3 ms·

Nano has no fees or mining. Instead of traditional distributed proof of stake, it uses open representative voting. https://docs.nano.org/what-is-nano/overview/

Nano has no fees or mining. Instead of traditional distributed proof of stake, it uses open representative voting. https://docs.nano.org/what-is-nano/overview/#representatives-and-voting https://docs.nano.org/what-is-nano/overview/#representatives... If nano (or any other tech) achieves greater utility for transactions without using proof of work, then it is arguable that BTC's use of energy is wasteful. However, to be specific I would defend the consumer/miner's choice to use energy in whichever way he subjectively feels brings him the most value. I'd say it is debatable whether BTC's proof of work is wasteful. Calling this claim naive appears as short sighted. Tech is a constantly evolving landscape. Increases in efficiency are arguably already here.

1ark 6y ago
Nano, and many other projects, have much better and efficient tech than BTC. The problem with most of them are the screwups in various proportions (premines, developer fee, foundations), and how they are developed. BTC development is RFC based, and users approve by running own nodes, and miners have to comply in between. Until a project comes along which doesn't try to swindle its user base BTC will stay dominant.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Nano users run their own nodes, but the main incentive for running a node is for service providers, developers and merchants. There's no swindle in my view. As a user of the technology perhaps I'm biased. Although because I approached it from purely to solve a problem and not as an investment, I don't think I am as biased as others. XRP would be a good example of a swindle surrounded by hype and marketing. Altcoins are rightfully scrutinized, but I think in the case of Nano there's unfair generalization without actual investigation into the technology. What is popular isn't always the best technology.

1ark 6y ago

Nano, and many other projects, have much better and efficient tech than BTC. The problem with most of them are the screwups in various proportions (premines, developer fee, foundations), and how they are developed. BTC development is RFC based, and users approve by running own nodes, and miners have to comply in between. Until a project comes along which doesn't try to swindle its user base BTC will stay dominant.

aww_dang 6y ago
Nano users run their own nodes, but the main incentive for running a node is for service providers, developers and merchants. There's no swindle in my view. As a user of the technology perhaps I'm biased. Although because I approached it from purely to solve a problem and not as an investment, I don't think I am as biased as others. XRP would be a good example of a swindle surrounded by hype and marketing. Altcoins are rightfully scrutinized, but I think in the case of Nano there's unfair generalization without actual investigation into the technology. What is popular isn't always the best technology.