Twitter | Search | |
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹°
Systems Engineer. Cryptocurrency fan. Snowboarder. Sharing news about the most important movement of our generation.
11,443
Tweets
4,418
Following
4,019
Followers
Tweets
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 2h
Replying to @mikerelentless
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
if (Bitcoin==SoV) {Titanic='Store Of Passengers'}; Jan 26
On the left, the incumbent champion, , and on the right, the plucky little contender, . Seconds out! (see what I did there?)
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
if (Bitcoin==SoV) {Titanic='Store Of Passengers'}; Feb 22
We've already seen a comparison of Nano versus Bitcoin:
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
Binance 14h
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
rugruss 10h
Normalising for supply, getting NANO under $1 is like getting bitcoin when it was under $6. Given how awesome NANO is, the risk:reward is pretty attractive atm.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
if (Bitcoin==SoV) {Titanic='Store Of Passengers'}; 10h
Nano needs more of you lazy holders on to do the same thing - and withdraw your funds to a wallet with a securely backed-up Seed. THE INCREASED DECENTRALISATION INCREASES THE VALUE OF ALL INCLUDING YOURS! GET 'EM OFF, YOU LAZY GITS!!!
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
Nano Seagull β‹°Β·β‹° 5h
I like this neat little simulation to show transaction speed vs. transaction speed. The calculated fees within the tool are not accurate but it gives a good visual representation of the speed difference πŸ”₯ Simulation can be found here -
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 14h
Thanks. It really sucked to pay high fees and wait ridiculous amounts of time for those confirmations to go through. Now I have a that actually works in the real world! is fully confirmed and immutable in under a second with 0 fees! What a difference!
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 18h
Replying to @schenkty @teslacaching
Go West, young man!
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 18h
That's not completely necessary afaik. You could prune every block up to the last cemented block since they're all confirmed and immutable. This would keep super lightweight and efficient. Keeping any more history would only be by personal preference since it's immutable.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 19h
As I've already mentioned, ledger pruning is on the roadmap.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° retweeted
NanoGames.io Feb 22
Happy weekend NanoGamers! For this weekend's giveaway we are giving away $300 in and on the Live Game Chat- Like+Follow+Retweet with your wallet address for a chance at winning one of three $15 prizes! Event ends 2/23 9pm EST.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 21h
As requested because there was no spam protection in place at the time. Now you can spam the chain all you want and the only person you inconvenience is the spammer. In fact the latest beta-net tests have reached close to 700cps before dynamic PoW needs to kick in.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 21h
Well I'll stand by that because I can prove it. I can use and side by side and Nano will work multiple times over, fully block cemented and confirmed onchain for 0 fees before DGB confirms onchain w/fees As far as security goes, they're secure - speculate all you want
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 21h
It's a work in progress. There was a lot that hadn't been implemented yet from the roadmap - dynamic PoW for example. It's not ridiculous... it's only ridiculous if there's no fix. The first layer needs to be as efficient as possible for real world adoption.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 22h
So you were criticizing Red4Sec's report of as "fishy", but the fact that has no public security audit is not "fishy" to you? Let's not be hypocritical.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 22h
3. The third picture is speculating on 51% attacks. They do mention the attack vectors of both PoS and PoW. Nano is now dPoW. As for a 51% attack on Nano, it's never happened, and it would be much more difficult to accomplish than other small projects utilizing either PoS or PoW.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 22h
1. The first picture is a no-brainer - of course Nano wouldn't want the live network to be disrupted. There was a lot on their roadmap that had not been implemented yet. 2. The second picture talking about forking the network - that's very difficult to do with Nano - pro & con.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 22h
While I'm waiting for you to point me to what you're talking about, why don't you give me the link to the security audit report so I can read through it.
Reply Retweet Like
π™‚π™Šπ™…π™„π™π˜Ό β‹°Β·β‹° 22h
I read every word of the entire report when it was released over a year ago. A lot of it doesn't even apply any more but I have the entire 42 page report open right now and I can't find what you're talking about.
Reply Retweet Like