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

71–80 of 108 posts

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#71

Post by aww_dang »

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.

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.

Nano works for me as a permissionless, feeless medium of exchange.

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.

For a site that puts on airs about "intellectual curiosity" and tech literacy this is a bit disappointing.

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.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#74

Post by Xopte »

moralsupply wrote: post #38

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 doesn't maintain transaction history. It only stores the current state of the ledger.

False

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#75

Post by mandmandam »

frankbreetz wrote: post #10
mandmandam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you guys think cutting pizza into more slices feeds more people too? For the record, Nano is the most useful and currency-like of the many crypto coins that I have seen.

If one person has all the pizza and you cut it into more pieces and give it to other people wouldn't it feed more people?

Nano had one of the fairest and most well thought-through early distribution systems of any coin.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#76

Post by mandmandam »

tom_mellior wrote: post #18
mandmandam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you guys think cutting pizza into more slices feeds more people too? For the record, Nano is the most useful and currency-like of the many crypto coins that I have seen.

What feeds people is fair access to food. If all Nano supply is controlled by people who happened to chance on the right corners of the internet in 2017, then this is not about feeding people but about rent seeking.

Try looking up how Nano was distributed in it's early days. It's a very different story - miles more egalitarian - than BTC or ETH, or the vast, vast majority of other assets.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#77

Post by mandmandam »

aww_dang wrote: post #71

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. 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. Nano wo…

Strongly agreed on every point.

* Nano does what it says. Explanations of the technical aspects are easy to find.

* The fact that this comment is right near the bottom while obviously clueless comments are full of discussion at the top is wild.

* The early distribution was far more fair than the vast majority of other coins.

* On a meta level the conversation around this topic - especially here - really ought to be better by now.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#78

Post by harwoodleon »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #37
lawn wrote: post #20

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 see a lot of centralised digital currency projects gaining traction in the current bull market. 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 autonom…

Bitcoin is not money. It’s a system of value transfer.

Nano is money, as you and I know it.

Nakomoto Coefficient of nano is on a par or higher than bitcoin without the centralising forces behind mining and the insane fees.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#79

Post by harwoodleon »

tomtomtom777 wrote: post #46
lawn wrote: post #20

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.

> 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 "…

Exactly, to think that Bitcoin is the final crypto invention is like thinking MySpace was the final social network.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#80

Post by harwoodleon »

gillesjacobs wrote: post #68
donutloop wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nano has a unique consensus mechanism called Open Representative Voting (ORV). Every account can freely choose a Representative at any time to vote on their behalf, even when the delegating account itself is offline. These Representative accounts are configured on nodes that remain online and vote on the validity of transactions they see on the network. Their voting weight is the sum of balances for accounts delegat…

Open Representative Voting is just a proprietary term for Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) consensus [1]. Basically transaction validator nodes are elected by votes weighted by the sum of the amount of tokens in the voters' wallet. Apparently Nano wanted to highlight the fact that anyone can become a validator instead of a preselected list by coining a new term. While better than most DPoS chains there is still a high…

PoS doesn’t work for money. It works as system of value transfer for the wealthy at best. Ask the millions of stranded wallets that can’t move funds because of fees. The other arguments around centralisation are moot then, if you can’t actually use the system.
Post reply on HN