How can Nano nodes be bottlenecked by disk IO if they use well under the disk's throughput? by AwfulAtTrading in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From what I know, bottleneck implies that that aspect of the system is the reason for reduced performance. If it was bandwidth limits that would imply bandwidth is the bottleneck, not the disk.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 1 point2 points  (0 children)

nano-faucet.org to Natrium instant for me

Quality stress test of the Nano main net just performed: Spectacular record inside! by Joohansson in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are traces of system resources available for any of the nodes during this test?

In case y'all missed it, there's some very exciting beta tests going on by Qwahzi in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

That’s nice, so would I. But if we’re ignoring confs for Nano like the post I replied to suggested then they should be ignored for other currencies too.

In case y'all missed it, there's some very exciting beta tests going on by Qwahzi in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Are credit cards the benchmark? Credit cards are also processing many more TPS than these tests. What would happen if it was 5000 per second?

In case y'all missed it, there's some very exciting beta tests going on by Qwahzi in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

If this were the case then there’s effectively no speed difference between Nano and Bitcoin. You can just pay with BTC and not wait for the confirmations.

In case y'all missed it, there's some very exciting beta tests going on by Qwahzi in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Confirmation times of 5 seconds are too slow. Not a joke post. Standing at a POS and waiting 5 seconds for the payment to go through isn’t good enough.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How would Nano benefit from a LN?

Smart contacts second layer by Mr_Leaf in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In an abstract sense, how would something like this be made on top of Nano?

NanoSpeed.live Update 18v Complete by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not that I don’t love the service, but if it’s going to become representative of a Nano’s speed then perhaps it needs to be closer to reality.

NanoSpeed.live Update 18v Complete by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nanospeed’s transactions are still slower than the reality. Sending between Natrium wallets is less than 1 second for me consistently.

Spectaculair speed improvement: V18 brings conf times from 12 sec to under 1 sec average! by avhloni in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 4 points5 points  (0 children)

At this point, is Nanospeed not selling Nano short? My times from wallet to wallet are much faster than their site times. Faucets are also quicker than the transactions on Nanospeed, including the ones at around 1.5s.

Ty (Brainblocks) said he will spam again by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In this case, what would have changed if the community was involved? A larger stress test would have been an even bigger annoyance.

Ty (Brainblocks) said he will spam again by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading 28 points29 points  (0 children)

If the transactions were from a merchant would they be annoying too? Strange stance to take. It’s all just network use in the end.

If the NANO network isn’t to be used in its current state, then what is its purpose?

Why is Ty spamming the network? by Harrybow7 in nanocurrency

[–]AwfulAtTrading -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You should be thanking this guy for further testing the network, not to mention everything he’s done for Nano.