wallet. The warning was in fact given only several hours after the wallet was released.

>The blockchain trilema. There are three main features of a blockchain. Scalability, security, decentralization. You can only pick 2. Ethereum and bitcoin are highly secure and decentralized but the transactional speed is super slow. Visa is super scalable and secure but it is completely centralized. Nano (xrb) is super scalable and decentrslized but it is prone to hacks.

So basically... if you are incorrect, and nano is secure, that makes it the holy grail of cryptocurrency.

>>15933103
>So basically... if you are incorrect, and nano is secure, that makes it the holy grail of cryptocurrency.

Basicly yes. But it will never be as secure as btc or eth as the incentives are not there.

>>15933220
You seem like a reasonable anon, so let me speak to you, anon to anon. Look more into Nano. Seriously.

PoW cryptocurrencies like BTC and ETH will head towards centralization due to mining and cheaper electricity costs in certain countries. Whoever has the monopoly on cheap electricity, will have the monopoly on PoW coins. It is currently looking like China. Needless to say, this is not a good thing. Also, the blockchain gets exponentially larger as time goes on. It may very well likely reach a point where mining costs more than what is produced. We know what will happen then.

Conversely, Nano is built on the idea of sending as little data as possible per transaction. No smart contracts are in the protocol nor ever will be, and every piece of data that isn't necessary for consensus is stripped. This will massively keep the ledger at a much smaller size and allow cheap nodes to still support the network. It is estimated that if the ledger was massively bloated, say if Nano reached worldwide adoption, that yes higher processing power will be needed, but it will still be within reach for many, and not near as resource intensive or costly as mining farms. Just an upgraded server from $5.00 to $20-$50, depending on the tps and ledger size. Currently, a $5.00 a month server does the job fine, still being able to confirm within 2 seconds. These nodes are able to serve over 100 tps currently before being knocked offline, while anything higher, while anything higher than 1-2 GB was fine at this amount with no downtime.


I am a big fan of BTC, and I am excited for ETH 2.0 and future models to come out, as the idea of immutable content on the internet just makes me cream. But I really think Nano is going to be the one that really revolutionizes things and makes ideas like smart cities feasible. It certainly has the greatest chance to successfully scale of the three, and stays true to the Satoshi model.

I hope this post benefits you.

Anything with supernodes is a piece of shit, if you ask me.
And doesn't nano have a problem with spam transactions? Or did they somehow fix that yet?

as a non-programmer myself, i can never tell if people who post shit like this are unironically technologically illiterate or if they're just pretending to shill their bags