Yes, Nano really is naturally more decentralized and secure than Bitcoin, BitcoinCash, or anything else, and is generally the most optimal solution for digital money we've created yet.
Let's discuss why point-by-point in this 🧵
BTC mining pools are comparable in role to Nano representatives (reps), both validating transactions and controlling consensus.
BTC miners are comparable in role to Nano users, both delegating power over consensus.
Yes, every single Nano user is contributing.
BTC mining pool operation is exorbitantly expensive and excludes all but the wealthiest industrial players.
Nano reps are relatively cheap (comparable to a full BTC node) and have negligible operational costs.
BTC mining hardware is prohibitively expensive to the majority of the population, and miners are incentivized to delegate to the biggest most profitable pools
Every single Nano user delegates voting weight to reps, and is incentivized to distribute as evenly as possible
BTC incentivizes pools to grow due to economies of scale, and miners to delegate to the biggest most profitable pools, causing natural centralization.
Nano incentivizes reps and users to delegate voting weight as equally as possible, causing natural decentralization.
BTC redistributes wealth from the users to the miners via fees and inflation (block rewards), the rich get richer.
Nano has zero fees and zero inflation (fixed/deflationary supply), true equity among all reps and users.
BTC has probabilistic (reversible) settlement which takes 40-120 minutes to fully confirm.
Nano has deterministic (irreversible) finality that is fully confirmed nearly instantly (~0.4 seconds).
BTC nodes could rewrite history or create transactions with a 51% hashrate attack.
Nano reps can only vote to approve or reject transactions, and can't modify blockchains for accounts without the associated private key, regardless of their delegated voting weight.
BTC's blockchain is a synchronous global linked list, and all transactions must wait for all previous txs to be confirmed and conflicts to be settled.
Nano's Block Lattice has a blockchain per account, and txs are only dependent on the state of the two involved accounts.
BTC mining currently consumes an estimated 120-240 TWh per year of energy that could be put to far better use displacing fossil fuel sources, regardless of how much of it is renewable.
Nano rep nodes consume a negligible amount of energy.
BTC layer 2 solutions like Lightning are explicitly designed to allow users to circumvent Bitcoin's transaction security model via insecure, centralized, custodial solutions.
Nano does it all directly on-chain on layer 1.
As a side note on "layer 2" solutions for scaling BTC...
Higher layered technologies absolutely cannot "scale" their base layer
They are strictly for reusability frameworks/libraries and applications
Never before in software has a top layer attempted to scale its base
We should never build technology stacks on base layers that are objectively non-scalable.
The base layer must be as close as possible to the theoretical maximum optimization for its purpose.
Nano's not the perfect solution, and I'd quickly support anything that comes along and demonstrates better decentralization, security, scalability, and usability, but Nano is by far the most optimal solution I've seen thus far.
I'll add that if you're concerned about the incentives for Nano rep node operators, just look to the tens of thousands of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash full nodes operating without any monetary rewards.
They provide indisputable evidence that there are plenty of natural incentives.
BTC is slow and expensive (fees) to use.
Nano is INSTANT and FREE to use!This post is based on this twitter thread.