Nano is the currency of the people. Not the institutions.
Bitcoin fees often exceed $10 per transaction. Nano has no fees, and never will.<p>* Bitcoin transactions take an average of 10-60 minutes. Nano transactions take 0.2 seconds.<p>* Bitcoin transactions use ~741 kWh of electricity each. Nano transactions use 0.000112 kWh.<p>* Bitcoin can't scale past 7 tps. Nano's tps is uncapped and limited only by hardware.<p>* Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140. Nano is fully distributed.<p>Bitcoin is not the inevitable long-term "winner" of cryptocurrencies. Its technological limitations and disastrous environmental impact would create an incredibly bleak future for the everyday person. There is a clear alternative to Bitcoin, and they don't know it exists: Nano.<p>The rumor that Nano is being suppressed by crypto miners and Bitcoin maximalists has been around for a very long time, and it makes sense. Nano works ridiculously well, and is there to eat the cake of all the miners who are raking in millions a day. BTC maxis and miners hate the word Nano, and have a strong incentive to literally pay to have it disappear from the face of the earth. Bitcoin influences on Twitter have muted the word Nano because they know their thesis is fucked when it gets mentioned.<p>Github ref: https://github.com/nanocurrency
Website ref: https://nano.org/
linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/nano-foundation/
Have you considered the reason that it's not popular is not some elaborate conspiracy theory, but rather that it is yet another cookie cutter product entering the already extremely saturated alt coin market? Especially as your listed features are also listed on half a dozen other coins/chains as well.
> <i>Bitcoin can't scale past 7 tps. Nano's tps is uncapped and limited only by hardware.</i><p>It's very easy to fix. Just increase the maximum block size. There is a fork that does that and a fork that use smaller transactions in a secondary chain.<p>> <i>Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140.</i><p>The Nano foundation got 7M/133M = 5% of the initial coins for a "developer found". Did they spend/distribute all of it or it is still saved?<p>Miners will get 2.4M/21.0M, that is a 11% inflation. And they have to spend most of it in the mining. Just call this 11% a developer found, and the difference is not so much.<p>> <i>Nano is fully distributed.</i><p>I still don't understand how is Nano protected of double spending without PoW or PoS or centralization.
Nano may be a great alt and worth considering.<p>But this rant, with all the trappings of a fanboy conspiracy theory has the exact opposite effect to what you are trying to achieve: just reading it made me want to close the tab and never look at nano again.<p>It took quite an effort to keep on reading.<p>Now, please present us with a concise and solid <i>technical</i> argument as to why nano's consensus methodology is better than bitcoin's.<p>And I don't want to hear about "features" (it does this, it does that), but arguments proving the methodology is as least as secure as Bitcoin's.
Problem is how it was distributed, yes fosset etc but still early adopters are like 0.0001% of world people,
Also there is 0 adaptability,
For me the perfect one would be decred, solid based, ready to evolve,
But with slower block reward, let future generations wins too.
"Why do pople buy bitcoin?" Its propboly some of the same answers for "Why do people buy gold?"<p>Its bad for the evironment. It expensive to dig. Its expensive to store and its a hassle to things with.
Does it solve the issue bitcoin had, of increasing energy requirements, or will it be in the same place as bitcoin in a few years if it's successful?