31–40 of 108 posts
Bitcoin's big invention is that miners are economically incentivized to work in the best interest of the network. Nano throws that away and says people will invest to protect the network just because. Genius? Nah, it's just dumb.
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…
For future, when comparing A1 with B1, it's nicer if the order is maintained when comparing A2 with B2 (instead of stating that you're comparing B2 with A2, and that A2 is equivalent of A1)
"Comparing Nano to IOTA is like comparing a rock with an atomic bomb."
Combined with your follow up sentence, describing how Nano has one feature, while IOTA has that same one feature, as well as more features, there's no requirement to explicitly state that you view IOTA to be the bomb in this analogy.
I have no view on the substance of what you wrote, just the way it was written, and wanted to help. I hope this helps, and apologise if it doesn't.
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.
If you want to hold on to your money for whatever reason, you should be able to do that too, right? Many people in the world don't have access to banking services, let alone investment services. In many cases, people with smaller net worths don't necessarily know or understand how these assets work and are easily taken advantage of by "investment advisors".
If you're in a first world country making a good amount of income and have access to financial markets easily, you might not necessarily see the use case as clearly.
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…
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…
> Comparing IOTA to Nano is like comparing a rock with an atomic bomb (being IOTA the bomb). For future, when comparing A1 with B1, it's nicer if the order is maintained when comparing A2 with B2 (instead of stating that you're comparing B2 with A2, and that A2 is equivalent of A1) "Comparing Nano to IOTA is like comparing a rock with an atomic bomb." Combined with your follow up sentence, describing how Nano has one…
Bitcoin's big invention is that miners are economically incentivized to work in the best interest of the network. Nano throws that away and says people will invest to protect the network just because. Genius? Nah, it's just dumb.
The innovation of Bitcoin was the game theoretical incentive of mining to teach consensus on blockchain state. It would cost you more to attack the network than to cooperate.
The whole value add over traditional money is the decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies. For code platforms it is the potential of fully autonomous apps that operate as long as people are paying for their use without central control.
It is sad to centralised chains take off such as the Binance Smart Chain that runs on delegated proof-of-stake on just 21 validators picked by Binance.
You are just playing with someone else's funny money that they control.
Any bug or attack on the network may not be detectable immediately, and can't be recovered.
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.
How is that "better" than Bitcoin in general?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you want to invest your money in assets, you should be able to do that. If you want to hold on to your money for whatever reason, you should be able to do that too, right? Many people in the world don't have access to banking services, let alone investment services. In many cases, people with smaller net worths don't necessarily know or understand how these assets work and are easily taken advantage of by "investm…