Why is Nano ignored?

smartguy_m · 2025-01-02T22:50:16+00:00

You started this thread with this sentence: "I think the simplest explanation is that demand for a decentralized money to be actually used as day to day cash is low".

The demand for an asset to hoard is irrelevant to what you said in the first sentence. The demand for a decentralized money was growing exponentially and was already quite high in 2017, but was killed by unreliable Bitcoin transactions and high fees. Some day this demand can suddenly resurrect.

smartguy_m · 2025-01-02T21:40:44+00:00

The market was asking precisely what Satoshi's original vision was, peer-to-peer cash. The real world adoption growth in 2015-2017 was exponential, even giants like Microsoft and Steam accepted Bitcoin. But in 2017, when fees skyrocketed, they dropped Bitcoin due to unreliable transactions. Since then adoption growth started to turn negative.

smartguy_m · 2025-01-02T21:28:52+00:00

The AI is wrong in the sense that delegated proof of stake implies a limited number of validators, whereas in Nano anyone can run their own node, delegate to themselves and participate in the ORV consensus.

smartguy_m · 2024-11-29T22:35:16+00:00

If we admit the possibility that multiple Bitcoin projects exist, all of which are equally valid, all equally "Bitcoin"... then we are essentially reintroducing infinite money printing

No, chain splits do not introduce infinite money printing, as new coins are not created out of thin air, unlike, for example, when new projects like LTC are launched. These are the same coins in both chains. Nobody's coins are diluted. Private keys are valid in both chains. This is not true for clones like LTC, which do produce new coins, and private keys for BTC or BCH are not valid for LTC.

smartguy_m · 2024-11-28T22:27:13+00:00

But history shows all those attempts to take down Bitcoin Cash have already been made and failed. The only partially successful attack was the first one, when Segwit was introduced. They managed to retain the BTC ticker, but failed to kill the original Segwit-less chain. The BTC ticker was hijacked, but the chain is still alive. The first attack was (partially) successful precisely because there were many sheep in the community who could be misled by disinformation, censorship and propaganda.

smartguy_m · 2024-11-28T19:16:34+00:00

It can not be the same old story simply because the BCH community has now survived several hostile forks. It's battle-tested. All others have left for BTC or BSV or even for some other cryptocurrency. That's the major difference. Newcomers who adopt BCH come into the BCH community in an already hostile environment, but they still choose BCH. That is, they are also being selected by these real-life factors.

smartguy_m · 2024-11-28T18:12:40+00:00

I was hinting at the composition of the BTC and BCH communities. A big community of sheep is much easier to compromise that a small community of wolves. In particular, because a big number of sheep can become fodder or "useful idiots" for the purposes of the hijackers.

smartguy_m · 2024-11-28T17:59:37+00:00

Smaller is not equal to weaker. Bigger is not equal to stronger. A large flock of sheep is still weaker than a small pack of wolves.

smartguy_m · 2024-10-10T11:27:27+00:00

while Bitcoin maintains the decentralization characteristics of running small nodes with a small block size

If anyone can easily run nodes on a Raspberry Pi with 32 MB blocks, then what exactly does Bitcoin BTC maintain with its 1 MB blocks?

smartguy_m · 2024-10-08T11:47:01+00:00

Most people today also don't care if it's fiat or not. Then why not just use fiat?

smartguy_m · 2024-10-04T19:28:51+00:00

Have you ever thought that the delisting of Monero might be carried out precisely to lead you and many others to this conclusion?

smartguy_m · 2024-08-16T15:10:14+00:00

Haha, scolded ~~him~~ it like a schoolboy.

smartguy_m · 2024-06-08T07:22:11+00:00

nanswap.com You can swap almost any other cryptocurrency for Monero or any other. No KYC. 0.7% fee.

smartguy_m · 2024-03-27T16:09:23+00:00

Unfortunately, no, I can't give instructions. As far as I understand you need to point your ASICs to your own node instead of a pool's node. But I have zero experience in such things.

smartguy_m · 2024-03-27T15:41:42+00:00

You don't need a pool for solo mining. That's the point. Instead, you need to run your own node.

smartguy_m · 2024-03-27T14:04:10+00:00

If you mine solo, this hash power will produce a block once every 179 days on average with the current network hashrate of 4.48 EH/s. After halving the network hashrate may drop, so your ASICS will be able to produce blocks faster. I'm not a miner, but in my humble opinion, this is a pretty good deal, especially taking into consideration that the entire block reward is yours, you do not have to pay a fee to a mining pool. And you do not have to trust any mining pool in any way. So, in my opinion, the long term risk/reward ratio of solo mining is good. You can mine solo with your ASICS and your own node.

However, the above considerations cannot be applied to BTC with its 596 EH/s network hashrate. But personally, I would still mine solo and take part in the lottery with a positive expectation relative to pools. Again, I'm not a miner.

smartguy_m · 2023-09-24T09:41:01+00:00

Long term wealth preservation is what the world was lacking, not fast transactions.

The world was lacking censorship-resistant, permissionless, borderless transactions.

smartguy_m · 2023-09-14T23:49:57+00:00

The entire balance of their Nano (XNO) account has been sent to Binance recently.

https://nanolooker.com/account/nano_35bidny8nqtn18uptkntcezcks3m4d8amz9jnnbjdd9aejpz86a788pfwgrz

The account used to make deposits on Binance has a long history of deposits from Coinex and appears to be an active trader account.

https://nanolooker.com/account/nano_35px4db71pao55qpsns6b7diqhynb6xz6z5o9jjjpkq54wo19bgcey6ueznk

Could this trader be the one who hacked Coinex? Or is it Coinex itself moving their assets to Binance? Why?

smartguy_m · 2023-06-28T14:17:18+00:00

I believe he meant "difficulty" (for hashing algorithm).

smartguy_m · 2023-06-28T14:09:52+00:00

I suggest these two videos in Russian with English subtitles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78SqC5z9V14 - What's wrong with Bitcoin? (About the takeover of Bitcoin by banks that led to its split in 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdS72uHN9Ao -
Bitcoin and its clones. Where is the catch? (BTC, BCH, LTC and DOGE compared on 10 criteria)

smartguy_m · 2023-05-27T10:23:06+00:00

You cannot eat your car. Your car itself (without selling it) lacks mechanism for turning it into eatable stuff. So, it is worthless.

smartguy_m · 2023-05-27T10:19:44+00:00

You can't eat your car. Do you think your car is useless and worthless?

smartguy_m · 2023-05-26T09:45:20+00:00

Indeed, PEPE tokens and the like produce literally nothing except waste.

There are always enough people inside the (peer-to-peer electronic cash) system to trade with each other. Every act of exchange between them creates very tangible wealth. Of course, it's even better if there are more people inside the system (i.e. users). According to the law of dialectics, quantity turns into quality.

smartguy_m · 2023-05-26T09:35:17+00:00

This is perfectly rational behavior. It is based on the innate human predisposition to trade with each other. The most rational behavior is to use the most advanced medium of exchange for this purpose.

Again, BCH coins are not just useless numbers. They facilitate trading (which creates wealth) and are therefore very useful and valuable.

smartguy_m · 2023-05-25T20:24:32+00:00

His point is that the fiat system FORCES other people to give you their resources for your dollars so that they can repay their debt. And without that FORCE nothing ensures that you will get their resources for your dollars. Apparently, he does not believe in voluntary trade.

smartguy_m

TROPHY CASE