Nano doesn't maintain transaction history. It only stores the current state of the ledger. 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?
Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
41–50 of 108 posts
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#42I 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.
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#43Bitcoin'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.
>Nano throws that away and says people will invest to protect the network just because.
Can you provide sources for this claim?
https://docs.nano.org/running-a-node/overview/
>Transaction fee savings for businesses and organizations accepting Nano as payment
Which is why I run a node, so I can have access to the network.
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they wanted to but in the end they've decided not to. Why do you thinks it is a shitcoin?
IOTA is centralised
It is not production ready so yes, there is still a part that is centralized and it is being worked on. It is not a secret, they are very transparent about it.
You can read the white paper. https://files.iota.org/papers/20200120_Coordicide_WP.pdf
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#45Nano doesn't maintain transaction history. It only stores the current state of the ledger. 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?
Before you spread any kind of information's. Please provide some proven facts about all your assumptions otherwise it just malicious gossip and no one will trust in your advises.
Ref: https://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2009/04/when-does-gossip-c...
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#46Bitcoin'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.
> Bitcoin's big invention is that miners are economically incentivized to work in the best interest of the network.
That sure is a powerful invention, but this does not mean decentralized networks cannot exist without it. Most are running fine without any financial incentive.
There are always incentives to aid the network simply by being a user.
If Nano can provide security with a different model, why would that be "dumb"?
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#47Nano 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?
The questions you posed are all answered in the whitepaper you linked.
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#48Nano 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.
For some cryptocurrencies, a 51% attack would only be able to halt the network (prevent new transactions) but wouldn't be able to cause a double spend or other safety failures.
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#49Earlier 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…
You're the one who needs some writing advice.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33514.The_Elements_of_St...
Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be
#50I 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.
> bots spewing pre-written screeds on Nano
Please provide some cases of such attacks