81–90 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.
Yup, how do you obtain trust in a trustless society. Bitcoin nailed it. It's just unfortunate that sending one bitcoin at the moment uses as much power as charging a 100kwh tesla few times.
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.
>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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But the people shouting about the FED debasing their currency are not poor unbanked people in 3rd world countries so I don't see how your comment is relevant.
I was a nano(I preferer the raiblocks name) I realised that: -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) -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 gene…
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.
Well, all current data-centric global consensus cryptocurrencies are vulnerable. In the Holochain model ( https://holo.host/ ) of distributed agent-centric consensus, a single non-fraudulent DHT node can detect any fraudulent transaction, and all other non-fraudulent nodes are informed of the self-incriminated fraudulent agent and transaction, confirm the fraud, and no longer respond to the fraudulent node. So, only…
And Holochain is not a cryptocurrency as far as I understand: while they say something about mutual-credit cryptos they definitely not the main scope of the project.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
how dare you judge people like that. not everyone has time.or whatever to.study investing in assets. not everyone has the mindset to actually do it.
you should seriously evaluate your view of the world bubble boy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They probably took most of it themselves and nobody will ever know.
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.
Ironically, nanos approach is itself an improvement on bitcoin's approach to consensus. Bitcoins nakamoto coefficient has been bending toward centralization whereas Nano's is bending toward decentralization. Nano's level of decentralization depends on the weighted opinion of its holders.