/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17189186
Do darknet drug dealers accept it?

>>17189186
Nano was a shitcoin in 2018 and it is still a shitcoin today

>redditor sees /biz/ winning bigly
>tries to shill reddit shitcoin of the decade on /biz/
not so fast norman

Why did they rename this shitcoin to nano, you cannot even google it, wasn't there a single brain that thought about these things when they decided to name after a standardized unit. What a stupid piece of shit blockchaintanglewhatever.

>>17189186
Why should it appreciate.

>>17189346
Zero inflation. Same use case as Bitcoin, except it can actually be used as a currency. Instant to send, zero cost to use. Current version can handle 600 TPS sustained. No mining. Low energy model requiring hardly any energy to establish consensus.

>>17189202
This desu

What really caught my eye, is that they have a wikipedia article now. Only several cryptocurrencies in the space have their own wikipedia page. Supposedly, because of the unique model, it can scale quite easily. The claims are that the TPS is only limited by hardware, and they are able to pull 600 TPS on the live network currently with the cheapest nodes money can buy supporting the network. I believe there are 100 or so nodes currently who are operating for free, but the cost is so little and not expected to increase much over the years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano_(cryptocurrency)

I kind of worry about BTC as well. For instance, what happens if the rewards from mining or processing transactions no longer can pay for the electricity required to keep the network running? Wouldn't this cause a mass exodus and the value of BTC to drop to nothing overnight?

>>17189481
No transaction on network or only spam you stupid pajeet. No one is using this scam and Colin will dump on all of you faggs. This scam is not -99% fo no reason

>>17189544
>Supposedly, because of the unique model, it can scale quite easily.
Not true. They haven't solved any of the hard problems

>>17189568
Colin owns less than a single % of the supply you dried tit sucking malnourished third worlder. You have no idea how BTC started either. Go read up and learn about the history of this environment before opening your mouth and acting like you have something worth contributing.

>>17189613
Zero fees. Instant transfers. More decentralized than BTC.

According to Satoshi, this is the holy grail:

>Solving the Blockchain Trilemma: Decentralization, Security & Scalability
https://www.coinbureau.com/analysis/solving-blockchain-trilemma/

>>17189614
Hahahaha, rekt pajeet. Colin constantly dump on all of you faggs and you think he is over with it? Stupid faggholder

>>17189613
Vitalik thinks differently.

>Solving the Blockchain Trilemma: Decentralization, Security & Scalability

https://www.coinbureau.com/analysis/solving-blockchain-trilemma/

>>17189694
Sounds like you are revisiting childhood memories of you and your dad desu senpai

>>17189186
Nope, not at all, not even in the slightest.
Buy ARPA you raging faggot

>>17190054
Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

>>17189202
>>17189217

Shitcoins still pump. Why else would you be in this market?

>>17189186
>free
Will always be a problem from an investment standpoint. If the user isnt being charged, that money comes from investors pockets in the form of a depreciating inflationary shitcoin. In fact, the more adoption the nano sees, the more you will lose to inflation. You would honestly be better off holding USD than you would any fee-less dag shitcoin.

>>17190912
Why lie you filthy kike?

Nano does not have inflation. It does not depreciate.

>>17190976
Then how are the transactions free?

>>17190912
I apologize for calling you a kike, you just seem to lack the information rather than hoping to needlessly fud.

I agree that any coin that pays for itself via inflation is a scam. This is why I am so interested in Nano. It is something we have never seen before. The costs of the nodes fall onto the volunteers who host them. This could be seen as a weakness, but due to the unique design of the block lattice, the costs will never exceed those that a simple hobbyist can provide. But we can almost certainly expect associated corporations to host their own nodes that have more throughput. Like Binance, or Kappture for example.

Decentralized, Fee-less, zero inflation, and damn near instant. This is revolutionary, isn't it?

>>17191045
Super lightweight system. No data is recorded except for the numbers. Each account has its own blockchain, while the nodes record the movement of funds.

It is basically as lightweight as an ICQ message. Designed with open source philosophy in mind too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JChBTohSHlM

>>17190478
Some shitcoins pump harder than others, and Nano is not that shitcoin.

>>17191081
>>17191065
Regardless of how lightweight it is, the way i see it is this. If there are no fees, you either have an inflationary shitcoin, or no incentive to run a node. Why the fuck would anyone PAY to run a node for other people? I dont care how little the cost is. Thats not how capitalism works.

>>17191099
Take a look at its chart. Nano pumped harder than almost all coins

>>17191045
Nano also did not have an ICO. It is not an ERC-20 or anything like that. It is a totally unique cryptocurrency and is currently and has been the only directed acyclic graph based blockchain that works without a central coordinator (Iota). The initial distribution was given out for free via captcha, similar to a manual mine. It was originally called Raiblocks, where it experienced the greatest growth in the shortest amount of time of any asset in human history. Up to $37.00.

The chart as well as the purpose is very much similar to LTC.

>>17189700
>Vitalik thinks differently
I'm so fucking glad a cunt like you is getting rekt by this absolute turd of a shitcoin. Beautiful.

>>17191155
There is no DIRECT incentive to run a node. But for $5 a month, it isn't that much of a sacrifice. One of the benefits however would be that by hosting a node you are a representative with 0.2% control of the required majority vote to make changes to the protocol and/or confirm transactions. That is potentially a lot of power and responsibility. I would not be surprised if people find indirect incentives, even from simply just being investors for example. The cost is what limits people from performing an action. Not the fact that there may or may not be a direct reward.

Furthermore, direct incentives as we see with BTC lead to competition, which can be good, but in this case it leads to centralization into the hands of those who can afford it most.

>>17191177
It doesnt matter if it is unique if there is no incentive to support the network, or buy the token. Unique isnt always a good thing.

>>17191210
>The cost is what limits people from performing an action.
Exactly. Why would i run a node for $5 a month when lighting a $5 bill on fire every month is so much easier and yields the same result?

>>17191164
And now its crashing down

>>17191218
See my next response >>17191210

Indirect incentives are plenty enough. The people who host the nodes are investors. We want to see Nano succeed. There is no reason not to host a node for something we believe in and care about. Especially when by doing so we are supporting the network which we believe in. $5 a month is chump change. I pay more than that in late fees for my phone.

>>17191245
Because burning a $5 bill doesn't support a decentralized network that you are invested in like hosting a node a $5 a month node does. I don't follow your analogy at all.

>>17191289
Top-down incentive schemes are incredibly fragile and basically don't work at all.

>>17191267
That doesn't worry me. My bags were filled when you had to complete captchas. I sold at $30 and brought back at 0.85c.

>>17191245
Put aside your skepticism for a moment and imagine what can be done with an instant fee-less decentralized permissionless non-inflationary store of value. It is very much like the ICQ of money. I am not sure what that would make Bitcoin relatively speaking. A fax machine?

>>17191327
There is no top down incentive as there is no top, outside of those who hold the largest amount of coins. It isn't the founders or devs. They kept a measly 5%.

>>17189186
>Imagine comparing the future of money with a scam like Chainlink.

>>17191384
I think there could be some real world use for Link. A DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) built on smart contracts that handles and pays out insurance claims based on recorded data that is confirmed by multiple third party link node operators could totally overtake the current insurance paradigm, assuming people considered the code and the sources valid. Might be hard to get all the specific details for each and every incident into an RSS feed for easy translation, but we already do this with some data on the web. I would think eventually most all important data will be formatted in such a manner, so I can definitely see Chainlink being useful when it comes to autonomous actions that need to pull data as well as verify it in a decentralized manner before submitting the information to the ETH network for the smart contract to have its prerequisite conditions fulfilled.

But NANO can be plugged and played anywhere. What is that saying, the more complex a machine is, the easier it is to break it? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link?

Nono is a dead Venezuelian socialist pajeet shitcoin. Rekt like all socialist scums

>>17191384
Nano is optimized to be a currency. Any crypto that tries to "do-it-all" will be OK at everything but will not be great in anything due to technology tradeoffs.

There's an analogy here. Let's say you tried to build the perfect all-purpose vehicle. One person wants something fast and sexy like a Ferarri. While another person is going into a warzone and needs something large with heavy armor like a tank. You can't optimize for both - well, you can try, but your all-purpose vehicle will fail to meet either need.

Let Nano be the Ferarri, and let a different coin like Ethereum be the tank (I own both).

>>17191461
I needed a link like platform for my business but I chose BAND instead.

I don't like comparing link and nano, they're different projects. I still think both will be huge.

>>17191708
The only coin that really concerns me is BTC with Lightning network. Nothing else really can compete as far as currency goes. Except maybe Monero.

>>17191350
Nano never hit $30 dollars you retarded LARPer. Also, the fact you bought back at .85 isn't impressive. Buying BTC last year in April would've given you bigger returns.

>>17191756
Without lightning however, BTC is dead in the water.

>Bitcoin consumes 650,000 Wh per transaction. This is enough to power a Tesla Model S for 2100 miles. So, you can drive from Seattle, WA to Dallas, TX using the energy of a single transaction. This electricity isn't free, Bitcoin holders are paying for it (see inflation comment below). And it is hurting our planet.

>Nano consumes 0.112 Wh per transaction. Enough to power a light bulb for 6 seconds.

>>17191362
Im not saying it cant do what it claims, im saying nobody will bother to help the network out of the kindness of their heart, except maybe a handful of stupid people. That is basically the system we have now. A few banks maintaining consensus over the internet.

>>17191810
NANO peaked at $37.00, Kohai.

>>17191835
I've heard that $40/month will get you a powerful Nano node and that even $5/month nodes work not bad. The Nano protocol is lightweight so running a node isn't expensive. There are no direct financial incentives to run a node, no rewards, no fees paid out. Businesses building on Nano and using Nano run nodes to support the network so that they can benefit from the fast, feeless, decentralized and secure tx's it provides. Exchanges, services and businesses run nodes to better interact with the network. This model is working well because Binance, Kraken, Kucoin, Wirex, Magnum, Kappture, Brainblocks, Nanovault, Natrium, and Nanowallet are all running Nano nodes. Hobbyists run nodes for altruistic purposes, there will always be such people. There are over 10,000 Bitcoin nodes run by people who receive no financial incentive.

>>17191835
You don't have to look any farther than bitcoin nodes to see that thousands of people will freely run nodes because they want to, you also don't have to look any farther than bitcoin to see what happens when you incentivize people financially, centralization starts to occur (CHINA MINING). Nano is becoming more decentralized over time, not less, and there are plenty of node operators already.

This is a really useful video, it likely can cover some things I have missed and is a lot more technical and specific. I am just an interested anon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivuXIoHj-3Y

>>17189186

NANO is not sustainable. You earn nothing from running a node, and at some point, the costs would be too big to scale. Go back

>>17191882
This pajeet shitcoin is dead, dead as a mutherfucker, no transactions no nothing, also no further funds for developing, total rekt. Colin dumping on pajeets non stop. It's over faggholders is over

>>17192016
The NANO network is not subject to the same scaling issues that traditional blockchains are.

>>17192104
Colin doesn't have shit to dump. This isn't an ERC20 where the devs kept half the supply. The Nano team only owns 2 million nano out of the 133 million supply. Nano is open source too, Colin has less power over the network than Satoshi does with BTC.

>>17192258
He premine 100% supply. He is running on curts as CEO duo scams they been involved and still he have less power over network than Satoshi? Pajeet stop embarrassing yourself with that dead PnD shitcoin

>>17189186
fast and extremely cheap/free transactions aren't enough to bring hype, as lots of coins have those
For example, XRP shills have "side with the jews :^)" as a reason beyond fast/cheap transactions for people to buy it

>>17192224
I'm not saying that you cant have a huge amount of transactions on NANO. What I'm saying is that there's no incentive other than altruism to run a node and make the network run at all. would only work if it was run by public government or something. A private entity wouldn't bother on running a node alone.

>>17192611
Painfully uneducated

>>17192493
lol what the fuck are you even talking about, speak fucking english please and source your accusations that you just pulled out of your ass (not that I can even understand what the fuck you just tried to say)

>>17192626
Binance, Kraken, Kucoin, Wirex, Magnum, Kappture, Brainblocks, Nanovault, Natrium, and Nanowallet would care to challenge that notion. As would the 100+ individual nodes currently live and active.

https://mynano.ninja/