Hacker News Reader

Comment by gillesjacobs | Hacker News Reader

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 higher risk of centralisation than with PoW. [2]

1. https://link.medium.com/Jj7lG1ng2db

2. https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html

View on HN

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

Looks interesting, I will look into Nano's dPoS better because it looks like it makes good trade-offs. Thanks for the info.

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.

Bitcoin cannot scale well enough to be used as a global currency .Consumes a huge amount of energy .Is extremely slow at processing transactions, degrading usability .Has high transaction fees, which would be even higher if it were to be more adopted .Most people in the industry do not think that Bitcoin is/can be a day-to-day currency

Reply on news.ycombinator.com