3 ms·
This is cool but it's hard to see how using a fork of BTC, even if it's optimized for les fees currently, is the best option for pure transactions. It still use
by Tenoke 6y ago
This is cool but it's hard to see how using a fork of BTC, even if it's optimized for les fees currently, is the best option for pure transactions. It still uses Proof of Work, no matter how you stuff the blocks and better (to my eyes) alternatives already exist like Nano which is feeless, even faster and doesn't waste energy.
- capableweb 6y agoOverall I agree with you, but what bothers me is that people continue to say that PoW is waste of energy, even if the article is about moving 38M USD for 0.0064 USD. How does that make sense if it's actually doing something useful? Or you think in general moving money around is not useful?
- Tenoke 6y agoI think it's useful. I just think that it's comparably less useful than doing it in a way that costs less energy like in Nano's (and others) case.
- capableweb 6y agoSo you think the drawbacks of Nano are not impacting it's usefulness compared to Bitcoin? Last time I checked, Nano didn't have any trustless lightweight wallets, you can't attach any data to transactions and also no multisig.
- xtracto 6y ago>Nano which is feeless, even faster and doesn't waste energy. Suddenly the internet is getting filled by shilling of this thing.
- Tenoke 6y agoThere's a lot of comments about it online now, yes, but it's pretty relevant when talking about alternatives in a thread about the cost of a big BCH transaction. This isn't shilling.