NANO (ex RaiBlocks)

Tinder Surprise

Have a buy order @ 0.0011500 which would increase my bag by ~25% in just over 24hrs, so would be happy with that.

But I must admit this is my first time wanting a price to drop and feels kinda weird, so another box ticked in the world of crypto currencies.

Ohh and getting my head around dealing/thinking in the world of satoshi too 'vs' the mindset of always comparisons back to fiat.

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

Have a buy order @ 0.0011500 which would increase my bag by ~25% in just over 24hrs, so would be happy with that.

But I must admit this is my first time wanting a price to drop and feels kinda weird, so another box ticked in the world of crypto currencies.

Ohh and getting my head around dealing/thinking in the world of satoshi too 'vs' the mindset of always comparisons back to fiat.

There seems to be decent support at the current level. It has bounced off the 120k a few times. The prices change relative to BTC. So at 115k the price in dollars for Nano is the same as it is now at 120k last night because BTC has dropped from 10k --> 9.5k so if you are holding your money in USD you now get 5% more BTC and consequently 5% more Nano.

That stuff is all a huge headache tbh I am purely on the sidelines because BTC is ****ing around so much.

Zascar

mik_da_man wrote: »

I'd do that too.
Not lost a huge amount but would like to see it back!

PM Sent. Setting up a whatsapp group for anyone who has lost money in the bitgrail hack - and to see what we can to to try to get it back - if anyone else wants in please pm me.

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

There seems to be decent support at the current level. It has bounced off the 120k a few times. The prices change relative to BTC. So at 115k the price in dollars for Nano is the same as it is now at 120k last night because BTC has dropped from 10k --> 9.5k so if you are holding your money in USD you now get 5% more BTC and consequently 5% more Nano.

That stuff is all a huge headache tbh I am purely on the sidelines because BTC is ****ing around so much.

It dipped in briefly and made my purchase so can't complain (for now)

This is probably a stupid question but on Binance whats the difference in placing an order via the BUY now option and a Trade order?

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

It dipped in briefly and made my purchase so can't complain (for now)

This is probably a stupid question but on Binance whats the difference in placing an order via the BUY now option and a Trade order?

I don't see those options. You have buy @ market or buy @ limit. One you buy at best available price and the other you set the price at which you would like to buy. Back in at @115. I think I may just use this as a hold bag. I am sick to death of watching Nano charts. GL

WhiteMemento9

And we are off again

WhiteMemento9

Charlie Lee currently in the Nano sub on reddit asking questions about it causing quite a stir.

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Charlie Lee currently in the Nano sub on reddit asking questions about it causing quite a stir.

Looks like the reddit mods deleted the thread

was he dishing the tech?

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

Looks like the reddit mods deleted the thread

was he dishing the tech?

No, he was just asking some tough technical questions. The replies seemed very strong to what he was asking.

The one area in which the answers maybe aren't as strong around Nano is why should people run nodes. The reply to this is generally that people will do it to support the network as with torrents but I think that is fairly weak. The other argument is that they get indirect benefits, like avoiding VISA fees and participating in a working economy with a much lower cost base.

WhiteMemento9

It seems to have been added back by the mods.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/80c6fg/questions_about_nano_from_charlie_lee/

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It seems to have been added back by the mods.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/80c6fg/questions_about_nano_from_charlie_lee/

His questions...

Charlie Lee
Hey guys, I was told to check out Nano, so I did. I read the whitepaper. Claims of high scalability, decentralized, no fees, and instant transactions seem too good to be true. There must be tradeoffs, right?

Can anyone help answer some questions I have:

1) What happens when there is a netsplit and 2 halves of the network have voted in conflicting blocks? How will the 2 sides ever converge when they start communicating with each other?

2) I know that validators are not currently incentivized. This is a centralization force. Are there plans to address this concern?

3) When is coins considered confirmed? Can coins that have been received still be rolled back if a conflicting send is seen in the network and the validators vote in that send?

4) As computers get more powerful, the PoW becomes easier to compute. Will the system adjust the difficulty of computing the work accordingly? If not, DoS attacks becomes easier.

5) Transaction flooding attack seems fairly cheap to pull off. This will make it harder for people to run full nodes, resulting in centralization. Any plans to address this?

Thanks!

EDIT: Feel free to send me links to other reddit threads that have already addressed these questions.

seems upbeat about it...

Someone I met tonight was really excited about it and urged me to look into it.

I like what I see so far. Dev team with their heads screwed on straight. Good visions of doing transfer of value only and doing it right. Still not sure how it can achieve it without tradeoffs. But so far, I don't see any glaring holes in the approach.

WhiteMemento9

Colin's replies

Hey Charlie,

Thanks for stopping by! Right now most of our development time is spent working on improvements around performance and some of the outstanding questions like spam attacks. I’m happy to give you my take on some of the questions you asked.

Question: What happens when there is a netsplit and 2 halves of the network have voted in conflicting blocks? How will the 2 sides ever converge when they start communicating with each other?

Answer: If the network had split and a transaction was somehow confirmed in both partitions, the nodes have a procedure to find ledger differences. They would then request a vote on the conflicting transaction.

Question: I know that validators are not currently incentivized. This is a centralization force. Are there plans to address this concern?

Answer: Nano’s goal is to make the validation process as inexpensive as possible; as higher cost validation requires stronger incentives. We have seen that if validation cost is sufficiently low, vendors & other service providers will be happy to run validation nodes as an inexpensive operating cost in return for lower payment processing fees.

In addition, we have some really cool projects that are being developed which will drive users to run their own nodes and provide turn-key solutions for anyone who wishes to do so.

Question: When are coins considered confirmed? Can coins that have been received still be rolled back if a conflicting send is seen in the network and the validators vote in that send?

Answer: A transaction is confirmed when a quorum of the online vote weight has voted for it and all nodes are programmed to bandwagon to the winning transaction. If a conflicting send is published after quorum has been reached, nodes won’t vote on the new send since a different conflicting one has already reached critical mass.

Question: As computers get more powerful, the PoW becomes easier to compute. Will the system adjust the difficulty of computing the work accordingly? If not, DoS attacks becomes easier.

Question: Transaction flooding attack seems fairly cheap to pull off. This will make it harder for people to run full nodes, resulting in centralization. Any plans to address this?

Answer: We’re exploring a combination of improving our consensus protocol in order to prioritize validating transactions, as well as either increasing our PoW difficulty and/or allowing prioritization partially based on higher-order PoW solutions.

We would be happy to discuss Nano with you further if you have any follow-up questions, I’ll DM you contact information. Thanks again for stopping by!

WhiteMemento9

The community are going pretty hard at this twitch/Nano donation drive. They are pretty much going around firing Nano at all the big streamers. Someone just donated 50 Nano to this guy with 17k viewers.

https://www.twitch.tv/cdnthe3rd

WhiteMemento9

Wow, someone had 100 BTC buy order



He pulled the order and placed market orders instead and ate the sell book to 145k. It cause a spike in volume of around 5m in one go :eek:

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Wow, someone had 100 BTC buy order

He pulled the order and placed market orders instead and ate the sell book to 145k. It cause a spike in volume of around 5m in one go :eek:

Would it be Charlie after getting satisfactory answers..he certainly has the money

There seems to be massive volume and the U.S aint awake yet.

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

Would it be Charlie after getting satisfactory answers..he certainly has the money

There seems to be massive volume and the U.S aint awake yet.

While this is all exciting to have massive volume currently it is more exciting to think what this could become in the longer term. I am under no illusions that it is all very new with loads to prove and still a whole host of things that could go wrong but hard not to be a little giddy right now.

Brian Armstrong we see you

WhiteMemento9

https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/968931625001140224?s=20

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/968931625001140224?s=20

That's a massive endorsement in fairness

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

That's a massive endorsement in fairness

It certainly is. Look at the green candle currently going up :P

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It certain is. Look at the green candle currently going up :P

Told you that massive order the other days was Charlie

bebeman

I'm genuine delighted for NANO holders, was looking terrible for a time, but it might work out well in the end.

WhiteMemento9

bebeman wrote: »

I'm genuine delighted for NANO holders, was looking terrible for a time, but it might work out well in the end.

[11-02-2018, 11:15]

bebeman wrote: »

Double spending on Kucoin, it might be the Nano code.
Sell now or curse your heavy bags all the way down to zero.
The choice is yours.

SteelyDanJalapeno

One sec, gonna throw on the popcorn

bebeman

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

[11-02-2018, 11:15]

Your point is?
Shít looked bleak, might turn out alright for NANO holders, im delighted for them.

WhiteMemento9

Getting sold down a little currently. It is something to do with a potential fork which Garry Tan has tweeted about building on the current p2p system with m2m transactions on the network. I haven't really been following Nano news so not too sure and only looked when I seen it dropping hard. Seems to be quite a bit of discontent about it over on reddit.

Tinder Surprise

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Getting sold down a little currently. It is something to do with a potential fork which Garry Tan has tweeted about building on the current p2p system with m2m transactions on the network. I haven't really been following Nano news so not too sure and only looked when I seen it dropping hard. Seems to be quite a bit of discontent about it over on reddit.

Yea, seems Garry Tan loves the tech and wants to use it for IOTA project he must have in mind

But the confusion and FUD stems from the fact that it's not clear if he is gonna build another layer on the NANO network (seen as a positive) or fork (seen as a negative) so reddit is back and forth as to what his plans are.

Garry Tan did tweet some guy (Steven-Pu) who seems to indicate they are gonna fork.

I've no clue why one is seen as a positive and one as a negative tbh.
Can someone shed some light on it please.

WhiteMemento9

It seems at the moment people really don't know what to make of it. We need further clarification on the details.

When people started realizing that Bitcoin technology worked they looked for ways it could be improved. Bitcoin had though a huge lead in the market having been around for years with huge brand recognition, massive development team etc. Nano doesn't have those kind of advantages so if someone forks the code and implements all the features of Nano but also adds extra features then where does that leave Nano? One thing is certain that this all validates the Block lattice approach and that it really could be future moving forward.

WhiteMemento9

Few more details in the replies on Tan's twitter account

https://twitter.com/reedvoid/status/969686974855487488

https://twitter.com/reedvoid/status/969691572240445440

https://twitter.com/reedvoid/status/969691150981279744

https://twitter.com/reedvoid/status/969692266041196544

Tinder Surprise

NANO is open source so if forked there is nothing stopping anyone trying to do it better, right?

Call me cynical but all the above praise means nothing - any fork and promises would be under a gentleman's agreement with neither party binded to anything from a copyright perspective.

Is that why there is FUD about a possible fork?

WhiteMemento9

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

NANO is open source so if forked there is nothing stopping anyone trying to do it better, right?

Call me cynical but all the above praise means nothing - any fork and promises would be under a gentleman's agreement with neither party binded to anything from a copyright perspective.

Is that why there is FUD about a possible fork?

The code is opensource so no agreements need to be made with anyone to start a new project with the codebase. This is a decent explanation on options in that regard. This doesn't look like a network fork.

People use fork to mean different things.

If one fork Nano code to make his own coin, he basically is making it from scratch no one will receive anything. That's what Charlie Lee did with LTC. No LTC were distributed to BTC holders because he forked the code.

If one forks the Network, then you would receive the new coins. Forking the network that the networks share a common history until day/block X and diverge from then on. So if you have an account with balance on day X, you will have the same balance on both networks the next day. That's Bcash, bit coin gold etc etc etc. The most common forks.

You can also make a 'fake' fork, like ZCL is doing with BTC. They forked ZCL into a new coin called bit coin private and air dropped btc private to BTC holders (along the ZCL holders who were already in the network). This was called a BTC fork, although it's not forking anything related to BTC at all. It's just air dropping the new coins to them.

I can't confirm this account is legit but it was made on reddit a year ago and has the same handle as the twitter account that is replying with details on twitter so a high likelyhood it is.

reedvoid wrote:

Exactly! We (Taraxa) have zero interest in being a payment system - Nano already does this extremely well so no point in reinventing the wheel.

You can take some really big positives or some really big negatives depending on how you look at the situation but we will just have to wait and see. The devs have said in discord that they were not aware of this project before now.