Why not Nano?
By every objective measurement, Nano is simply superior
Nano is FASTER
0.3-0.7 second FULL confirmation (not 0-conf)
Every millisecond makes a massive difference at scale
Production services can't wait an hour, a few minutes, or even a few seconds for full confirmation
Nano's the fastest I'm currently aware of
Nano is FEELESS
Not "cheaper", but ZERO fees
Again, every millionth of a cent makes a massive difference at scale, for micro- and nano-transactions, and for people whose weekly salary is measured in cents
Who are we to decide what value Ӿ0.000001 is to someone else?
Nano is more democratic
Every single Nano user contributes to the even distribution of power over consensus by delegating voting weight to representatives
In PoW systems, only those who can afford expensive mining hardware contribute to the delegation of hashrate to pools
Nano is more decentralized
Nano has a Nakamoto Coefficient of 10, meaning it would take a min of 10 entities to collude or become compromised in order to carry out a >50% attack
For comparison, BTC has a NC of 2, meaning it would take only 2 entities
Nano is *proactively* decentralized and secure
Most cryptocurrencies rely on *reactive* decentralization in response to an attack, insisting that miners/stakers will change pools if their pool becomes compromised ...
Through the complete omission of monetary rewards that benefit from economies of scale, Nano incentivizes both users and representatives to distribute power over consensus as equally as possible, providing *proactive* decentralization and security ...
Nano users are incentivized to delegate voting weight to the smallest representatives, as opposed to the largest, most profitable pools, as in mining and staking systems
Nano is more scalable
Nano has no arbitrary protocol throughput limitations due to block size, block time, etc
Nano's throughput is limited only by the hardware of nodes and the speed of information/light
Nano is harder money
Nano has a fixed supply with ZERO debasement due to supply inflation
Nano is more secure
Nano's "Open Representative Voting" consensus protocol provides instant *deterministic* finality
This means that transactions can never be reversed, no matter how much voting weight any attacker could acquire ...
By contrast, Nakamoto Consensus (PoW) systems provide *probabilistic* finality
This means that there's always a chance transactions could be reversed. This chance diminishes with time, but never ceases to exist ...
In addition, Nano uses decentralized block production
Users/clients are responsible for creating signed transaction blocks and broadcasting them to the network, rather than this being centralized to miners or validators ...
This means that even in a >50% (actually >67% for Nano) attack scenario, the attacker would only be able to modify transactions for accounts which they own the private keys to
Whereas in PoW systems, centralized block production means the attacker could modify ANY account
Nano is more equitable
Elimination of monetary rewards also inherently means elimination of rent-seeking middle-men and redistribution of wealth from users to the wealthiest miners/stakers
So... what is it?
If you've considered all the above, and still prefer to advocate for something other than Nano, I'm genuinely curious as to why.
Is it the lack of proof of work?
PoW doesn't provide any direct security benefit
It's just for leader selection and competition over the block reward to control the rate of issuance
Nano solves both problems with leaderless consensus and zero issuance
Is it that you think PoW is more resilient to >50% attacks than PoS or Nano's ORV?
Is it that you're skeptical that the network can operate without monetary rewards for node operators?
If these are your concerns, I cover them in great detail in the same article I referenced before
Is it the "lack" of smart contracts?
If a single network attempts to provide both value transfer and decentralized apps, value transfer will be significantly deprioritized over time, losing the battle for network resources (compute, memory, storage, & bandwidth) to dApps
Is it the disadvantage in network effect or adoption?
If you believe that any "better" technology can overcome BTC's lead, then there's no reason to believe that something significantly better can't ...
In the same way, if you believe that any monetary network can overcome fiat's lead, then it'll likely be the most optimal solution, not something objectively suboptimal
Is it concern over distribution or an ICO?
Nano had the fairest distribution of any crypto I've seen
It was distributed to the community for free according to time they spent solving captchas
In contrast, PoW & PoS systems distribute according to capital investment
In our quest for the ultimate monetary foundation to power a global economy, we must strive to achieve max optimization and efficiency
So far, Nano provides that better than anything else I've seen, but I'll be happy to learn about and support anything that outperforms it
Imagine the combined power of all of these communities focused on digital cash, if we all just embraced advancement and the most optimal current solution.
So far, the most optimal solution is Nano.
@kzKallisti This one.
@kzKallisti So, am I correct in concluding that your reasons for supporting BCH over Nano are that
- you feel PoW is necessary? - Nano is not yet sufficiently "time-tested"?
@kzKallisti Point still stands. There's no potential reversal of blocks in Nano's ORV.
@kzKallisti How can you argue against free distribution according to personal time spent solving captchas?
And how can you argue against the incentives with the existence of tens of thousands of non-mining nodes?
@kzKallisti With Nano, issuance was initially restricted via "proof of human work", and is no longer possible at all.
This is what makes Nano the hardest known commodity in existence.This post is based on this twitter thread.