/biz/ - Business & Finance

currently that is nano

>>12627892
2019 and you still get it

>>12627892
EOS

>>12627892
what is that expression supposed to convey?

>>12627922
>>12627950
Is there any documentation proving the speeds of these coins? I've seen a lot of bullshit crypto "promise" high speeds on "final release", which is a retarded as fuck thing to invest in.

Bump

Pls post cryptos before this thread gets mega slid again, thanks.

>>12627892
everytime i see this photo man.... that pussy looks fucking perfect

>>12627975
Even if those 2 are faster and no fee...They aren't secure enough which makes the whole point of magic internet money useless

>>12628353
What 2 crypto are you talking about?

>>12627892
Don't forget
>at least some anonimity so mrs old lady next door can't look up your dragon dildo transaction
(that's nano out)
>incredibly easy to use normie friendly wallets and amazon-service and ATMs/real world places to spend.
(That's EOS out)
The only one that is really going to fill this is BCH - the real bitcoin

I cant believe no one literally missed the 2nd biggest coin, I mean are you guys stupid or just blind??
Just because it hurts your feelings it doesnt mean it doesnt exist, you must hate money guys.

>>12627892
XRP has both of those features

>>12627964
>I need a big strong black cock to fuck my tight little white pussy.

>>12627892
>Whatever coin this is, its a no brainer that this could topple BTC or at least take place in the top 5 on CMC.
I guess XRP, however I think the market was being irrational by valuing it so much. Yes, it is fast and cheap, but it fails in pretty much every other aspect, most importantly an insecure consensus mechanism. It carries few of the advantages of proper crypto such as trustlessness. Therefore it's not much better than to just use VISA or something like that.

In short I very much disagree that speed and cost of transactions are the most important aspect of any crypto.

>>12627892
Sir we seen u interested in DERO pls call our hotline and we will provide u with the needed informations thx.

>>12628520
>XRP has both of those features
this

>>12628520
this board hates xrp, because its ass fucks their "bank beater" coins in every way. Banks are going nowhere faggots

>>12628614
>insecure consesnus mechanism
care to explain yourself?

>>12628469
Say what you will. But eos is objectively the easiest to use coin there is. Long strings of numbers and letters don’t work for normands

>>12627975
Im not a tech guy im a practical guy, datadash wouldnt have nano on 3 months ago unless he checked out first

>its a no brainer that this could topple BTC
hahahahahahahahahah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>12629457
No he doesn't


Some other tards like him will read it though and register it as truth, thus the cycle of stupidity lives on

>>12629457
>>12629529

The biggest point of crypto is its trustlessness. Users of f.ex. bitcoin and ethereum do not need to trust any other entity. Its decentralization and security essentially derives from that fact. But with XRP, every node needs to whitelist (in other words trust) a set of third party validators. Most people won't even bother to do the research on which validators to trust, they will just use the default list that comes with the node, to my understanding this is currently a list of validators recommended by Ripple the company. This is a very worrying and glaring vulnerability.

You might argue that it is essentially the same in nakamoto consensus, in that users trust block producers in the same way XRP users trust their chosen validators, and as long as the majority of the validators are trustworthy, just as with miners, it is safe. But the difference (and it is a big difference) is that in nakamoto consensus, users don't hand-pick a select few trusted block producers. Anyone can become a block producer if they only spend the necessary resources, and everyone is forced to recognize this block producer as an equal peer. It is impossible for users to deny (censor) a block producer from gaining access to the consensus process. And that is the only way it can be for a completely decentralized system. XRP relies on exploitable and buggy human reasoning to pick peers that are trustworthy, while f.ex. bitcoin and etherum are completely bound to impartial math and algorithms to do this reasoning for them. Sure, this opens up other vulnerabilities like 50% attacks, but IMO this is far, far preferable to those of XRP described earlier.

The only thing faster than Nano would be me cumming buckets inside that girl's pussy

>>12627892
Bitcoin.
Huh!? Whats that!?
But muh dinosaur!
You mean to tell me that even muh beloved go-fast coins aren't faster than lightning network?
But then who will buy my go-fast bags??

>>12627892
VISA.

>>12627975
>Is there any documentation proving the speeds of these coins?
Lots and theyre always an order of magnitude slower than the devs claim. For example nano is supposed to be thousands and thousdands per second; it's more like 300.

>>12629740
I understand everything you're saying, but I don't agree with:

> as long as the majority of the validators are trustworthy, just as with miners, it is safe.

Let's have a look at who validates XRP transactions:

- universities
- companies (who can be sued if they attempt a double-spend; as well as ruining their reputation in the real world)
- potentially governments

Yes, anyone can become a miner, but let's have a look at the top 4 miners (who constitute over 70% of the hashrate and could easily collude):

- china
- china
- china
- china

If you have a list of parties who have little incentive to collude with each other and put their real-world reputations at stake, you'll have better consensus than any technology can bring. Consensus is a human problem not a technology problem!

>>12627964
I don't think it is meant to convey anything specific

>>12627975
>>12630104
EOS has been tested at 4000 transactions per second
https://bloks.io/

TRON has only been tested at 750 transactions per second
https://tronscan.org/

>>12627892
Bitcoin Lightning.

>>12630418
>Let's have a look at who validates XRP transactions:

The point is that it doesn't really matter who the validators are, the problem is that the users must specify validators themselves. This means that for example an attacker can simply replace everyone's validator list with a bogus one specifying only proxy validators of themselves, and they suddenly have control over the network. The XRP validator list attack is nearly free and has no penalty even if they are caught (except legally, perhaps, but relying on laws for security is just another weak point, it is not objective or guaranteed).

In contrast, even if a majority of bitcoin or ethereum block producers were to collude to attack the network, they would need to risk an enormous amount of resources to do so, which would quickly be rendered lost by for example the blockchain forking to change PoW algorithm. Therefore they have a huge incentive to not attack the network.

>>12627892
Lightning network

This network is growing so fast
Same with development

>>12630488
Thanks, your comment is a PERFECT example of this kind of nonsense.
Here is some actual academic research (unlike your link which is just a random number on a block explorer site)
>The performance metrics observed when factors such as real world network latency and packet loss are implemented indicate that TPS in EOS approaches levels comparable to Ethereum. Concurrently, increases in transaction size also result in lower transaction throughput. This leads to the prediction that the high levels of transaction throughput that are showcased in marketing documents were achieved under ideal network conditions, and not real world network conditions.
https://hackernoon.com/eos-an-architectural-performance-and-economic-analysis-43a466064712

>>12630529
That's actually a good point that I hadn't considered. The security behind the list itself (being centrally published) is actually a cause for concern.

I still don't know how I feel about the fact that bitcoin miners are geographically and politically centralized. You can't deny that if the Chinese govt wanted to double spend tomorrow they could (with very little downside) because they have direct control over mining farms which constitute 70%+ of the hashrate.

What do you have to say about that? In my opinion this is on par with the XRP UNL being centrally published, with the downside of expending copious amount of energy and introducing the technical limitations of bitcoin (see fees and speed).

>>12630573
No they don't fag you look at a mining pool and think they own those miners
That is false

>>12630549
It's literally running higher TPS than ethereum RIGHT NOW

>>12630573
Yes, I won't deny that PoW has weaknesses, which is one of the reasons I am excited for the future PoS upgrade in Ethereum. But I still don't think such a weakness outweight the XRP one. The biggest reason is that, as mentioned, even if they collude it would almost certainly result in a huge economic loss for them, so why would they?

>>12630601
Wow that was quick, you read that whole article that quickly?
More importantly- who gives a fuck about 40tps?
The point is that number on the right is horseshit. Like I said, an order of mangnitude slower than claimed.

Bump

>>12630612
>even if they collude it would almost certainly result in a huge economic loss for them, so why would they?
Same with PoW with an exception
If PoW validators act outside interest you can still continue with a consensus in PoS you cannot
This is also why small blocks are important

In PoW you can reject even the smallest changes with that nuclear option while PoS will get chipped away
Nobody can bootstrap a PoS system you're always under the control of the validators

It's a trade off that saves energy or might be more efficient but that's all a meme to get more control and makes your chain another shitty centralzied worthless copy

PoS is a scam and outdated tech
There's a reason why satoshi chose to not use it
Only brainlets and scammers are currently promoting it