/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>8805943
Normies who heard of BTC
-millions
Normies who know NANO
reddit members

Why would anyone compare a shitcoin with no volume to an asset traded daily by millions.

>>8805966
To make people aware that Nano > Bitcoin. It's like horses to rockets.
And rockets go to the moon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/8ai027/nano_weekend_summary_10/

>>8805943
I have a crypto retirement plan that begins dispersal in 5 years and lasts 30. I only include Nano and iota right now. Thinking of adding eos

nano:
shitskin coin, given away to worthless third worlders for free
distribution that was heavily abused by captcha farmers
huge portion of funds in the hands of these farmers, and the hacker
centralized system with no path out thanks to fundamental weaknesses in DAGs
not even the most used DAG coin to begin with, nor the first
and if there's one thing you can't create out of a train wreck project like this , is lasting value, necessary for any "payment" token without any other functionality.

>>8806195
Thanks for your racist comment, you're welcome to stay out of Nano.

>>8806195

we are here to get rich off pumps, we dont care about long term valuable products you retard

>>8806312
>nano
>pumps
it's already significantly overvalued, and has gone up double digit multiples many times already. how late did you get into this market?

>>8806327
You mean undervalued. It's way better than Litecoin, as it does everything Litecoin does but just better.
Still, it has 1/10 the market cap of LTC.

People still hold this utter shitcoin?

Clueless. No one will ever use this over XRP considering their team IS legit and transactions are literally never bugged.

Shhhh the whales are accumulating

>>8806243
Please go back.

>>8806830
XRP isn't a cryptocurrency. It's centralizes like Paypal, except paypal is better.

<-- part of NANO TEAM

Best cryptos around. So undervalued.

>>8805943
Everything in crypto is better than bitcoin

>>8808090
You're not wrong, but the best value exchange crypto is NANO. nuff said

>>8805966
do you even comprehend investing? go ahead and buy those apple stocks u pleb

>>8805943
there is a reason it is fast : centralised

gtfo now

Always funny how its supposed to be free and instant.
Of course it is when no one uses it.

It woukd shit its bed when it had to handle as much as bitcoin. It probably would implode and delete itself.

>>8808127
Nope, community is building hundreds of nodes every month, and setting them up as representatives. It's way less centralized than asic-chainese-bitcoin desu.

>>8805943
I suspect that all normal people got bored of making fun of Nano brainlets cause it's obvious you're all braindead

>>8808152

Nope it won't. Learn what it can do and come back. It's infinitely scalable. not like bitcoin or any blockchain-based coin, really. Not even kidding.

>>8805943

Nano WILL be much bigger than litecoin. NANO will be $1000 one day

>>8808162
Is this you on the photograph ? You're cute for an autist

>>8808169
Get a job you fucking pajeet, youll be lucky if nano it's worth 0.50 eoy

>>8808177
>reddit "humour"

NANO is a shitcon
months and months, and it still causes problems everywhere
literally each time i transfer NANO to kucoin or binance, i have to wait 2-3 days because they have some problems
now i tried to transfer to kucoin again, nothing since yesterday, transaction succeeded, but kucoin node shit itself again

i am never going to use it again

>>8808205
exchange problemes have nothing to do with nano. It's not like another erc20 or bitcoin clone shitcoin that any retarded exchange can implement in 2 seconds. It requires new thinking. Take it easy, faggot.

>>8805943
Come back to me with another "idz Bitcoin but beter ghize" when we're past the uncanny valley

>>8808215
>implying that the large exchanges dont all have 100+ employees to work on this

your in denial anon

You can play POKER with NANO here : https://nanopoker.club/

Vitalik himself said that NANO is the worst ERC20 token he has done a code audit for. He implied that if it were up to him, he'd kick the token out of the ETH network.
Look it up, he said this in an interview in early February.

NANO fanbois somehow still get distracted by the "free transactions" meme. Do some research of your own and see what the costs of having free transactions actually are. This token really is on par with Verge.

>>8808428
Is this the meta-anti-counter-FUD that nano brainlets use to ignore the problems with nano?

>>8805943
Issues I see with NANO:
- Incentivization structure is broken (Validators get no reward)
- Hits same issue as Bitcoin with blockchain size getting monolithic to maintain (Validators store every thread of the lattice and is therefore equivalent to the entire ledger plus some small overhead)

Change my mind.

>>8808475
>meta-anti-counter-FUD
Wat.jpg

I am not going to hold your hand on this one. Just check the token out yourself. There is a reason why no one has been interested in NANO for most of its time. The question is why it suddenly gained popularity just recently. With the crypto markets being extremely manipulated already, NANOs rise is even more sketchier.

>>8808481
>- Incentivization structure is broken (Validators get no reward)
Not a problem (full nodes get no incentive in Bitcoin either, yet there are plenty of them)
>- Hits same issue as Bitcoin with blockchain size getting monolithic to maintai
Nano doesn't understand what decentralization means. They think pruning addresses this issue because they don't really understand the issue

>Change my mind.
Your idea is right, but your reasons are not. It doesn't matter that much if Nano is not too decentralized because they just want to do feeless instant transactions. However, there are many reasons why Nano will never work:

- LN already works on Bitcoin mainnet and will be released on all Bitcoin clones. By 2019, there will be no need for any meme currency coins. Retards will FUD LN, but if you have a brain, you can follow the development process yourself
- Nano has no liquidity, and it will never have enough liquidity to act as a currency
- Nano has high volatility and _no plans_ to address this. They'll all tell you that volatility will be solved when it's adopted. They think it'll be adopted BEFORE it works. They're dumb
- Nano is vulnerable to precomputed PoW
- Steem already offers instant, feeless transactions on blockchain
- EOS will fucking destroy this space. They have a monster blokchain brewing with free transactions and "infinite scalability"
Basically, Nanolets are simply ignorant of the space. They're reddit newfags who started in Decemeber who think "bitcoin is outdated," despite having the most cutting-edge solutions (2nd layer solutions), most VC money, and strongest developers in the space. Nano is the trademark newfag coin. It has no future at all besides bagholding

>>8808520
I can't even tell if you're trolling anymore. Nano is not erc20

>>8808549
Sorry, what?
Bitcoin nodes get mining rewards for verifying the world's transactions.
The reward they get is more valuable than cheating the network, so they are always incentivized to be truthful.
Assuming that all agents act in self-interest, this guarantees robustness.

NANO nodes get no reward.
There is no reason to run a validator node - nothing to gain by joining the network and increasing robustness.
If you do have a validator node, there is nothing to lose by simply trying to cheat the network - Either you cheat and get to steal coins, or you play by the rules and get nothing - not an issue with bitcoin.
Clever incentivization strategies to guarantee robust trustlessness is the driving force & theme behind the entire blockchain space.

>>8808428
>>8808475

>>8808627
>Bitcoin nodes get mining rewards for verifying the world's transactions.
... sorry I assumed you know how blockchain works. Fucking Nano retards

>>8808627
this lol, nano is a fucking scam

>>8808627
bitcoin nodes get no reward you fucking brainlet, you're confusing nodes and miners

>>8808643
Literally everyone in this thread is braindead. Both FUDsters and FOMOers. Amazing

>>8808641
... Again, sorry, what?
I'm clearly FUDing NANO
t. smart contract developer. I know exactly how blockchain tech works.

>>8808664
YOU ARE RETARDED

R E T A R D E D

Most miners don't even fucking validate blocks at all.

>>8808664
yet you do not know running a bitcoin node gives no reward at all. What smart contract did you develop ? Pretty sure there is good money to be made by hacking them. Pretty sure a baby could hack them.

>>8808680
He obviously just "developed" ICO smart contracts by copy pasting and using libraries

>>8808655
projecting much?
I haven't yet seen a single rational argument from you for why anyone should buy into this scam.

>>8808680
I assumed you knew I was talking about full nodes that DO validate and participate in the network
The assumption is more reasonable where I originally made it with NANO because obviously we're not talking about the personal nodes that only hold your own blockchain when talking about network validation - We're clearly talking about validator nodes here.
Which is where the incentivization needs to be.

>>8808717
I directly argued against buying Nano... But you're retarded for agreeing with something that was blatantly wrong

>>8808721
Nigga... validator nodes are just full nodes that validate blocks. They don't mine. They just make sure the transactions are sent and are valid. Exchanges run full nodes to check transactions. Merchants run full nodes to receive payments. Same with Nano. How stupid are you. Read some bitcoin for brainlets book or something

NANO
- late 2017 /biz/ pnd accumulating from 10 cents to $1
- only held by newfags who didn't sell at $20+
- will never ever recover the momentum
- keep its price thanks to market inertia
- will slumber slowly to near zero as months go by

Bitcoin
- old
- controlled by blockstream
- honestly pretty fucking gay
- still loved by millions of child diddlers, junkies and scammers who will endlessly pump that shit to take profits at the top

>>8805943
It doesnt work like that. Highest tps is syscoin. It's cheap and scales unlimited. TF is low as fuck. Zero confirmation spending possible trough ZDAG.

This doesnt mean it will overthrow bitcoin.

Just like nano won't do that.

>nano tries to scale to thousands of TPS
>nano solves a problem that it will literally never have
How dumb do you have to be to have Nano bag right now?

I don't think this starred Anon needs any more attention at this point. He has shown to bring no real arguments (with over 10 comments already) and pretty much insulted everyone else in the thread. Let someone else comment for a change. Someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

>>8808793
I brought arguments here >>8808627

>>8808806
>>8808793
Sorry brought arguments here >>8808549

But then got distracted by that idiot who thinks full nodes are miners kek

>>8808721
OK you're retarded. Maybe this whole crypto thing isn't for you. Have you tried getting a job at KFC ?

>>8808743
You're misunderstanding basically everything I'm saying, but regardless let's go back to this very simple assertion:
NANO's implementation does not incentivize anyone to validate transactions and hold the entire blockchain, because there are no rewards from the network for doing this work.
With Bitcoin you can mine and be rewarded for participating and validating.
With NANO, you are not rewarded for participating and validating.
Therefore, it won't be done, assuming all parties act in self-interest (Which they do, which Bitcoin created a mutual solution for. Why did NANO un-solve it?).
This is the difference I'm asking you to focus on.

>>8808766
Maybe faster (insert doubt here) but not fee-less.

>>8808830
You need to run a node if you're a merchant or an exchange. It litterally costs almost nothing to run a node. You can run it on any computer. If you want 100% uptime, any VPS server about $5/month will do. Hell there are thousands of nodes at the moment without any compensation.

>>8808830
>With Bitcoin you can mine and be rewarded for participating and validating.
Wrong. Miners often don't validate because they want to mine as soon as possible and tkae the risk that they may mine on an invalid block because it's an outlier. Sometimes they outsource the validation to AWS servers

>With NANO, you are not rewarded for participating and validating.
Doesn't matter. Merchants and exchanges run Bitcoin full nodes _without mining_ (so _without rewards_) because of security. Same with Nano

>assuming all parties act in self-interest
The self interest of exchanges and merchants is to run a Nano node to validate transactions and receive transations from their clients.

This is literally a non-issue. The incentive thing is just a problem that distracts brainlets from the real problems. Nano is useless but not becaues of this

>>8808841
OP why don't you address the issues here >>8808549

>>8808870
What are the real problems then ? Oh I know, there are none.

>>8808899
>>8808894
>>8808549

>>8808894
If you think LN will solve bitcoin problems, you're delusional. WHy would people pay to send money when there's an alternative that's free, and much faster ?
Some people already understand this. You don't.

On the internet, everything is free except crypto. Most important selling point of Nano. Litterally the only coin without fees. The rest doesn't matter and will be adressed in time through development.

>>8808830
Stop being a retarded faggot

What do you think will happen when Bitcoin cannot be mined anymore? The incentive comes from merchants and exchanges wanting to support a healthy network to use for their business

>>8808918
>WHy would people pay to send money when there's an alternative that's free
Because of liquidity and stability. If you don't want to pay a fee, you can use a EOS dapp for example. Or Steem. In any case, you don't want to use Nano because high volatility and no liquidity

> and much faster ?
LN is instant idiot jesus

>>8808932
>Litterally the only coin without fees.
Steem and EOS have no fees

>>8808956
>What do you think will happen when Bitcoin cannot be mined anymore? The incentive comes from merchants and exchanges wanting to support a healthy network to use for their business
Wrong, the miners will be paid in transaction fees

>>8805943
Nano is anti-centralization.
Because the one who has to perform the PoW are the wallet holders, centralized entities (e.g. exchanges right now) have scaling problems, as the PoW required bogs down their servers when deposit/withdrawal traffic is high.
Last time NANO price hit ATH, deposit/withdrawal on most exchanges was SLOOOOW. Even Binance had this problem when Nano was new.

It's good when sending peer-to-peer, but centralized organizations will have problem picking it up for this reason. This makes it impractical for the big money (can you imaging if something like Amazon uses it? That's tons of PoW they have to do themselves on their servers). And big money is what you need to raise your marketcap by a huge amount.

Great as a peer-to-peer currency, but not so much in a world ruled by huge centralized corporations who have the biggest customer bases.

>>8808932
LN will make BTC free as well. Once LN is ready and has its final release, it will suddenly bring cryptocurrencies into mainstream use. Free and instant money will mean that even third world countries can afford to join in. This will be the death of most other cryptos. Litecoin, Monero (Ring Confidential Transaction tech) and IOTA might survive this, as they have still other bonuses they can provide.

>>8808956
This is where part of the incentive comes from, but not most of it.
>>8808992
This.

>>8808865
Yeah I understand that it's as lightweight as you want it to be, but that means nodes capable of validating with respect to the entire ledger will be very small in number because there's no reason to run such a node.
Most everyone will be running a node containing only their own blockchain, which doesn't help the rest of the network.

>>8808992
>Steem and EOS have no fees

Why are you lying ?

>>8809057
>Most everyone will be running a node containing only their own blockchain, which doesn't help the rest of the network.
Um if you're a merchant and you're accepting payments in Nano, don't you think you want to have everyone's blockchain's tip to validate transactions from their clients?

>>8809068
? I'm not

>>8809004
You're aware you have to lock bitcoin to your LN channel right ? And then pay fees to LN nodes ?
LN WILL NEVER BE THE SOLUTION. BITCOIN IS A WALKING DEAD.

>>8809075
>? I'm not

EOS : you litterally have to OWN the token to do something on the network. So NOT FREE.

Steem : Whales pay for everything.

Nano : nobody needs to own anything or pay anything to transfer value.

>>8809089
>You're aware you have to lock bitcoin to your LN channel right ?
A one time fee is not that bad, tx fees are pretty low nowadays. Once you are on the LN you don't really ever have to go back to the main chain. Everyone permanently staying on the LN will eliminate miners and energy heavy mining in a while.

>And then pay fees to LN nodes ?
Just use nodes that don't ask fees.

>>8809154
>A one time fee is not that bad

Think again, you can't modify the amount you have in the LN node. So when it's depleted, you have to close the channel and open a new one. Even if fees are low, opening a channel could take several hours or days.

>Just use nodes that don't ask fees.
Wasn't aware you could do that (insert doubt here)

>>8809150
>>EOS : you litterally have to OWN the token to do something on the network. So NOT FREE.
No dumbass, you don't need to interact with the blockchain at all as an end-user. It's just people who develop applications that stake the token to be allocated bandwidth. Same way you host a Nano full node to receive transactions and validate them

>Steem : Whales pay for everything.
What are you talking about?

>Nano : nobody needs to own anything or pay anything to transfer value.
You need to run nodes

>>8809272
>You need to run nodes

Totally optional. You can use web wallet or light wallet.

>>8809283
Yes anon, but someone runs nodes underneath to communicate with those wallets, so _somebody_ needs to pay something to transfer value as opposed to your statement that "nobody needs to own anything or pay anything." Same with the other feeless coins that I replied to and you conveniently ignored

>>8809228
> So when it's depleted, you have to close the channel and open a new one.

No, you can fund the channel again.
e.g. if you make a withdrawal on Coinbase (or another exchange) and they have a path of payment channels to that channel, they can use that channel to replenish the funds "on your side" in that channel.

Ideally, you can keep a single channel open for months or even years.

>>8805943
>DAG coin
>good

lol dag is shit, enjoy your buggy POS that isn't even a blockchain

>>8806243
This is not reddit you little faggot

Try making 'free' nano transactions on a credit card. That's right you can't. The whole tech is bullshit. Praise XLM if you want that type of coin. Ripple would've been good but the jews own too much of it already.

The other big thing is that payments need liquidity much more than not paying fees. Stellar takes $0.000001 fees, but you're likely to use their system over Nano considering that if you want to sell $1M worth of Nano you crash the price that literally has $5M daily volume lol. Nano autistically focuses on "feeless" solving a problem that doesn't exist while having a million other problems related to liquidity and volatility.

>>8806243
Nano confirmed reddit coin.

You'd be a fool not to hold some of this.
>feeless
is revolutionary in crypto and the only competitor (iota) is garbage. In fact most false nano fud is actually true of iota.

>>8809734
EOS and Steem are also feeless but nice try

>>8809551
>liquidity
This is the stupidest argument when speculating about the future. It's irrelevant, same as being concerned about volatility.

>>8809760
Lol if you pretend the problems don't exist they don't magically disappear in time, when you coin fails to accomplish its only goal without worldwide adoption of an otherwise useless coin

>>8808627
Fucking dumbass...nodes don't get rewards u fucking tard

>>8809551
>25 posts by this ID
why are you such a faggot and spend hours a day shitting up every nano thread? is this your job or something?

>>8809482
>No, you can fund the channel again.

I don't think that's true. You can't top up channels.

>>8809829
Luke is right. Most people don't even understand why use decentralized systems

>>8809815
See:
>>8808721
Also, that's not the point. See:
>>8808830

>>8809743
They aren't. Keep saying they are maybe it'll come true who knows.

>>8805943
>fast as fuck : 2 seconds or less wallet to wallet
Plenty of coin have confirmations under the minute.

>no small fees, NOTHING. You can go back and forth between wallets for an infinite amount of time, you'd still have the same amount of NANO.
No fees but centralization.

>infinitely scalable, everyone in the world could use nano everyday, it wouldn't slow the network
Bullshit, voting takes time and the more transactions the more votes needed.

>use almost no energy to send and receive transactions
All PoS coin can do that and at least they are decentralized.

Nano is vastly overhyped as it's centralized and doesn't solve the main problem of cryptos which is accessibility anyway.

>>8809829
He is a troll. Just ignore him.
Maybe even a corecuck.

>>8805943
>>8805986
Nano has problems syncing.

>>8809853
>voting takes time and the more transactions the more votes needed.

Just run a node. Voting for a transaction takes under a microsecond. And Nodes vote in bulk.

>>8809853
>No fees but centralization.

FUD. Nano isn't more centralized than bitcoin for example. At least Nano community is doing something to decentralize more. Each user can assign any representative node. And each user is his own node. There isn't mining. It doesn't get any more decentralized than that.

>>8809883
FUD
Never had any problems.

>>8809853
Plenty of coin have confirmations under the minute.

Sure, but Nano is instant, not "under a minute".

Just look at this, no other "fast coin" is able to do this:
https://sendvid.com/zeyhegow

>>8809829
I would not be surprised if there are people hired to specifically FUD competitor coins.

>>8809938
Wrong, Bitcoin design allows everyone to host a full node and verify all historical transactions. Nano history is by design infinitely large as it has no hard caps on TPS, so no consumer hardware will be able to host the entire history and prove some transactions did occur. It'll be only Nano that has the whole history or nobody at all. Therefore, it is not immutable nor decentralized

Note that Nano brainlets can't grasp this concept so they always try to counterargue with a misunderstanding of the idea

>>8810026
Lmfao this propaganda retard argues that there are no coins that send faster than Nano. Stellar, Ripple, Steem, EOS, Ada, etc stop

>>8809962
Stop fucking lying an admin told me that

>>8809839
Yes you can, it goes both ways.
Otherwise, Lightning Network would be absolutely useless (if you can only spend what you lock in and nothing more).
Check pic related for a clearer picture.

Let's say you put 0.1 btc in a channel with user B. B has a payment channel to other users that leads to McDonalds, Starbucks, Walmart, etc. That means you can make payments to ALL of those establishments.

AND once you've used up your 0.1 BTC, and somewhere from B's payment channel into the network of payment channels, you have a channel to Coinbase/Binance/Bittrex/Gemini etc., you can buy MORE BTC from them, and they can use your channel to B to replenish your channel (up to your 0.1 BTC, even more if user B put up more BTC on their side when the channel was opened).

You appear to be bashing something you are not terribly informed about.
On the other hand, I am not a bitcoin maximalist (you can see here >>8809003
I even understand why exchanges had a NANO congestion issue back near ATH levels and when Binance newly added it), but I prefer to be informed enough about everything.

Personally, I still currently prefer Ripple for doing fast transfers, as it is very cheap (cents), nearly instant (even across exchanges, doesn't require confirmations and it's there within seconds), and GREAT liquidity (I can move 2-digit BTC's worth with it and not lose a lot of value to slippage), and almost all exchanges support it (unlike NANO). But you won't catch me dead holding Ripple long-term though (pumps and dumps a LOT).

Please pump nano back to 11.7k sats so I can dump my bags

>>8809003
>Nano is anti-centralization.
Um, if you scale on-chain to "infinite" transactions, it means no one can host the entire history besides maybe one entity. That's very centralized

>>8810051
>It'll be only Nano that has the whole history or nobody at all.
Hardware limitations are not a problem, and probably won't, ever.

>>8810266
Yeahhhhh didn't expect you to understand the issue no worries bro

>>8810082
No, they aren't as fast as Nano, prove me otherwise of stfu about it. See my video above

>>8810278
>blockchains with 0.5s block time confirmation embedded in the design
>NO ITS NOT REAL I REFUSE TO BELIEVE I POSTED A FUCKING VIDEO ANON STOP FUDDING MY BABY ANON

>>8810140
That seems awfully complicated. Nano does free transfer without any fees. Nano> >> LN bitcoin by miles.

>>8810301
lmao, it's not proof they're faster than nano. Show me proof. Like the video I posted above that shows a value transfer under a second.

>>8810259
You misunderstand, I'm not saying it as a positive thing.
I'm basically saying that centralized entities have problems implementing NANO wallets, as they have to do PoW for each transaction (since it's the wallet holder who does the PoW).

This is the reason why even if NANO is instant when done peer-to-peer, exchanges have congestion for NANO withdrawals/deposits (especially back during the ATH, withdrawals were delayed for DAYS).

>>8810331
>as they have to do PoW for each transaction (since it's the wallet holder who does the PoW)
You can do the PoW in the user's browser, like nanowallet.io does.
So it's really not an issue.

>>8810322
https://twitter.com/ArminVanBitcoin/status/979466587488088070

probably dozens other videos

>>8810331
>>I'm basically saying that centralized entities have problems implementing NANO wallets, as they have to do PoW for each transaction (since it's the wallet holder who does the PoW).
They can use a Blake2b ASIC or FPGA if they actually care about supporting this shitcoin or precompute PoW because they're deterministic

>>8810273
This is not an issue. Nano entire ledger is under 5GB. It's growing way slower than bitcoin blockchain for example, especially with universal blocks. Aaaannd most nodes won't be historical nodes, see pruning. Same voting power though. Satisfied ?

>>8810305
The penultimate goal of crypto is to become a world currency. It either succeeds at this, or this is all just one giant speculative bubble.

If it succeeds, EVERYTHING is a transaction. Not just payments. Even just a parent giving their child their daily allowance. Or multiple people chipping in to pay a shared pizza, would be one transaction EACH. Even new use cases, like tipping in chatrooms (like Twitch or camgirls), or paying advertisers per banner click/site visit/video played, will be a transaction each. This will be BILLIONS of transactions.

So I believe anything that stores ALL of this on-chain (whether it be blockchain, DAG, or a block-lattice like NANO) CANNOT succeed in scaling at such levels.

Only an off-chain scaling solution will succeed in such levels.

20% OF THE NANO MAX SUPPLY HAS BEEN STOLEN BY FRANCESCO FIRANO, OWNER OF BITGRAIL

HE IS SUING THE BITGRAIL TEAM AND VICE VERSA

DON'T TOUCH THIS COIN OR ELSE YOU WILL NEVER MAKE IT

>>8810388
Yeah ok bud https://medium.com/@qertoip/it-seems-to-only-cost-3m-to-kill-nano-raiblocks-37d78a4e96ca and if you don't understand the importance of historical nodes that's ok cause I didn't expect you to

>>8810380
>conveniently links video not including the creation of LN channel
Still waiting for videos on the other coins that are supposedly faster than Nano.

>>8810380
>They can use a Blake2b ASIC

FUD. Again. So much FUD. You're litterally a big huge FUD-turd.
You can't use ASICs for Nano.

>>8810411
lol this medium article is pure FUD and absolutely baseless. Better try something else.

>>8810414
>>conveniently links video not including the creation of LN channel
Lmao you mean the one-time 10 minutes delay at the beginning of the year wow

>Still waiting for videos on the other coins that are supposedly faster than Nano.
Just google retard. Stellar transaction demo. Click a link. Go fuck yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yiFduOSpiw

>>8810440
>Stellar transaction demo

Still slower than Nano. And it's not fee-less.
Try again.

>>8810425
>>8810437
>nano acolyte can't understand anything so he calls everything FUD
What a surprise

>>8810465
Nano paid Fudder can't blabber anything else but stupid FUD and can't even prove Nano isn't the fastest coin around.

>>8810463
>clams no fast coin is as fast as nano
>show video of coin being as fast as nano
>i-i-it's slower! Cause I said so!
time the two videos and come back with proof
>also also let me change the goalpost! It's not feeless! a-ha!
your claim was about speed. EOS is feeless and faster. Whether they're autistic enough to make a video for marketing it's not an argument. Check their testnet. Check their stress tests. Anyway, you're obviously brainwashed and you're gonna die holding those bugs

>>8810362
This only scales to a certain extent.
You have to think bigger picture, like something as large as Amazon.

With your solution, if they are using a single wallet, it has to be a deterministic order of transactions, a single slow connection user will hold up the entire line. No one can cut the line because then you'll have to update the "laggy user" with the new state they have to do PoW on (i.e. with the transaction that you let "cut the line") which will be a laggy process in itself. This is comparable to that person who takes forever to choose their order holding up the line at the cashier. Plus, a malicious user can keep sending wrong PoWs, etc. It's never a good idea to trust the user with anything, and always assume the client software is tampered with and malicious.

There have been better solutions than yours (e.g. using multiple wallets, different wallet sizes, etc.) I'm personally bullish on NANO as well, I believe it can serve a purpose like how Ripple is very good for cross-exchange transfers right now, but I don't believe it's the end-all be-all crypto. I still believe off-chain scaling is the way to go.

I've been trading it all the way down from ATH (buying massive dips, selling the bounce to get my capital back, and keeping profits as 10% back to BTC and 90% kept as NANO), and managed to get like 25% worth of my portfolio of NANO "for free" (which I am planning to hold until next alt season).

>>8810519
So show me proof that EOS transfer is faster (or as fast since YOU change the goalpost). And prove me you can send 1 EOS to somebody and back and still have 1 EOS. No EOS have to be destroyed in the process. No EOS have to be bought other than the EOS sent.

New Lara Croft is fugly tho, and a total SJW cunt.

>>8805943
Cool. Now earn your place. Show that when a few thousand malicious actors want to kill or steal your coins, that you are unassailable. Hell, just show that it doesn't unwind and collapse under its own weight when it's seen regular use for a few years. Until your coin has done this, your shilling just drives people away. You end up sounding like some coked out, entitled, dumb fuck crowing that people should drop everything and gather around, cause "Ooooo Shiny!".

>>8810548
Yeah just let me run a node quickly and send some EOS back and forth to make a YouTube video and persuade redditors about speed which was empirically tested in Bitshares and provided by design on EOS and no fees which is literally a central point to why EOS exists and how Steem has been working for years. Just wait here anon

>>8807316
that's right. few people noticed it.

I hope fud brings this down lower. What people don't realize is Nano is exactly what they want litecoin and bcc to be, a fast cheap way to move crypto around.
I can send .000001 Nano and receive .000001 Nano even is the price is 1 trillion per coin.
Eventually people will catch on (probably after another major pump, people are just hurt the price is low)

>>8810743
>I can send .000001 Nano and receive .000001 Nano even is the price is 1 trillion per coin.
Same with Steem

>>8810691
This is just some text. Still no proof. Are you that dumb ? Stop shilling this EOS scam.

>>8810843
38 comment already
Do you live in /biz/?

Lmao, the Nano bagholders are getting desperate... I dumped on you guys when it was $30. Thanks for making me money.

>>8808152
Its literally already been proven to be able to handle 300 transacitons per second and still be instant and feeless to use.

>>8811990
Get out of here with your facts !