Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

magnuschatt.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 108 posts

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#21

Post by sprash »

rawtxapp wrote: post #17
sprash wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a central bank that can print money out of thin air you can use that money to buy the majority of the mining capacity and make bitcoin useless with a 51% attack. People that want to destroy bitcoin have no interest in making money "with it". They invest that money to destroy it.

Except central banks don't live in a vacuum. If they print tons of money to buy it, that would push the price even higher, incentivizing even more miners. And I don't think central banks would want to destroy it. In many ways, many useful transactions in crypto occur in stablecoins pegged to the dollar. If anything, central bank might want to participate and innovate with everyone rather than try to destroy Bitcoin.

Central banks print Trillions of dollars to buy bonds right at this moment and get away with it. They live in a vacuum and can do what they want without much democratic oversight. Since all the relevant mining is happening in China nowadays the fate of bitcoin lies in the hands of the autocratic Chinese regime. If they instruct all miners to use their Chinese version of Bitcoin that e.g. dismisses all transactions and only produces empty blocks, Bitcoin is over.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#22

Post by lawn »

sprash wrote: post #7
solarman5000 wrote: post #5

Monero is what everyone thinks BTC is

Schnorr signatures make bitcoin coinjoin transactions as efficient as Monero. Monero on the other hand might have problems with scaling because off-chain infrastructure like Lightning does not exist yet.

Just no.

Monero has privacy for all transactions while hiding sender, receiver and transaction amount. Bitcoin with schnorr won't get close to that level of privacy.

And Lightning Network doesn't scale well because decentralized route finding in an adverserial environment doesn't exist. (So LN will become centralized.)

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#23

Post by enlyth »

Darmody wrote: post #19
aero- wrote: post #11

I think IOTA in this case is a better project focusing on a more important problem in the future (IOT) and machine to machine transacting.

With Nano you have fast transactions. With IOTA you have fast and fee-less transactions and a whole ecosystem to build things on top of. Franfurt Airport has been using IOTA to track COVID results[1] IoT hardware that works through the Tangle (IOTA's network)[2] And other nice things like fognet[3] [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-blockchain-used-to-track... [2] https://theindependentrepublic.com/boschs-new-io…

Doesn't IOTA use a ternary number system for some strange reason? To me it seems like it's shitcoins all the way down

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#24

Post by rebuilder »

rawtxapp wrote: post #15
sprash wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sounds as if Nano is still vulnerable to a 51% attack. Every cryptocurrency is vulnerable to a 51% attack including Bitcoin.

As much as people like to complain about Bitcoin's energy usage, it makes a 51% attack prohibitively expensive and if you were to invest all that money, you'd want to make money with it rather than cause a short term disruption to the network.

1. Get an international coalition behind a ban on PoW mining. Would make sense as part of a climate agreement.

2. Once enforcement crashes the hash rate, fire up government controlled miners to perform a 51% attack on BTC. Repeat as many times as it takes to make the point.

The question is, which states need to be convinced to join the coalition, and how hard is that? I can see pariah states like e.g. Russia seeing an opportunity in encouraging mining instead of banning it.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#26

Post by Tepix »

sprash wrote: post #14
Tepix wrote: post #4

Nano sounds interesting. Whitepaper at https://content.nano.org/whitepaper/Nano_Whitepaper_en.pdf 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?

> It sounds as if Nano is still vulnerable to a 51% attack. Every cryptocurrency is vulnerable to a 51% attack including Bitcoin.

There are different degrees of system compromise. Avalanche is resilient to a 51% attack. Check out https://tedyin.com/archive/snow-bft-demo/#/snow and the paper

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#27

Post by orange_tee »

rawtxapp wrote: post #13

The Bitcoin Genesis block references The Times article on 03/Jan/2009, "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks". 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. 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 faste…

But why are people so concerned about this whole currency depreciation thing? Only idiots keep their money under the mattress. Anyone with sense has their money invested in assets. I honestly don't get the big deal.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#28

Post by Darmody »

enlyth wrote: post #23
Darmody wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Nano you have fast transactions. With IOTA you have fast and fee-less transactions and a whole ecosystem to build things on top of. Franfurt Airport has been using IOTA to track COVID results[1] IoT hardware that works through the Tangle (IOTA's network)[2] And other nice things like fognet[3] [1] https://cointelegraph.com/news/iota-blockchain-used-to-track... [2] https://theindependentrepublic.com/boschs-new-io…

Doesn't IOTA use a ternary number system for some strange reason? To me it seems like it's shitcoins all the way down

No, they wanted to but in the end they've decided not to.

Why do you thinks it is a shitcoin?

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#29

Post by oarsinsync »

rebuilder wrote: post #24
rawtxapp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as people like to complain about Bitcoin's energy usage, it makes a 51% attack prohibitively expensive and if you were to invest all that money, you'd want to make money with it rather than cause a short term disruption to the network.

1. Get an international coalition behind a ban on PoW mining. Would make sense as part of a climate agreement. 2. Once enforcement crashes the hash rate, fire up government controlled miners to perform a 51% attack on BTC. Repeat as many times as it takes to make the point. The question is, which states need to be convinced to join the coalition, and how hard is that? I can see pariah states like e.g. Russia seeing a…

~65% of BTC mining capacity in operation today is operated within China, so there's no coalition needed. A single nation's governance needs to decide (or be persuaded) that it's in their interests to do so.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#30

Post by sprash »

lawn wrote: post #22
sprash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Schnorr signatures make bitcoin coinjoin transactions as efficient as Monero. Monero on the other hand might have problems with scaling because off-chain infrastructure like Lightning does not exist yet.

Just no. Monero has privacy for all transactions while hiding sender, receiver and transaction amount. Bitcoin with schnorr won't get close to that level of privacy. And Lightning Network doesn't scale well because decentralized route finding in an adverserial environment doesn't exist. (So LN will become centralized.)

So how does Monero solve the scaling problem?

>So LN will become centralized.

Route finding in adverserial environments lead to a more hierarchical as opposed to a mesh-like network structure, true. But it is still decentralized because if all else fails you can create your own route.

Post reply on HN