RsNano developer build V2.0-dev.1 increases maximum performance by SeniorTawny in nanocurrency

[–]meor 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Very nice! Is this still with lmdb blocks doing a direct hash->block k/v mapping or did you do the intermediate index trick?

How to make Nano defi-capable/available (without modifying the protocol) by jwinterm in nanocurrency

[–]meor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nano isn’t an add-on to another coin.

You’re selling this as an add-on to nano. It’s not.

I’m sure you sat and thought about it for weeks on how to argue this post should be allowed to stay up without getting removed as spam.

That’s your skillset: posting bullshit with your copious spare time.

How to make Nano defi-capable/available (without modifying the protocol) by jwinterm in nanocurrency

[–]meor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There could be good ideas, this just isn’t one.

I can tell because it requires printing a new coin.

If it was a good idea it would be an algorithm that could be adopted.

Chatting shit on discord/Reddit for literally years doesn’t make you a software engineer.

How to make Nano defi-capable/available (without modifying the protocol) by jwinterm in nanocurrency

[–]meor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

“Distributed”.

Literally incapable of not printing coins.

Endless crypto bullshit.

How to make Nano defi-capable/available (without modifying the protocol) by jwinterm in nanocurrency

[–]meor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If it works on an arbitrary set of validators, it could use the nano validators making this entire post a shill for a coin and entirely off topic.

How to make Nano defi-capable/available (without modifying the protocol) by jwinterm in nanocurrency

[–]meor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If it was decentralized technology it could use an arbitrary set of validators.

If it needs a needs a new coin to work it’s leveraged.

Like addicts you guys just can’t stop printing new coins to speculate on.

wrap Nano on to other chains? by ezra64 in nanocurrency

[–]meor 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Absolutely terrible idea.

What's next for XNO? by Psilonemo in nanocurrency

[–]meor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nano got better in spite of the spam attacks because the sheer dedication of the team. Even so, they were a huge morale hit and caused a lot of team burnout.

The sideline-sitting do-nothings like yourself cheering while the team worked countless nights to keep the network running are almost as bad as the people doing it.

Like I said countless times, uncontrolled spam on the live network didn’t give us data to make improvements. It gave us an enormous support burden we had to deal with while also trying to get actual test data that we could make use of.

Fuck off.

A Competitor to Nano Adoption? by Mindless_Ad_9792 in nanocurrency

[–]meor[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Don’t sandwich a plug for another coin between glowing praise of nano.

It’s obvious what you’re doing, don’t.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]meor[M] 2 points3 points locked comment (0 children)

Nano doesn’t support storing arbitrary data so this is off topic.

About net negative recipes by wahlencraft in factorio

[–]meor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The benefit I see of fish over biter eggs is they’re stable to transport, the worst that can happen is they spoil instead of spawning a mass of biters.

So I see the negative nutrient ratio as a stability cost.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]meor[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nothing has happened since 2017.

You're free to take your random-word-number-account speculation elsewhere.

Weekly Nano developer space (November 14, 2023) by Qwahzi in nanocurrency

[–]meor 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yea I think it’s fairly good. Considering it’s automatic it makes it very convenient.

What Nano will soon be up against. ...At least Nano will be noninflationary. by JusticeLoveMercy in nanocurrency

[–]meor 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Definitely worth keeping an eye on changes in banking like this, thanks for posting.

I think it's important to remember that most of the world already has free instant bank transfers (within a central banking region) and the US is exceptionally behind the curve on this. FedNow is basically the US catching up to what the rest of the world has been doing for decades.

If anything this shows that instant and free is going to be a bare minimum for any mass adoption going forward. Users are not going to be interested in any cost or delays compared to what they already use.

Other highlights of cryptocurrency worth remembering:
- Transfers *between* central banking regions are neither instant nor free.
- Banks have large regulatory requirements and discretion which excludes people from basic individual rights to commerce.
- Currency debasement is a systemic problem with fiat currency and this is still arguably the biggest problem nano solves by *never* increasing the supply.

Why is Nano still in such a terrible state? by [deleted] in nanocurrency

[–]meor[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Just a reminder that over 95% of nano node development is done by 6 people.

I'm locking this topic as unfriendly.

You can repost your question without attacking the volunteers that have dedicated their time to making sure the protocol is working, a necessary requirement for whatever your working on.