At the end of the day NANO is useful for me. The node's API is sane. There are no big promises, hype, gotchas or surprises. It just does what it claims to do and nothing more. If that's not what you're looking for, that's fine. I'm not selling anything.<p>Price is not equal to value or utility. I won't argue with speculators or those who ascribe to SoV rationales. We have different expectations and that's fine.<p>Nano works for me as a permissionless, feeless medium of exchange.<p>I'm disappointed by the quality of this discussion. Most of the false assumptions could have been resolved with cursory research. Perhaps if some of these ideas were presented in the form of a question instead of an accusation, a better discussion would have ensued.<p>For a site that puts on airs about "intellectual curiosity" and tech literacy this is a bit disappointing.<p>When you get into the weeds and actually write software against cryptocurrency node APIs and look at what is actually possible, many of these comments will read as flippant dismissals at best.
Bitcoin's big invention is that miners are economically incentivized to work in the best interest of the network.<p>Nano throws that away and says people will invest to protect the network just because.<p>Genius? Nah, it's just dumb.
But Nano has a fixed supply, which given what we now know of Bitcoin acts as a serious disincentive for actual use. Nobody's going to spend a currency if its value fluctuates wildly based on speculative investment booms and busts, and Nano has gone up 700% since the beginning of January:<p><a href="https://www.coindesk.com/price/nano" rel="nofollow">https://www.coindesk.com/price/nano</a>
Nano sounds interesting. Whitepaper at <a href="https://content.nano.org/whitepaper/Nano_Whitepaper_en.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://content.nano.org/whitepaper/Nano_Whitepaper_en.pdf</a><p>Has there been peer review?
Does it support smart contracts?
How does its consensus algorithm (and the other parts) compare to Avalanche? It sounds as if Nano is still vulnerable to a 51% attack. Does it lead to a catastrophic compromise?
The Bitcoin Genesis block references The Times article on 03/Jan/2009, "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks".<p>It's p2p digital cash, but at the same time, you can't ignore the reason why it's created. It's meant to be a decentralized, uncontrollable currency.<p>When it comes to currency/store of value, you could argue that security and trustworthiness is more important than speed and fees. If you want faster and cheaper transactions, use lightning network, it's functional and growing in adoption.<p>If you want to use a crypto that's not volatile, you can always use stablecoins. There are both centralized and decentralized stablecoins pegged to the dollar.
I was a nano(I preferer the raiblocks name) I realised that:<p>-speed of transacion and low fee are really far behind in the priorities list of a store of value item.
(most important are security, adaptability for example, that why I think decred will be world changing)<p>-it is really hard for me to approve the original distribution of coins, pos problem, for me the best would be pow really hard to mine, so futures generations are not that much handicap.
> <i>Nano only uses PoW as a means to discourage spammers similar to how it's used in emails.</i><p>Email does not use any such scheme. Although people have invented a couple of things along these lines (most notably, Hashcash was an email thing a decade before it was used in Bitcoin), none is widely deployed or likely to be any time soon. Yes, there is some cryptography preventing counterfeiting emails (DKIM, ARC), but that’s just signing, not deliberately-expensive-to-compute proof of work hashing.
I might be interested in Nano if it wasn't shilled so openly all over the internet. We're at a point where if you have even a passing interest in cryptocurrency, you'll get constantly bombarded by obvious bots spewing pre-written screeds on Nano. It really soured me on the currency as a whole.
I lost $1500 when their main partner exchange executed their scam exit. The coin was still called XRB / RaiBlocks.<p>The timing of the whole pump and the exchange freezing transactions was very suspicious. Not touching this again with a 50m pole.
Unfortunately Nano's fee-less is a "lie".<p>Long before Nano was created the XRPL team created the first blockchain (DLT) without PoW or PoS and without incentives (fees) for node operators. This lead to a new problem, spam transactions. If transactions are free nothing stops people from sending coins in circles which puts load on the network and thus costs other people real money. The 2 obvious ways to mitigate this is to either add a fee or make the sender solve a little time-consuming math problem (PoW). the XRPL devs wanted to avoid PoW for all the obvious reasons, but fees have also their downside. mainly it creates an incentive and it suddenly makes every transaction that does not include at lest X amount of fee (more than the processing cost) a "negative" Tx i.e. one that all node operators have a reasonable reason to exclude.<p>This kind of potentially exclude valid Tx, even if there is plenty of capacity, is bad for the network. Users loose the confidence of knowing that a valid Tx will always be included. They would need to intentionally overpay in fees. The XRPL devs decided to mitigate this by adding a fee but its burnt instead of paid to someone. By burning "money" you proof that your Tx is actually worth something to you. How much you burn is basically irrelevant. The network decided whats the minimum and as long as the network inst at full capacity the minimum guarantees that the Tx will be included by all nodes.
Only if the network reaches max throughput it would priories the Tx that burn more. This way an spammer would need to send thousands of Tx every second AND each one of them must burn more than every other legit Tx is willing to burn, to stop everyone from makings Tx go trough.<p>Now to Nano. They had basically the same problem but choose PoW instead so they can claim its "fee-less" while in reality you pay the "fee" as PoW (energy+hardware+time). Its so minuscule that most user dont even notice that there is a PoW needed. But its there anyway and it comes with the flaws PoW has. Mainly its wasting resources and it does a objectively worse job at preventing spam.<p>Remember above I explained that a spammer on the XRPL would need to send thousands of Tx and burn (pay) more than every other valid Tx to block them. So the attacker has to be willing to pay more than all user combined. Nano's PoW means an attacker has to do more PoW than all legit user combined but that does NOT mean he has to pay more. PoW, unlike burning, can be optimized. Special hardware, location (cheap energy) and in general doing PoW at large scale, allays will be way way more efficient than what each legit user does.<p>If thousand user do a total of 1000 Tx and it costs them 0.1 cent (PoW) combined then a single user doing PoW for 1000Tx can certainly do it for way way less then 0.1 cent.<p>However if 1000 user do a total of 1000 Tx each burns 0.0001 cent (total 0.1 cent) there is no shortcut. A single user would have to burn exactly the same 0.1 cent no way to optimize.<p>Another negative effect of PoW is that it is not future proof for low-power device.
Imagine some kind of smart sensor or other IoT device that does Tx. It has some tiny tiny "CPU" that may be able to do the PoW for a Tx in a reasonable time. But what about in 10 years? The PoW per Tx inevitably has to rise over time.
Compare that to burning X times more in fees per Tx 10 years from now - doesn't matter the tiny "CPU" will work exactly the same.
(yes, I know you could offload the PoW to another device yada yada yada but K.I.S.S.)<p>tl;dr:
Nano made a bad decision to make transaction "fees" be paid in PoW for the "benefit" of calling it fee-less.
Nano doesn't maintain transaction history. It only stores the current state of the ledger.<p>Any bug or attack on the network may not be detectable immediately, and can't be recovered.<p>Meaning: it may already be compromised, have inflation or double-spend bugs, etc. and we simply don't know it yet, but once we do, the value of the ledger immediately reaches zero.<p>How is that "better" than Bitcoin in general?