/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.19636008]

Can we get FUD nano thread going. This shit fucking stinks of bears. Vaporware sponsored by neats lunch money.

[Anonymous No.19636221]

>>19636008
They literally and unironically hired an ethot with a high 6 figure income with no previous experience as their COO, and since then have refused to release a single financial report while dumping Nano at will.

Pic related

Nano is valuable as a technology , but their "decentralized" network with a couple Chinese whales picking binance and 2 other servers to auto vote on transactions is worthless. Their initial "fair" captcha distribution was held behind closed doors and likely mostly dominated by the origional devs and their friends. The only advantage now is most of them redistributed on mercatox listing when the coin they had millions of for free became worth anything.

Nano the tech - good
Nano the coin - near worthless
Why would you ever buy this when anyone can fork Nano now and use their own distribution method by spinning up a couple Docker contianers? https://blog.linuxserver.io/2020/05/31/deploying-your-own-crypto/
There is no underlying value to the Nano network.

[Anonymous No.19636381]

>>19636008
Their TPS was a lie

[Anonymous No.19637198]

>>19636008
>>19636221
>>19636381
PoW = Labor theory of value. ETH devs have admitted they're communists.

[Anonymous No.19637388]

Thanks for the buy signal

[Anonymous No.19637416]

>>19637198
Distro is a tough subject , but what Nano did with a captcha bot holds no value , definitely not hundereds of millions of dollars.

[Anonymous No.19637418]

It surprises me the amount of ignorance in this post.

How did people end up believing PoW give value to a coin?

[Anonymous No.19637429]

>>19636008
Buy signal

[Anonymous No.19637476]

>>19637416
value is what people who use it agree that it's worth + scarcity. no more NANO will ever be produced.

to paraphrase Colin: if you spend a lot of time and effort to dig holes in the ground and then fill them back in, have you created any value because of the effort it took?

[Anonymous No.19637576]

>>19637476
Please explain what the actual value of the underlying infrastructure Nano has deployed has?
I would bet a couple thousand dollars a month in hosting bills max.
Anyone can deploy a fork and possibly handle distro a bit better.

[Anonymous No.19637624]

>>19637576
i just told you. whatever the people who use it agree that it's worth. miners are dumb, no wonder they were duped.

[Anonymous No.19637653]

>>19637576
>Anyone can deploy a fork and possibly handle distro a bit better.
go ahead. no one is stopping you. it's open source code

[Anonymous No.19637717]

>>19637576
marxist theory of economics, look how well that turned out.

Value is created by many factors, but in the case of NANO it is partially due to the costs saved by use of the technology. Which is 3% fees per credit and debit card transaction. It is also the permissionless nature of the protocol, allowing anyone to partake in the network. This is not the case with bank regulated services such as credit and debit cards. In addition to this, the non-inflationary nature serves as a hedge against fiat currency, so as fiat is devalued or diluted by inflation, other assets which are traded and measured against it will conversely increase in price.

Case in point, what are the value of collectors items, digital in game items (runescape hats), or other rare oddities such as vintage, antique, or otherwise items that cannot be simply obtained or created. It isn't the cost of production which gives these value, but rather to what extent they are desired by a buyer.

>tl;dr
learn2econ

[Anonymous No.19637775]

>>19637576
read this twitter thread and you'll see. NANO is inevitable.
https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/1225554351466467330

[Anonymous No.19637785]

>>19637717
>cost saved being rent seek'd by pajeet scammers instead of regulated credit agencies

Holy shit

[Anonymous No.19637828]

>>19637785
??? No one in the Nano Foundation is a pajeet and the network has absolutely zero fees. No rent seekers here broski.

[Anonymous No.19637847]

>>19637785
>can't refute logical points
>resort to name-calling
>that will surely help me win the argument

[Anonymous No.19637872]

>>19637785
Oh I think I see what you are saying, the miners want the fees that the credit card agencies take, in addition to the hedge against inflation BTC and other crypto provides. Yea, NANO is definitely the right direction to get rid of parasites like this, and one step further than blockchain 1.0 based tech.

[Anonymous No.19637911]

>>19637444

[Anonymous No.19637983]

This is coordinated discord trannies , I garuntee it.
No one has this much blind faith in such a clusterfuck of a project.
If you cannot even acknowledge that the main nano network has a questionable distribution and is heavily centralized around auto voting from code the devs push and a couple reps then you need to rethink your entire outlook on this stuff.

[Anonymous No.19638042]

>>19637983

[Anonymous No.19638073]

>>19638042
haha transaction go woosh

[Anonymous No.19638178]

>>19637983
>it's gotta be centralized because i've studied this guise
seriously though, anyone who understands economic theory and the progression of technology towards efficiency knows this is the best cryptocurrency. the fact that it doesn't rely on roadmap development marketing hype and works right now is icing on the cake.

[Anonymous No.19638218]

Guess what? You are losing.

[Anonymous No.19638240]

>>19638178
Ok code genius, you have a million nano you are running a rep.

Now explain to me how to vote against a transaction ?

Oh you can't , that is what I thought.

[Anonymous No.19638359]

>>19638240
why would you vote against a transaction? this is censorship resistant money, the entire point of crypto. node only confirm the first transaction in the event of a double spend attempt.

[Anonymous No.19638380]

wrong pic

This is also 2 years ago, distribution is way better since

[Anonymous No.19638427]

>>19638380
current distribution

[Anonymous No.19638478]

>>19638359
But which one is first the proto is not dated and syncronis ?
That is the whole point , you are simply leaning on the node code 100% to automatically do everything there is no objective decentralized consensus.
Listen I get that you think you are smart and have ingested mountains of information on this subject.
That does not change the fact that voting all revolves around the code the devs push as a point of centralization, you would literally need to hack the source code and compile your own bins with a new feature set to be able to even think about self resolving and voting on double spend forks.

[Anonymous No.19638598]

>>19638478
The nodes have the option to update or not. If they so choose they can use custom software and cause a fork. Just like how BTC miners can choose if they want to increase blocksize, utilize segwit, etc. And if the nodes perform contrary to the holders aims, the holders can redirect their votes to different nodes. It is a far better system than whoever can generate the cheapest electricity, as we see with China controlling majority hashrate for BTC.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.19638683]

>>19638478
>be miner or node operator
>rely on code by cockstream

[Anonymous No.19638902]

>>19638598
Not updating is not voting you insufferable faggot.
How are you not getting this ?
You claim fairness and decentralized but admit literally no one has any choice but to auto vote using the node even big dick representatives.

>Guys it is super decentralized because the money is pointed at different reps
>Can the reps actually vote on stuff
> REEEE THEY DONT HAVE TO UPDATE BTC BAD BUY NANO

Hearts and minds huh faggot?

[Anonymous No.19638960]

>>19638683
BTC's consensus method does not have votes, whoever mines a block can pick the transaction if someone is stupid enough to sign two spends. They can also take the fees from both while only putting on in their block.

You point is invalidated by code.

[Anonymous No.19638967]

>>19638902
>miners can pick and choose which transactions to include in blocks
>this is good and completely censorship resistant
>t. communist

[Anonymous No.19639002]

>>19638902
Why would you need to vote against confirmed sends? The network can be modified with code changes that the nodes selectively employ. The nodes are given voting power by the holders. If there ever was a need to modify the protocol outside of changes suggested by the dev team they can absolutely do so. Not sure what's so hard to get or even what point you are trying to make

[Anonymous No.19639019]

>>19639002
Why even have voting then?

[Anonymous No.19639063]

>proof of work = labor theory of value
>mining is concentrated in china
>miners can pick which transactions to include or not include in blocks

[Anonymous No.19639080]

>>19639019
voting is for users to determine their representative. clearly you're a smart person and have read extensively on this and know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.19639123]

>>19639019
Are you intentionally trying to be stupid? Oy vey

[Anonymous No.19639148]

>>19639080
No it is not, voting is performed by nodes with enough funds pointed to them that have enabled it in their confic-node.toml . You have two tiers of nodes that vote in principle nodes (ones that are actually hard coded in the node code in a binary file as pre-configured reps) and regular voting nodes.

You don't even understand the basic core mechanics of this protocol and you are going to lecture me about not reading up ?

[Anonymous No.19639155]

Here's some brainstorming FUD: The average user doesn't even know what voting is or care what it is. How could these be used against them? How could these users that hold NANO but don't vote, be exploited?

[Anonymous No.19639187]

>>19639123
No I am pointing out that this Anons point that there is no need for voting because the block is signed and work is presented is borderline retarded.
It is the same mentality all you fanboys have, trust the devs 100% and don't question anything about the inherent centralization of the consensus.

[Anonymous No.19639317]

what does nano do that thousands of other cryptos don't?

[Anonymous No.19639356]

>>19639148
there are two tiers of votes, wallet holders voting for their reps, and nodes voting on consensus. You are incorrect saying >>19639080 is wrong.

The network functions as we want it to. If that changes, we as holders have the power to change that by delegating our votes to nodes of our choice, that can deploy the node software of our choice.

>>19639155
The only way would be if everyone ended up using the same wallet and or keeping their nano on the same exchange. This would lead to a degree of centralization. Currently, Nano is more decentralized than BTC, and the community actively encourages users to take their coins off of binance and to set different nodes. It isn't difficult. Even if an entity had 50% of the votes, it still would only represent 0.2% of the total votes, or whatever the % is relative to the other active nodes on the network

[Anonymous No.19639358]

>>19639317
its not a btc clone or eth clone / erc20 like the other thousands of cryptos.

[Anonymous No.19639432]

>>19639317
Free, instant, fully distributed, zero inflation, scalable, 500-1000 tps, can handle microtransactions down to millionths of a penny with zero cost. More decentralized than BTC. Works now, no 2nd layer needed.

[Anonymous No.19639602]

>>19639148
you started the lecturing faggot. and now you're being a bitch about it. go mine some blocks and censor transactions. surely the hype machine will keep pumping the price so you pay your electricity bills. definitely sustainable.

[Anonymous No.19639658]

>>19639602
Great point dude, really tore apart my logic there.
Continue to laugh at your own ignorance regarding this whole network.

[Anonymous No.19639715]

>>19639658
i will. enjoy communism, it usually works out well.