/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>24031430
>feelessly
It's only feeless because according to Nano's insane "business model", all costs and work must be placed on voluneers that will do it all for free 24/7/365 with no downtime ever.

I can also have a free public toilet service as a business model, where volunteers are buying the toilets and washing them for free 24/7. It's pure insanity.

>>23889042
>Funny, because >>23888789 is from 2019
Don't believe you. I saw a comment from him in March 2019, I believe, where he stated that he had sold all his Nano.

>Charlie Lee still holds Nano when asked about it earlier this year as well.
Don't believe you. Show me, and what did he say about your crashed tech, scam and spam?

>>14979376
>LOL dag boi having another nano meltdown after seeing the price +15%
When I warned about Bitconnect, I got the exact same stupid answer as you gave me. +15%, really? Are you proud of that?

>>14956845
>RockmSockmjesus
So Mr. RockmSockmjesus, u want to play that ur not Mr. Nano community leader and satanist, ryte? So what is your ID on DAG telegram, Mr. RockmSockmjesus? Or was that u said Rasheed should not ask u Mr. RockmSockmjesus, because ur fake dag fanboy and very fanatic satanist nanoboi with no ID on DAG telegram? Rasheed so confused now Mr. RockmSockmjesus...maybe Mr. Satan can help u, but why he and u always loose?

>>14856942
>By that time larger businesses will have started nodes,
Then you have complete centralization with Amazon, Ebay etc controlling everything, and when that's the case, why not use a bank? Use of Nano will then be like Twitter and Facebook, completely controlled by the people in power.

>>14269752
Hey Nanni, how much is the costs if Nano has 100 000 TPS? What is the CPU, IO and Bandwith? The idiots in Nano has no clue. No cost analysis. The idiots just believe it will be run for free for all eternity and for some absurd reason not centralized. Only business would have financial incentives to run nodes, and then you have centralization with cucks checking that no political dissidents use the network. Welcome to Nano hell.

>>14249818
>Their v19 software is already looking exceptional, these guys are working overtime and don't even care about the coin price. That's how dedicated they are.
Empty boomer slogans.

>>14193708
40% are validator rewards
7.2% are founders and will be voluntarily burned
Deflationary model will soon be implemented
https://constellationlabs.io/constellation-update-token-model-and-token-burn/

>>12620180
If you had any clue what you are talking about you would know that IP=>ID.

>>12614740
>Based on the amount of FUD ITT, pretty sure nano will be a top 10 coin soon, maybe top 5
Using that insane "logic", Bitconnect should be coin number ONE now. You have the brain of a Nano investor.

>>12590257
>you said multiple times the core devs were in on the scam.
Sure, for some reason you have zero documentation, Nano liar.

>>12571858
>The security is not proven yet, but they have anti spam measures and its pretty useless to spam the nano network as you will just spam your own local chain, nothing else.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

One single miner can destroy the network via DDoS with 500 GPUs at no cost [13] [14]. A critical attack vector never seriously addressed by the Nano dev team. Having the problem highlighted to them, admitting to it, their response has been the usual -to promise and deflect -without providing any real technical solution. Nano is wide open for a massive spam attack crippling the network for a long time. This also scares the Coinbase experts; a total crash in Nano, via spam vulnerability and insane node issues, will reflect badly on Coinbase.
[13] https://www.reddit.com/r/nanotrade/comments/7vwl86/what_are_the_faults_of_nano/dtvpymd/
[14] https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/90wu2v/what_are_the_negative_things_with_nano/e2tskr8/

>dude that happens for any coin.
No one is spreading again and again that PayPal, BoA, UN and all central banks will use their shitcoin.

>there's nothing Bitconnect 2.0 about NANO.
Nearly all of the Bitconnect community moved over to Nano after Bitconnect crashed, when they heard the lies that Nano has 7 000 TPS. At that time that was impressive. Nano kicked out the oldfags via Bitgrail and got Bitconnect morons instead. The Nano management is insane. They make the worst business decisions in the whole crypto space.

>it's gonna moon so hard I'll never have to work again
Yep, Bitconnect 2.0 confirmed.

>>12468583
>I do not care about Nano or have a vested interest in it.
Sure.
>At least update all the inaccurate shit about voting weight and top account holders
The point is not who or what numbers, have they solved the insane centralization problem inherent within their failed system where node operators are supposed to do it for free? It's just as stupid as creating an artificial business model and ecosystem where you can call people to come and clean up your house for free. It will never ever happen in real life. It is not sustainable. Nano will be centralized around Amazon, Ebay etc (if Nano ever will be a global currency with 756 TPS). If they don't like your face or political stance, you will not be able to buy anything. You, the rabid Nano idiot pretending to be neutral, as you always do, are too stupid to see it. As is Colin.

>>12418887

>>11644584
>Check his footnotes, they have no correlation to the gibberish he posts.
Name your three best examples, nano psycho.

>>11441862
>>11443095
>No smart contracts. Masternode coins utilizing high capacity data contracts on their second layer are the future. Nano can't do any of this, it cannot compete with other coins.
>Must run expensive nodes for free. A borderline insane and untested business model that will most likely crash the network. Even if it worked, no matter how unlikely, with full adaption the cost of running a node would be astronomical, leading to extreme centralization. Having again the elites controlling our money must be avoided. No financial incentives for DPOS representatives to keep securing the network.
>70% centralization of all Nano, due to Nano original developers setting default node to their own.

[19] https://www.nanode.co/representatives

>>11439454
Nano is not decentralized. That Nano has the best TPS is a total joke and a lie.

>>11429638
>It's also been stable for the last couple of version.
Crashed just a few weeks ago with version 16.

>Will hit coinbase early 2019
How do you know? With the insane node problems, vulnerability to spam attack, no security audit etc, - I would guess late 2019, hopelessly behind everyone else, if ever.