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.
Genius? Nah, it's just dumb.
As these votes are shared and rebroadcasted between nodes, they are tallied up and compared against the online voting weight available. Once a node sees a block get enough votes to reach quorum, that block is confirmed. Due to the lightweight nature of blocks and votes, the network is able to reach confirmation for transaction ultrafast, often in under a couple seconds. Also note that delegation of voting weight does not mean staking of any funds - the account delegating can still spend all their available funds at any time without restrictions.
Because Nano accounts can freely delegate their voting weight to representatives at any time, the users have more control over who has power with consensus and how decentralized the network is. This is a key advantage to the design of Open Representative Voting (ORV). With no direct monetary incentive for nodes, this removes emergent centralization forces for longer-term trending toward decentralization of the network."
While better than most DPoS chains there is still a higher risk of centralisation than with PoW. [2]
> 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
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 autonomous apps that operate as long as people are paying for their use without central control.
It is sad to centralised chains take off such as the Binance Smart Chain that runs on delegated proof-of-stake on just 21 validators picked by Binance.
You are just playing with someone else's funny money that they control.
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.
That wasn't always like this. Original idea was to replace money
Without agreeing or disagreeing with either statement here, I'll point out that money is centrally a system of value transfer.
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.
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.
That sure is a powerful invention, but this does not mean decentralized networks cannot exist without it. Most are running fine without any financial incentive.
There are always incentives to aid the network simply by being a user.
If Nano can provide security with a different model, why would that be "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.
Government tries to fight climate change and bitcoin destroys all hard earned energy reductions. The network needs more energy then a whole country (today). I don't want imaging how much energy it will consume in 10 years.