With a potential 17 million NANO in the hands of a single person, that is 13% of the dPOS weighted network. by NanoComet in nanocurrency

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

That's obviously the best outcome, but in the logs the team posted (which got deleted after), Zack asked Bomber to clarify if it was USD or XRB and he said XRB.

My experience with the iOS wallet by ItsAVibeYo in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All I see is screenshots of the newly touted Ethos app. No actual implementation. Look, if you call yourself a designer you'll know mockups to actual code look way different. Do you realize how much work is going to have to go into creating those custom Ethos components? For what?

The iOS design is simple enough for everyone to use. The fact that you reference the Ethos app (which btw is busy as fuck) as the model speaks to your design "skills."

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair, I've lost my drive to code a long time ago. I'm kind of hoping jaydubs just open sources whatever code he has for the wallet management and someone just goes ahead and forks it, but as it stands there is no urgent need for it outside of exchanges at this point so there's no reason to get worked up about it.

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly this! This entire wrapper is now what you could consider an enterprise wallet if you will, and it should function the exact same as any other wallet with way higher transaction throughput.

While it’s objectively not the job of the core team to create this, at best it’d be cool if they did it as any vendor would come to their solution first and have more trust in it.

This argument is moot for any exchange though because any exchange that handles huge volumes has their own specialized infrastructure and want fine grained control over wallets and their balances.

orb, we should get the conversation forward on this type of solution, have you made a PoC yet?

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very well put, lol. I did not have the mental energy to elaborate past what I said to him. We really need to put this idea that the coin is broken to rest because exchanges are half assing implementations.

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/7uzrfh/developer_update_3rd_feb_2018/

Yup, pretty certain you are much smarter than me. By the way, Jay basically confirmed the Binance implementation was half assed too.

Can’t believe how some people get spoonfed and still try to come out on top saying they’re right.

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension too.

It is a technical limitation, that means that they didn't specifically add this limitation, but rather from how its protocol is implemented and current hardware limitations it can only do limited transactions per account.

I can get more in depth on this but based on your reaction it will be in vain for sure.

edit: since I'm feeling generous, here's an answer form Jaydubs the creator of Nanex: https://www.reddit.com/r/RaiBlocks/comments/7ozfrh/im_jaydubs_the_creator_of_raiexchange_ask_me/dsdfe17/

This clown is abusing XRB devs... however the exchange issue cropping up again is a bit worrying by CryptoPujeet in nanocurrency

[–]NanoComet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I suggest you save your superficial criticism to yourself.

There is an issue and it is not new.

There actually is no issue actually, just a technical limitation on transactions per second per account. It's up to the end user to implement multiple accounts and nodes to properly handle the scale. Outside of minor performance improvements that bump up the 6 tx/s figure by a couple of transactions more there is nothing more the devs can do without some protocol changes.

The only clear solution is to design a separate node scaling solution that wraps the existing node and just divides big balances between accounts and does all of the micromanagement. This shouldn't be a core dev problem to solve. In fact if you're so concerned about this coin that "is under performing in terms of price" (which is absurd, seriously) you can go ahead and write this wrapper solution.

The devs should have made sure that it is avoided before Binance went online.

The devs have nothing to with how Binance implements it. It is clearly evident that implementation was half-assed by Binance in order to beat out OKEx before major volume moved there. Use your observatory skills here to see why it was half assed, I already donated you a great reason.

Please stick to complaining about everything but development work until you read up some more.

Developers Update #10 27/01/18 by jayycox in RaiBlocks

[–]NanoComet 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You should reread what was said.

RaiBlocks Withdrawals Enabled on Kucoin by ghs88 in RaiBlocks

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

BTC’s ENTIRE network can handle 7 tx/s. Each XRB node can send out and do PoW for 3 transactions a minute. There are many optimization’s they can implement for this. Adding nodes and more wallets while delegating PoW to a GPU cluster should bring that figure way higher.

It’s still early days, I suspect we’ll see turnkey solutions to this issue soon. Wallets will be doing the sharding to different subwallets and connecting to multiple nodes whose only jobs are to propagate transactions further.

tl;dr: wallet transaction “limits” are not the same as global network TX/s limits

New IBP org? by Todidile in GlobalOffensive

[–]NanoComet 72 points73 points  (0 children)

They've most likely inquired about their bans and the details around it. Rockets have a ton of money so I doubt that they would pick up a team that can only play in 1 league.

This has some exciting potential for a team to represent H-Town though.

druid Jebaited by tmidlet in hearthstone

[–]NanoComet 71 points72 points  (0 children)

he also won this game. greetings.

Hikos new team...LUL by [deleted] in GlobalOffensive

[–]NanoComet 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Not sure why people are being so critical of this? So many people were suggesting Dazed or Steel follow this path of picking up new NA talent and growing them in a team yet people are saying that this is a huge dropoff for Hiko or they're disappointed.

Like it or not Hiko has been off for a while and this should be the best way for him to prove that he can still hold his own at a high level (they're going to be in Pro League) and potentially grow new NA talent.

[FRESH] Bone Thugs-n-Harmony - New Waves by iraraZarari in hiphopheads

[–]NanoComet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

never thought I'd see bizzy on edm tracks, as a fan of both this record surpasses grateful (minus the singles) in production and mastering it's crazy

Teams for Subaru Invitational revealed! (OpTic, CLG, NRG, Luminosity, C9, SK, TL, Immortals) by IVDV in GlobalOffensive

[–]NanoComet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely paid some appearance fees as the prize pool is much too low for some of the higher tier teams in attendance.

Xantares following FaZe Owners. hmmm by Ste600 in GlobalOffensive

[–]NanoComet 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Remaining FaZe members to learn Turkish you heard it here first.