3 ms·

"Nano has a unique consensus mechanism called Open Representative Voting (ORV). Every account can freely choose a Representative at any time to vote on their be

"Nano has a unique consensus mechanism called Open Representative Voting (ORV). Every account can freely choose a Representative at any time to vote on their behalf, even when the delegating account itself is offline. These Representative accounts are configured on nodes that remain online and vote on the validity of transactions they see on the network. Their voting weight is the sum of balances for accounts delegating to them, and if they have enough voting weight they become a Principal Representative. The votes these Principal Representatives send out will subsequently be rebroadcasted by other nodes. 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."

gillesjacobs 6y ago
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 https://link.medium.com/Jj7lG1ng2db 2. https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html
- donutloop 6y ago
  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
- harwoodleon 6y ago
  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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- zepolen 6y ago
  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-economies-of-scale-83cc85a7cbef 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 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10699.pdf - Nano is decentralizing over time: https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution
  - gillesjacobs 6y ago
    Looks interesting, I will look into Nano's dPoS better because it looks like it makes good trade-offs. Thanks for the info.

gillesjacobs 6y ago

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 https://link.medium.com/Jj7lG1ng2db 2. https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2018/03/28/plutocracy.html

donutloop 6y ago
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
harwoodleon 6y ago
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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zepolen 6y ago
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-economies-of-scale-83cc85a7cbef 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 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.10699.pdf - Nano is decentralizing over time: https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution
- gillesjacobs 6y ago
  Looks interesting, I will look into Nano's dPoS better because it looks like it makes good trade-offs. Thanks for the info.