Is Ethereum Name Services and NEO Name Services will be support by Nash Exchange?

It’s one of the safest way to provide wallet address and avoid any mistake or copy/paste hack.
With ENS (for exemple) you just have to provide a human-readable name and forget the long public wallet address like “Ox891ybGis8g98a…”

And, ENS was made on Ethereum but can work off the blockchain so it work with BTC, LTC and more asset right now.

More that that, with a ENS you can:

-Name a wallet instantly
-Register a .eth domain
-Text record and add various kinds of personal information to your domain records.
-Add a Tor .onion address to your domain name records.
-Subdomain name or link a website

More feature upcoming !

It will be nice to see Nash support that kind of feature to make users life more easier.

How about that @canesin @ethan ?

Thank for your time

I don’t know why you reverted @CryptoMange, it was a interesting post.

@Nash_Investor is not priority right now, but we can look into supporting it in the future.

1 Like

These ideas are native to BSV, since you’re not working on listing for “low concentrated mining” despite BCH getting a free-pass, thought it wasn’t so fitting here.

And also vitriolic comments you get for mentioning anything to do with BSV, cba.

We are really neutral @CryptoMange. BCH doesn’t have a free-pass. It might not be listed if hashing rate continues to decrease in relation to BTC.

Most BTC forks using the same hashing algorithm are vulnerable right now and that is major concern for an exchange. Specially a non-custodial one where trades can’t be “rolled back” like FTX did a few days ago.

Current hashing rates are:
BTC: 86.378 Ehash/s (100%)
BCH: 2.65 Ehash/s (3.1%)
BSV: 1.40 Ehash/s (1.6%)

There is nothing more to it, if hashing algo changes, consensus changes or increased mining make it secure we will consider for listing.


1% makes all the difference apparently lol.

If BTC miners colluded they could attack any of the two easily, thing is there’s incentives for miners not to do that because it would invalidate people’s perception on security of mining, guess what would happen to BTC’s price then? Not to mention all the legal issues.

You can beat around the bush all you want, I think the motive is clear. Tribalism is the cancer of this industry.

1% it is not. its 1.5% and 0.5% wouldnt matter except its more than 30% of the total.
if you look at it, it takes almost 2x to gain a 51% attack.
What is tribalism is you saying it is tribalism. The team stated BCH would also be excluded if the continue to dorp. sorry to say buy BSV people are fans of playing victim.

Still 3% in the grand scheme of things, difference is negligible so don’t pretend like it’s a reasonable excuse.

At the end of the day, Nash team can do whatever they want, I’ve tried to help, this will be my last input.