I want to buy some Nano but I have a few concerns

> the fact that BTC miners have launched attacks against other coins in the past
tell me more

What the fuck do you mean? It's just dPoS and it was given to faggots who solved captchas? How is this less decentralized than literally every coin

It pretty much all went to Venezuelans.

stfu dumbass FUDDER

go back to your shitting street

>Bitcoin has by far the largest development power, the biggest funding, the largest institutional support, and the largest public support

and the highest All Time High* value as well

*when people phone you asking where to buy it while literally ignoring what is it, to the point of shouting at you "OMG btc just broke 18k and will smash 20k by the end of the week!!!!1!! you don't want me to become rich overnite!!!!!1!!!"

>I know newfags here don't understand just how big BTC is
Exactly. It's the Reddit idealist Bernie Sanders coin. Sorry, cucks, you're going to get BTFO by your naivety again.

no one gave a shit about nano to this degree before it became a heavily shilled piece of shit
literally the only thing that changed was:
the brand
the intensity of the shilling
the product is not going to compete with btc like you think it is just because it's the fad of the month atm lol
fuck off and fucking die you brainlet morons

And why is that bad?

Inflation being good is the biggest scam of the world. I still don't know how jews convinced people that it is a good thing.

Bitcoin Core is literally a shitshow. They have their heads so far up their asses and aren't making good decisions, clearly.

Nano all day son.

Eligius pool attacked CoiledCoin in 2012 mining their blocks to reverse history and destroying the coin. Same happened to TerraCoin and WorldCoin in 2013.

Meh, the distribution is fine. I'm not worried about decentralization boogeyman

Basically if you need to spend money you will do it regardless if it's inflationary or deflationary.

screencapped this whole thread for the future embarrassment of nonanors like

Never said it was bad, just answering why it had a very centralized initial distribution.

Colin has been working on this since 2014 and has supported his design decisions on bitcointalk.org pretty well. It's not a fad. It recently got a lot more attention, but this is not a money grab

literally
nothing has changed
except a burst of artificially-driven popularity
you get that, right?
i mean, i really hope you do

it's a fad, guy.
sure, it's neat, but no one gives a shit about nano as a product. they want to make money. and as soon as something even more neato comes along, nano's fucked. because again, no one gives a shit about nano as a product.

>nothing has changed
Yes, and that's why I have nano. Because it's still heavily undervalued in the crypto market, despite being great. Your point is retarded.

welp, enjoy your flavor of the month. the important part is that you believe.

>but no one gives a shit about nano as a product. they want to make money.
Feeless, almost-instant transfers are a fad? They're the only ones who have this implemented for now, and it's pretty fucking huge (IOTA is batshit crazy.) As soon as there's a direct fiat gateway, I can send money overseas and my parents can convert to their local currency. International transfers are waiting to be saved by crypto

Markets don't move because people "need" to spend money. 99% of people don't need a fucking smartphone with a data plan to live yet they have one. Stop being a retarded 12 year old idealist cuckhold.

Fuck yeah NANO, all in since last Saturday, best six days of my life

People with money and institutions aren't going to accept that. Every coin since bitcoin went up to like $30 saw speculators horde absurd amounts essentially permanently crippling them. Bitcoin had the most "random" and "fair" distribution possible being the first.

99% of people also don't even know that their currency is inflationary. Your point does not make sense.

Nano is a hedge against LN and ETH scaling solutions (plasma / sharding). I own Nano and some other DAG based coins. But it would be a mistake go heavy on them. They have a lot of serious drawbacks. Its much more likely that sidechains, LN, etc. is the future. Nano is an alternative that may work out to be better.

fucking THIS

They know it's not deflationary you fucking retarded virgin manchild

i think you underestimate how retarded the general public is

Fair enough but either way bitcoin, nano etc are imo just never going to be used to buy a coffee or whatever because everyone is just speculating on the price to go up now. That $2 coffee could have cost you $4 next month so why would any sane person want to spend their coins.

Dude, think about the reverse, why would someone sell a coffee for say 0.2 Nano worth of USD when that USD will only be worth 0.1 Nano in the future?

Whether a currency is deflationary or inflationary doesn't affect people's willingness to buy or sell it. Traditional fiat currencies end up being deflationary for two major reasons, one is that simple its much easier to increase the supply of fiat then reduce it, the other is that governments prefer inflation because it directly increases the amount of income tax they collect (value of assets measured in a deflationary currency increase over time even if the real value stayed the same).

People don't know that it's inflationary or deflationary. Even if they knew their currency was deflationary they also would know that they need bread and shoes and stuff.

Lol what other DAG-based coins?

>They have a lot of serious drawbacks
Like? Anything that hasn't been mentioned?

>Traditional fiat currencies end up being deflationary for two major reasons
do you mean inflationary?
I'm no economist but doesn't inflationary encourage spending and deflationary encourages saving?
I think what I'm getting at is that no one seems to view cryptocurrencies as currencies. They view them as an investment that they are going to get rich from. The hodl meme and all that. Im not sure what it would take to convince people to spend their bitcoin, nano at a coffee shop as opposed to their fiat currencies.

How do you know it's still centralized? Surely poorfag venezuelans sold already to get their money back it's not like they can afford to risk so much by holding after 100x.

The distribution seems ok raiblocks.net/page/frontiers.php

Can someone explain the decentralization/distribution FUD properly?

yeah I meant inflationary, both times. There are two sides of every trade. Inflation doesn't encourage spending anymore than it discourages people from accepting it in exchange for assets. And vice versa for a deflationary currency. A deflationary currency discourages spending itself, but encourages people to accept it for payment. These two forces cancel each other out, so overall whether a currency is deflationary or inflationary doesn't effect its use as a currency (unless taken to the extreme where extreme inflation impacts is use as a store of value).

In practice is hard to create a deflationary fiat currency. The Japanese Yen is the only major currency that is somewhat deflationary (central banks actually charge a fee to hold it). Central banks can cause a decrease in the monetary base by selling assets they hold in exchange for the currency. These can be physical assets but also debt. But overall its much easier to expand the monetary base of a fiat currency than it is to decrease it. Especially when central banks hold mostly debt that would likely be defaulted on in a black swan event which would cause hyperinflation.

>Inflation doesn't encourage spending anymore than it discourages people from accepting it in exchange for assets.
Why would I not accept inflationary currency if I can exchange it instantly for deflationary currency?

It's true that you may also ask why would I pay with inflationary currency when I can exchange it for deflationary currency and hold, but if I have to pay with one, then I'll pick inflationary even if only because of psychology/cognitive biases. This point is more important for new currencies that have to prove themselves as functional but may never get to do so

>They have a lot of serious drawbacks. Its much more likely that sidechains, LN, etc. is the future.
yeah that sounds like bullshit, how about some arguments

You're thinking too much as a buyer and now a seller. Walk into a coffee shop and tell them you're paying with Zimbabwe dollars. They're not going to accept it. Or at least you will pay a fee to trade it for the currency they do accept. If a merchant accepts both an inflationary currency and a deflationary currency, like USD and BTC, then they are going to charge a surplus on people buying with the inflationary currency to convert it into the deflationary one.

This doesn't happen today because there are no widely used deflationary currencies because it is almost impossible to create a deflationary fiat currency. There is also no exchange of deflationary assets that is as liquid as currency (until bitcoin was created). That is what is so unique about bitcoin / crypto.

>then they are going to charge a surplus on people buying with the inflationary currency to convert it into the deflationary one.
Lol no they won't. They don't even charge a surplus for paying VISA fees to accept debit card--they just eat the fees themselves. Do you really think shops will just start charging extra fees for accepting government-issued currency, and everyone will just think this is ok?

You're alright user. Make sure you're all-in on XRP by Tuesday, 5PM Eastern time.

xrpchat.com/topic/20486-brad-garlinghouse-presidentcoo-of-coinbase-on-cnbc-3618-5pm-est/

iota, byteball (dag with smart contracts), oyster (layer on iota), IOT chain, burst (DAG on top of blockchain), cardano (considering DAG).

Also ETH was considering going in the direction of a DAG design about a year ago, but there were too many issues with the technology.

Scalability issues while maintaining decentralization. Almost every DAG coin has resorted to using centralized servers for synchronization, or are built on top of a blockchain. The blockchain is proven to be extremely resilient. A fully decentralized DAG design is untested, and test net performance is not a good indicator of real world performance (eth can actually do many thousands of TPS on test nets, real world is different ballpark).

if youre buying nano youre literally giving your money to some third world shitskin that was given it for free by the nano dev.

Bitcoin cash and NANO ftw. Nano is unproven so that's their biggest problem. If they can't fix the DDOS problem BCH will win the internets just like BTC did before the jews took it over.

LN is shit. Just like everything the masonniggers did after they took the project over.

>Do you really think shops will just start charging extra fees for accepting government-issued currency

In effect, but it will probably be more like a discount for using crypto. This isn't much different than business giving discounts when you open a card with them, or buy with store credit like xbox / itunes credits and the like. And I'm only talking if merchants are using crypto as their "reserve" currency which is a long way off.

>Almost every DAG coin has resorted to using centralized servers for synchronization, or are built on top of a blockchain.
Nano hasn't though, so it's not a problem inherent to DAG

Not yet, which is why I own some nano. I was just saying its probably not a good idea to go big on nano because blockchain scaling is more likely to be the future.

Like it scaled in December?

>- Once LN adoption is mainstream, Nano's advantage of speed/no fee, will be moot.

Lightning network has its own set of problems that Nano doesn't have to be honest.

You have to have scale to have scaling problems. Nano's capabilities are still completely unproven unload real load. Eth with sharding is estimated to be able to support millions of TPS globally. Does that mean it actually will? Don't know, but at least compare apples to apples, real world performance vs real world performance. You can the performance of a PoW blockchain like BTC or ETH under massive real world load to one guy sending himself Nano at 7000/second between two of his own servers in a private network. So if you want to say Nano can scale to thousands of TPS in a test net, well so can the current version of ethereum. And future ETH can do millions of TPS in theory. Again, real world load is whole other story.

Lightning network is a second layer solution that is inherently centralizing. You have to pay to open a channel and you have to stake some of your btw to let the channel open, had to that that on the test net there was numerous problem and bugs where people lost their BTC. Don't get me wrong, I think Bitcoin will always be worth more than NANO, but their first layer solution is ground breaking and yes there is potential attacks, but nothing that is not unsolvable. If we all wait wen NANO is perfect, we will be left with nothing.

Point is that blockchain hasn't proven itself either yet

lmao who tf cares, bought after the nigga from coinbase tweet, sold at x2
rebought again today, literally free money lel

PoW blockchain has. BTC has been running for 8 years now. The network itself has never been compromised. Eth does hundreds of thousands of transactions a day. Steem and bitshares do millions. Look at the nano stats and its doing a couple thousand a day. Not really comparable at all.

tbqh Nano is overvalued now. A lot of FOMO last week and people forgot this coin was worth cents a few weeks ago. I'd wait for another deep to buy in on technicals alone

Lol, I'm saying blockchain hasn't proven that it can scale, not security-wise.

STEEM did 2 million transactions in a day at its peak which is the most any crypto has ever achieved. Visa does 150 million on average

Exactly, nano has to prove itself both in the security sense and performance sense. Blockchain is already proven security wise. There are blockchain scaling solutions which theoretically will outperform nano's claimed performance. That's why its much more likely for block chain scaling solutions to win out. Nano no only needs its design to actually hold up in the real world, but also for the many different blockchain scaling solutions to all fail since blockchain has an advantage security wise.

That said in the short term nano could definitely pump due to hype alone which is why I own some.

Don't buy nano lmao Charlie Lee is going to cuck you just like he did with the retards who made him rich by investing in his coin.

how is it overvalued when it does the exact same thing 4 out of the top 5 coins do (pure currency coin) but magnitudes better

Nano was my first alt investment and it brought me to the moon, but since then I've realized its not the greatest investment for a number of reasons. However, bitcoin having a future as digital cash is not one of them. Bitcoin is a shit coin and its only hope of surviving long term is via the store of value meme.

there will be many instant and feeless currency coins in the near future as blockchain tech advances. Nano has one big advantage but it isn't going to last very long. Especially since its a standalone coin and can't provide other utilities. I suspect something like eos or even pos-ethereum will provide a native equivalent, and people will be more incentivised to use it since they're ready using the environment for other reasons. People like having everything in one wallet.

>casually dismisses bitcoin LN

Then explain the surge to $28 before the crash in Jan? Stay poor.

Ln is a retarded meme that defeats the whole point of the blockchain. Second layer solutions are only pushed by people who are either emotionally attached to their brand or are heavily invested in mining and don't want technology to actually progress.

Have fun having funds on centralized network.

Huh? How does LN "defeat the purpose of the block chain" (it requires the block chain to work)?

You open a channel with some amount funds.
Those funds are now the amount you can transfer on the centralized network. Funds are only being transferred back to blockchain when the channel is closed.

Or rather finalized when the channel is closed.

And? How does that defeat the purpose of the blockchain, when the funds you open a channel with are required to be verified by the blockchain? How does it defeat the purpose of the blockchain? Does it fail to operate in a trustless environment? No. Is there a central authority that can manipulate your balance or the supply of the currency? No. Your balance and the supply of the currency is maintained by the blockchain. LN just combines transactions. So what purpose of the blockchain is defeated by LN?

Is Nano going to recover?
I'm losing my faith...

nano fags answer this >Can anyone explain to me why STEEM is ignored?
>
>>free transactions
>>fast transactions
>>already many dapps deployed
>>dpos
>>not DAG
>
>What does Nano do better than Steem?

>Does it fail to operate in a trustless environment?
Yes. When the channel node is hacked your money is gone.

you are the weakest handed faggot i think i have ever seen.

NO, NANO IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. SELL NOW.

Bitcoin’s not going to lose to hype tech man. This shit is not going to be replacing anything. It’s a joke like 98% of teh crypto projects (evaluation wise). Fun experiment at best and worth developing but.. do not buy it thinking it will be catching BTC or LTC.

Just did that, thanks for your advice even though you were a bit rude!

No its not. Any btc you put in a channel cannot be spent until you authorize it. You can also cancel a channel to redeem your funds. Read about the basics of how payment channels even work.

Opening a payment channel is essentially putting data on the block chain dedicating some of your BTC to the channel, making it impossible for you to double spend that BTC to more than one person. By opening a channel the other party has no control over than BTC until you sign a transaction to them. But they do know that you can't send that BTC to anyone but them without putting another on-chain transaction to cancel it.

Well I don't see how it could ever go up organically. All those surges were synchronized manipulations by whales, not real players. Picture is now.

Owning channels requires too much costs and maintenance for a normie. These channels are going to be operated by banks and/or large corporations like Google and will have government oversight. Even if it's possible for independent channels to exist no one woll use them because people are retards. In the end it will just be one more way for them to sell your personal info and control how you can spend your money.

WOW!!! JUST SOLD 100K THANKS user!

Anyone can already see the entire blockchain to mine for data without owning or running a single node. If anything having LN side chains that aren't visible helps that situation... Remember that bitcoin is only pseudo anonymous, LN doesn't change that at all.

Dude pls stahp.
Bitcoin is outdated, lightning network is shit. It's not dead, yet, but it will be non existent in 2-3 years. Like Myspace. Like Lycos.

Just embrace new technology. yea, someone had a better idea than Satoshi, so what.

>implying the bank/government will let you remain pseudoanonymous
>implying they won't just make it illegal to run channels without keeping identity info about your users
You aren't thinking far enough in the future. If LN achieves it's goal of going mainstream it can be highly controlled and regulated, which means it will be.

How does is the risk of government regulation unique to LN and not bitcoin as a whole? Again, running an LN node gives you absolutely no special authority over anything. People can simply choose to use other channels. Making it illegal to run your own LN node is about as likely as them making it illegal to run your own bitcoin node. That has nothing to do with LN, you can say the government can try to outlaw anything.

I recently discovered Chancoin ($CHAN/$4CHN), an off-the-radar coin that I think is seriously undervalued and I see no reason why it can't do a 500x or even 1000x (I'm serious) based on competitor coin market caps.

I realize this post so far has sounded very scammy but below I lay out fundamental reasons for my valuation.

Use Case
In simplest terms, Chancoin wants to allow meme creators to be credited each time their original content get's shared. This means that when you, the memelord, create a dank ass meme on Veeky Forums and it makes its way to Instagram, you're getting credited for each share that it took to get from Veeky Forums to Instagram. Chancoin does this now by posting your Chancoin public key for tipping but ultimately will implement steganographic technology.

In this way Chancoin is like Dogecoin, Reddcoin and Monacoin, coins that are used to incentivize, reward and promote content creation, each geared toward a specific type of audience.

Development
Chancoin was a fork of Litecoin and has four active developers led by Gossamer Socks. The developers recently implemented an upgrade to the protocol called Cloverhash that allows for CPU mining and will allow for GPU mining in the near future. Progress is happening extremely quickly.

Community
Chancoin is active on Bitcointalk, Discord, Trello and Twitter. There are two Discords, both with hundreds (yes) of contributors. The developer Discord tracks Chancoin's progress. The other Discord, called Chancoin City, has an endless supply of Chancoin-inspired memes. The community around Chancoin is tangible

Valuation
Chancoin's market cap is $448,692, has 7,454,915 coins ($0.06/coin). Based on Chancoin's Veeky Forums origin alone I think this means it is insanely undervalued. And based on the market caps of competitor coins like Dogecoin ($636,776,951), Monacoin ($313,937,358) and Reddcoin ($246,405,147), I am of the firm belief than Chancoin can do a 500x to 1000x.

And that's my case for Chancoin

Not really. Each time you jump through channel all channels will have to be updated and verified with funds moved. Its literally 10 FOLD more complex then internet routing. Hell its 1000 times more complex and most people working on it are completely retarded. Just listen to fucking Elizabeth Stark and tell me she and team she has can have even slightest of chance to figure it out. Its bogus. It wont work. It wont work because not only is it incredibly complex, its also because entire concept is downright retarded to its core.

>>implying they won't just make it illegal to run channels without keeping identity info about your users
I don't think you're thinking about LN.

Because the number of ln nodes will be small enough that regulating it will be entirely feasible.

this

the whales just did the usual build fomo over news then dump

i have a bunch of nano but im selling it off as it drops

legit ponzicoin, gonna bleed for the next 6 months+ for sure, outside of random news to pump and dump

The entire world can run LN nodes, just like bitcoin nodes. It is no easier to regulate LN nodes than bitcoin nodes currently are.

It's significantly more expensive to run a ln node than a bitcoin node.

I already have some and can't do anything with it because the single exchange that listed this coin won't even let me trade it since the whole value is too low.

Coinbase video and charlie lee basically jacking nano off on twitter and you want to FUD that this nano pump is just whale manipulation...stay poor faggot

First of all, I already have NANO (unfortunately). Second, there's no Coinbase relationship. An investor that put money at some point into Coinbase tweeted about it and that's all. Third of all, Charlie Lee is Twitter's new McAfee. And last of all, you truly are a brainlet if you think that this is not just P&D whale playground. Look at those intervals of stagnation with ~1% movement. Those are real transactions, not three tall green candle sticks out of nowhere, followed immediately by bleedings pushing the price even lower than it was before the spike.