Just, why?

For transactions? Bullshit. They are going to offer Nano for their customers to buy.

I have proof that Nano is entering into a partnership with Bofa

share it then

Its ALL over the Nano community. EVERYBODY knows it. It has been like inside information from proven people in the know. I learned it the same way when it was at 23 dollars, learned about Nano with 7000 tps to unlimited compared to 12 tps for BTC, mooned like crazy, but I am in it for the tech, so I didn't sell, went down with the market. Now I am ready to GO ALL IN and GET SOME FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS!! This will GO TO 10 000 USD PER NANO!! GO IN NOW OR YOU WILL LOSE OUT!! SELL ALL YOU HAVE!!

Attached: Want-To-Achieve-Financial-Success.jpg (500x333, 261K)

Bofa D. Snutz

It's right there in the OP! The two logos are so close next to each other, they are virtually touching!

You are spreading FUD! Where did you think the 4x came from? Are you even IN the Nano community??

For those who are not aware, there has been, and is currently a smear campaign going on against NANO. The individual or group is spending a bit of time on this as evidenced by some of the posts over the past week, the copypasta especially. I will give this person or group some credit, as this is some advanced FUD right here, but no one in the nano trade groups or anywhere else I have seen has mentioned this outside of it being mentioned here.

Conclusion: This post, and similar ones, are made to try to make Nano uncredible, by associating it with rumors that have no basis in reality. There is no bofa partnership in the works. Nano can stand on its own feet, and has a much higher chance at being adopted as a micropayment or p2p payment system. Essentially a crypto version of Venmo, that does not require any permissions to use. That alone makes it valuable, for the same reason BTC is. The question, is whether or not Nano, with its superior technology, will reach adoption levels like BTC has. Nano was once a top 15+ coin. It could very well be again.

Disclaimer, I own close to 20k nanners.

Attached: NanovsBTC.jpg (1405x574, 66K)

That TOO! But they will be using Nano for their inter-banking transactions. That's why Nano will be INSTANT multiple 1000s Dollars, JUST LIKE THAT! Go in now before it is TOO LATE!!

Attached: a17574e6-6829-47d1-a526-612c0ed349b4.jpg (840x559, 45K)

Yeah, spread some more FUD against Nano, you fucking moron. Just coincidence that after we got the inside information, Nano 4xed? You believe it came out off thin air for NOTHING right? What the hell do YOU know about the Nano community? Nobody cares about your copypasta. I never read the FUD as I have heard it ALL so many times before. I don't believe you have 20k Nano. Why are you spreading FUD you moron?

Attached: Understand-the-Meaning-of-Money-and-Wealth.jpg (724x483, 73K)

so close, only LINK gets 7's

Daniel Brain is in the process of incorporating brainblocks and hiring developers. The dude is a high level programmer at PayPal.
He has stated multiple times in the past that brainblocks is not associated with PayPal , but those claims have gone silent since the incorporation announcement .
PayPal is in bed with Bank of America , it would make sense that someone at this level interacts with b of a's biz Dev people and engineers on a daily basis.

So the question you have to ask is why would an engineer incorporate a hobby software project like this all while keeping his position at PayPal?

Attached: images-10.jpg (423x348, 13K)

source on the pic OP?

Attached: 1482373360536.jpg (309x300, 10K)

>i can be ur angle

Nano will be having problems. People need to look into the issues highlighted in this thread
No one has been able to counter them. Will go down further. Sell while you can.

Alright, I will take my time to explain where this rumour came from.
First, there's what said, and in case you don't know, Brainblocks is the main payment tool used to accept and process Nano payments currently, and only takes 1 minute to set up. They also recently acquired NanoWallet (Nano's main web wallet).

Then, there have been a small hint that they have something coming for instant Nano to fiat conversion, which would actually be quite a big deal. Pic related is a screenshot of the hint that it may come soon, source for it is here:
reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/98phbz/brainblocks_news_new_logo_corporation_formed/

Keep in mind that was posted AFTER Nano was already pumping from absolutely nowhere. Because of this, some anons here may have speculated that it was due to insider's knowledge on something big coming. If you connect that with the Brainblocks thing, it actually isn't a totally baseless speculation, but also nothing too concrete.

Finally, some user (probably larping) posted this
and Additionally, other likely larpers also posted and The latter was the first time I saw anyone say anything specifically about Bank of America. But there is absolutely nothing to back those statements up. Some anons read that and decided to run with it in other threads.

But there is absolutely no actual "rumour" relating to BofA in the Nano community, neither here nor on plebbit besides the few mentions of it here without proof by some anons in the last 24 hours.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 13.09.12.png (1740x498, 135K)

ops, I meant to quote instead of

Ah, I also forgot. The Bank of America speculation may also have beel fueled by these news from 6 days ago:
ethereumworldnews.com/bank-of-america-cryptocurrency/

>Predicated on the patent’s design is the idea that cryptocurrency could become a ubiquitous form of payment, reaching market saturation levels necessary for consumers to adopt en masse. Similar to the current model of storing fiat in banks, the BoA patent is building upon the idea that consumers will want a place to safeguard their crypto outside of the use of private keys–which have been pegged as a bit too complex for the average user in terms of growing mainstream adoption.

>BoA also has patents pertaining to cold-storage, and payment methods for crypto that exchange in real-time.

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-08-30 at 13.27.24.png (1502x360, 72K)

that was quite the research you did there. have you ever considered going all in LINK?

Thanks user. I was actually confused about this shit

kek, anyone who believes this shit is more delusional than stinky linkies
can’t wait to see nanofags dying of hunger on the streets

Wait what? Where is the source for this? since the price isn’t skyrockint right now, i assume it’s bullshit

Attached: nano the more you know.png (602x400, 353K)

when moon?

I’m acutally a bit convinced it may happen now. I’m brainlet so I know I’m wrong, but will hold a few just in case. It seems to have bottomed out a bit anyway

It is BS

Do you really think BOA would go for nano and unknown Crypto. They would rather go for BTC or someone else

when is the next stress test for nano supposed to be?

this

watch it be Stellar kek

wrong

reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/982bq9/stress_test_beta_network_v15_results_in_here/

>10 sec average 14:35:36-14:35:46 5730.3 TPS
>further improvements incoming

you low IQ dildo that shitcoin falls under 77TPS if you run network for an hour

1 hour average 14.00-15.00 GMT: 77 TPS

1 min average 14.35-14.36 GMT: 988.78 TPS

10 sec average 14:35:36-14:35:46 5730.3 TPS

fucking idiot,the stress test its not about the transactions it had within one hour, its how many it can achieve at peaks
i guess it hurts your pathetic ass that you missed out a 4x the last week lol

>if you not an idiot like me why don't you explain 77 average TPS in an hour ? also you not an idiot to know it's ctps that matters not tps right user ?
anyway I'm balls deep in IOTA and unlike this shitcoin that can't carry data in it's transactions we have functional tangle

It was also high above 7000 TPS before they changed to make it more secure. These FUDers never learn. Guess they are fucking butthurt for missing the moon. Can you please explain this comment. Is this FUD, and why so many different numbers. For me it is fucking obvious that if you have a peak of close to 6000 TPS this is the correct number, but it is so much FUD everywhere. Here is the link: reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/98alqy/why_isnt_stress_test_result_published_as_5700_tps/

Is there a Nano side where I can get all the best Nano argument compressed, so I can post them here?

Has to be a joke right ? Fucking “Nano”

77 tps for one hour because there were not more transactions that were sent during the stress test. the network could handle much more. guess there need to be more participants for the next stress test. with nano there is no difference between ctps and tps because every transaction gets confirmed instantly unlike with iota. i'm also invested in iota btw

Only restriction for Nano tps is hardware and bandwith, so Nano is theoretically unlimited in TPS. Meaning millions of TPS.

FALSE INFORMATION
PROOF DOES NOT EXIST ON INTERNET

For me it makes no sense when Nano says oficially 756 tps, when their own test showed close to 6000 tps. Why would they FUD their own project?

im a nanofag and i dont see any indicator bank of america is using nano.

lots of updates coming out in the next few weeks, seems like a flurry of work before something is implemented. the timing of all this info is interesting, nonetheless. standing by for confirmation

why would this be announced on the weekend? that's the only part of this equation that doesn't make sense to me. unless the announcement come from brainblocks and not BofA.

For the record, i never claimed that the source of my information was outside of my head. I simply thought that Nano was a very good coin based on what i heard around here, and the fact that its an american coin, and bank of america has the word america in the name. Good american coin plus good american bank it makes sense right? And september 1 would be a good time to announce such a partnership because it's the start of school for many people and surely they would talk about such a partnership. But anyways i sold my nano because i realized i was making quite a leap with my reasoning here.

Attached: 20180830_121536.jpg (1080x1294, 405K)