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

91–100 of 108 posts

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#91

Post by jopsen »

rawtxapp wrote: post #59
jopsen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to hold on to your money for whatever reason, you should be able to do that too, right? Why? And what does it even mean to hold value? Money only has value because of the constant cash flowing in the economy. So you can buy stuff for money. If people all their money in bitcoin there would be no economy and nothing of value you can buy, do bitcoin then still hold it's value? ----- In general, gold might…

There would be an economy where only investments that return better than Bitcoin would make sense, for example: you wouldn't have the Vancouver vacant property problem, that money would go to Bitcoin instead and leave the home for someone who has an actual use for it. People also wouldn't be hoarding gold, it's value would go down and you can use it more easily in electronics. Gold is physical, has no place as a stor…

> Gold is physical, has no place as a store of value in a digital world in my opinion.

If you want to guard against inflation gold certainly seems better than BTC.

If you want to transact online with ease an account with fiat currency and a VISA credit card is usually the best.

Just pick the right tool for the job.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#92

Post by gnrlst »

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…

I have no vested interested in any cryptocurrency, but I have been researching them in the last few months due to the bull run. The polarized views on Nano are actually what drew me to research it more in depth compared to other alt coins. My findings are quite positive.

- Over the last 3-4 years the community (both of users and developers) has been chugging away consistently, regardless of bull/bear markets (something that can't be said of 90% of other altcoins).

- It had more of a grassroots start, and the community is creating some pretty cool projects (e.g. WeNano app) which are directly geared towards use, not promises/announcements.

- It's certainly a lot greener than others (not sure how other BTC contenders measure on the energy spectrum, so won't comment further)

- It's fee-less, which if you ask me is a critical aspect of a P2P, decentralized currency. I understand the game theory behind BTC's proof of work is great, but haven't the last bull runs shown what the effect is? the mining power becomes centralized and the fees become astronomical.

My only gripe with Nano is with the incentives (the fee-less nature)..i.e. why should I run a node? Having said that the internet is thriving on free-based services through advertising, so maybe that's one potential avenue for running a node? Curious to hear someone experienced with Nano answer this for me.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#93

Post by gnrlst »

aww_dang wrote: post #43
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.

>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.

>Transaction fee savings for businesses and organizations accepting Nano as payment

Can someone sense check me? So following that argument, a payment processor (e.g. Amazon, Stripe, all the way down to the mom and pop stores) would be incentivized to run a node in order to accept Nano and be part of the Network. Correct? But hypothetically...if Stripe knows that Amazon is running a node, why would Stripe run its own node? And if Stripe isn't running a node, why would a smaller player want to participate? I'd love to understand this as it's my only missing gripe with Nano.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#94

Post by donutloop »

harwoodleon wrote: post #78
gillesjacobs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It’s a system of value transfer.

That wasn't always like this. Original idea was to replace money

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

harwoodleon wrote: post #78
gillesjacobs wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Without agreeing or disagreeing with either statement here, I'll point out that money is centrally a system of value transfer.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#96

Post by danecek099 »

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…

>I'm disappointed by the quality of this discussion.

This whole thread feels like reading r/cryptocurrency

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#97

Post by jiofih »

I lost $1500 when their main partner exchange executed their scam exit. The coin was still called XRB / RaiBlocks.

The timing of the whole pump and the exchange freezing transactions was very suspicious. Not touching this again with a 50m pole.

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#98

Post by hggh »

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…

> If you want faster and cheaper transactions, use lightning network, it's functional and growing in adoption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYHFrf5ci_g

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#99

Post by zepolen »

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…

Both those articles on DPoS are referring to master node type coins. Nano's model is different in a couple fundamental ways:

> Block producers are those responsible for creating and signing new blocks. They are limited in number, and are elected by the voters.

Nano uses block lattice so there aren't a limited amount of block producers, every account produces its own blocks on it's own blockchain.

> Because the delegate rewards in EOS are now so high (5% annual inflation, about $400m per year),

Nano has zero rewards to run representative nodes, this is important to avoid emergent centralization https://medium.com/@clemahieu/emergent-centralization-due-to...

But theory is one thing, in practice:

- Bitcoin/Ethereum is centralizing over time due to mining pools: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10699.pdf

- Nano is decentralizing over time: https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution

Re: Nano is what Bitcoin hoped to be

#100

Post by [deleted] »

harwoodleon wrote: post #80
gillesjacobs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN