Bitcoin vs. Nano | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin vs. Nano

12 pointsdonutloop46 comments

Nano is the currency of the people. Not the institutions. Bitcoin fees often exceed $10 per transaction. Nano has no fees, and never will.

* Bitcoin transactions take an average of 10-60 minutes. Nano transactions take 0.2 seconds.

* Bitcoin transactions use ~741 kWh of electricity each. Nano transactions use 0.000112 kWh.

* Bitcoin can't scale past 7 tps. Nano's tps is uncapped and limited only by hardware.

* Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140. Nano is fully distributed.

Bitcoin is not the inevitable long-term "winner" of cryptocurrencies. Its technological limitations and disastrous environmental impact would create an incredibly bleak future for the everyday person. There is a clear alternative to Bitcoin, and they don't know it exists: Nano.

The rumor that Nano is being suppressed by crypto miners and Bitcoin maximalists has been around for a very long time, and it makes sense. Nano works ridiculously well, and is there to eat the cake of all the miners who are raking in millions a day. BTC maxis and miners hate the word Nano, and have a strong incentive to literally pay to have it disappear from the face of the earth. Bitcoin influences on Twitter have muted the word Nano because they know their thesis is fucked when it gets mentioned.

Github ref: https://github.com/nanocurrency Website ref: https://nano.org/ linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/nano-foundation/

Have you considered the reason that it's not popular is not some elaborate conspiracy theory, but rather that it is yet another cookie cutter product entering the already extremely saturated alt coin market? Especially as your listed features are also listed on half a dozen other coins/chains as well.

The project has 2800 stars on Github and many redditors are talking about it.

https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node

Stars don’t equate to usage.

Reddit channel has 59,940 Members by today(https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/)

Channel membership does not equate to usage.

https://nanocrawler.cc/status

269 peers, 104 representatives (I presume stakers)? Ethereum has over 10 000 Eth1 nodes online, and 75 000 stakers (+14 000 queued) currently validating the Eth2 network.

https://nanocrawler.cc/network

"Abstract—Recently, high demand and limited scalability have increased the average transaction times and fees in popular cryptocurrencies, yielding an unsatisfactory experience. Here we introduce Nano, a cryptocurrency with a novel block-lattice architecture where each account has its own blockchain, delivering near instantaneous transaction speed and unlimited scalability. Each user has their own blockchain, allowing them to update it asynchronously to the rest of the network, resulting in fast transactions with minimal overhead. Transactions keep track of account balances rather than transaction amounts, allowing aggressive database pruning without compromising security. To date, the Nano network has processed 4.2 million transactions with an unpruned ledger size of only 1.7GB. Nano’s feeless, split-second transactions make it the premier cryptocurrency for consumer transactions"

I might be misunderstanding something but how can you have a secure chain without any form of fee?

"The consensus mechanism, called Open Representative Voting (ORV), also provides useful differentiation from other networks. Consensus is reached through representatives voting on the validity of individual blocks shared on the network. The voting weight for each representative is assigned to them by the account owners and is in proportion to the Nano in those accounts. Account owners can still use funds without restrictions as no staking is involved and the representatives have no control over funds, they just get voting rights from them."

ref: https://nano.org/

OK, so it's a proof-of-stake system in terms of how supply is distributed, and proof-of-work must be performed by clients as an attempt to prevent large scale spam. Those with the most coin get to greatly influence the correctness of the chain when forks occur.

Nano white paper: https://content.nano.org/whitepaper/Nano_Whitepaper_en.pdf

It's not though. It's been around since 2015, it uses multiple novel crypto concepts not seen in any other coin and elegantly solves every traditional problem with Bitcoin (fees, speed, energy, centralization) unlike those cookie cutter copy coins on the market.

The main reason it's not well known, is people like you. You made no effort to learn about it before dismissing it, just like you did for Bitcoin first time you heard about it.

> Bitcoin can't scale past 7 tps. Nano's tps is uncapped and limited only by hardware.

It's very easy to fix. Just increase the maximum block size. There is a fork that does that and a fork that use smaller transactions in a secondary chain.

> Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140.

The Nano foundation got 7M/133M = 5% of the initial coins for a "developer found". Did they spend/distribute all of it or it is still saved?

Miners will get 2.4M/21.0M, that is a 11% inflation. And they have to spend most of it in the mining. Just call this 11% a developer found, and the difference is not so much.

> Nano is fully distributed.

I still don't understand how is Nano protected of double spending without PoW or PoS or centralization.

> I still don't understand how is Nano protected of double spending without PoW or PoS or centralization.

Attack-vectors: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/

> It's very easy to fix. Just increase the maximum block size. There is a fork that does that and a fork that use smaller transactions in a secondary chain.

A fork is not a feasible solution who knows if this fork get's ever merged into the master branch of bitcoin

This is precisely what happened in 2017 in the "Bitcoin" vs "Bitcoin Cash" fork https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash One part of the community used one fork and the other part of the community used the other fork. Both solutions increase the tps.

> The Nano foundation got 7M/133M = 5% of the initial coins for a "developer found". Did they spend/distribute all of it or it is still saved?

> Miners will get 2.4M/21.0M, that is a 11% inflation. And they have to spend most of it in the mining. Just call this 11% a developer found, and the difference is not so much.

I don't understand your point please elaborate more on your point, thanks!

hi, found something that might address some of the concerns regarding nano. it's like q&a that someone has compilled regarding comlon nano challengesnor criticisms.

http://nanofud.com/

another community created information https://github.com/georgehara/nano/wiki/unofficial

Meh, I prefer bitcoin. Bitcoin does not have a LinkedIn profile.

https://www.linkedin.com/company/bitcoin-foundation

Since the entire supply has already been airdropped to select people how is this "money for the people" rather than crypto-cronyism?

Eco friendly, feeless, ultra fast, limited coin supply

That doesn't address the issue that I raised in that a "landed gentry" has been created by airdropping millions of tokens to a relatively small group of people. The only way to get hold of tokens is to buy them from these people.

Bitcoin has so far only one use case holding it. It is to expensive to buy some small things with it, can't really scale without suffering high transaction price changes and depends on all miners. Bitcoin wanted from the begin revolutionize the money world didn't happened so far. Now everyone says it will replace gold. Just false promises.

Please add a ref to this airdrop function.

I didn't say there is an airdrop function. 100% of the supply of Nano have already been distributed by way of an airdrop. This is stated on the homepage of the project.

Please create a quote from the website

https://medium.com/nanocurrency/the-nano-faucet-c99e18ae1202

It was a "faucet" instead of an "airdrop" but the effect is very similar, only a few early enthusiast got the coins.

Here's a post 6 months ago about the distribution. https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/h7fmge/the_na...

BTC isn't a tech for the commoner either. Institutional investors are swooping in and driving the price up. The mining isn't done by a bunch of people but data centers. China has a lot of influence in the network. I don't think that's a good thing.

I don't want to pay pretty high fees for each transaction.

I think this is universal. Most of the crypto are not owned by regular people ( whatver that means for you). You need to have some basic level of competency with tech to play around with crypto. If you forgot your password for your Stonks broker, your not SOL. Even computer/tech literate people have lost potential millions due to forgetting passwords or crashed drives. That guy in the UK is still hoping to dig out his laptop in a landfill for what could possibly be hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds in BTC. They know exactly where it is in the landfill because they kept track of where, when and what went in the landfill.

If your intent was to promote it without looking like a scam, submissions like this aren't helping...

it is not looking like a scam. I added references to all important documents.

Nano may be a great alt and worth considering.

But this rant, with all the trappings of a fanboy conspiracy theory has the exact opposite effect to what you are trying to achieve: just reading it made me want to close the tab and never look at nano again.

It took quite an effort to keep on reading.

Now, please present us with a concise and solid technical argument as to why nano's consensus methodology is better than bitcoin's.

And I don't want to hear about "features" (it does this, it does that), but arguments proving the methodology is as least as secure as Bitcoin's.

Whitepaper: https://content.nano.org/whitepaper/Nano_Whitepaper_en.pdf

Problem is how it was distributed, yes fosset etc but still early adopters are like 0.0001% of world people, Also there is 0 adaptability, For me the perfect one would be decred, solid based, ready to evolve, But with slower block reward, let future generations wins too.

"Why do pople buy bitcoin?" Its propboly some of the same answers for "Why do people buy gold?"

Its bad for the evironment. It expensive to dig. Its expensive to store and its a hassle to things with.

Bitcoin wanted to replace money not gold so they didn't delivered as promised.

Bitcoins transaction cost are ridiculous high again

https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f....

"Bitcoin Average Transaction Fee is at a current level of 17.08, up from 8.904 yesterday and up from 0.5638 one year ago. This is a change of 91.79% from yesterday and 2.93K% from one year ago."

As normal user i don't want to pay so much money for a single transaction it will never replace money with such high transaction cost.

Does it solve the issue bitcoin had, of increasing energy requirements, or will it be in the same place as bitcoin in a few years if it's successful?

"Eco-friendly As the world continues efforts to reduce pollution and energy consumption, many digital money networks have resorted to wasteful designs to secure their networks. Nano is smartly designed to address this issue by not relying on power-hungry mining for security, but instead uses a lightweight and efficient consensus protocol called Open Representative Voting (ORV) for minimal energy usage."

ref: https://nano.org/

Transaction by second and transaction speed is way way behind in the list of important thing for a store of value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com