> So you have no evidence or sources to your previous claims? As expected.If someone comes around and claims to have invented a perpetuum mobile, it is not my duty to disproof them.
> Projects such as what?
Such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.
> First of all evidence that it isn't a 'blockchain'?
It's in their whitepapers, read it up. With all due respect, I don't get the feeling you know what these words mean. Hint: the G in DAG stands for "graph", so it can't be a blockchain.
Take a step back for the moment and think about it: The inherent problem cryptocurrencies have to solve, when you take away central coordination, is the trust issue with the data. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies tried to replace the trust in the central institution with trust in the implemented market incentives. That's why there is mining. They didn't put mining into the equation because they liked putting out CO2. There has to be something expensive to compensate for the lack of central coordination. That is why crypto is so horribly slow and expensive. The inventors didn't sit around and thought of creating the slowest possible implementation, it simply has to be expensive so that forging the ledger is expensive - because that price is the only thing preventing the rewriting of history.
With a central institution you don't have this problem: If say Paypal is the only institution allowed to write onto the ledger, you can easily have 100k ops per second or more - because these literally are simple writes to a conventional database.
You simply can't have both. In cryptocurrencies, by definition, everyone connected to the net has write access to the ledger. So you have to have a method to make writing to it expensive. If some project comes around and claims to have invented something that can only be described as an economic perpetuum mobile, i.e. having neither central coordination nor expensive writes, it is their burden of proof. Just like bitcoin did.
Edit: I looked into Nanos whitepaper and apparently Nano is trivially DDOSable for very small amounts of money. Have a look yourself:
Page 7: 4.2million transactions = 1.7G ledger size. So a transaction is 405 bytes.
Page 8: A GTX 1060 can calculate 1.25tx/seconds.
Pre Covid a GTX was 200€ and could spam the ledger with 43.74MB/day. So one only needs to invest 100k€ to flood the ledger with 22G/day / 660G/month.
So either a) the whitepaper lies, or b) Nano is completely broken, or c) There is centralization somewhere to ward off that spam.