3 ms·

Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. ya*wn. There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send v

Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. *y*a*w*n*. There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send value instantly with no fees, with no dependence on a centralized authority. Nano just got its own currency ticker - XNO - and avoids every fault this author finds in the rest of the field. Mr. Diehl went far enough to pick out some flaws, and then generalized them onto every variant of the technology without going that little bit further to actually check if he's right or not. Laziness. There's so many 'Edisons' out there who have decided that because 9,999 filaments don't work that well, lightbulbs are a dead technology. And it's so tiresome - because there's a feckin LED lighthouse beaming photons across the planet as we speak.

rvz 5y ago
> Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. And also something like Stellar or Hedera which isn't mineable at all and are used for CBDCs.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Or Algorand, etc. I get that this is all 'new' and confusing, but the know-it-all condescension really rubs me the wrong way - do they clone these people or what? Where do they all come from?
  - bildung 5y ago
    All of Stellar, Hedera and Algorand have a big centralization problem, they have solved nothing. Stellar and Ripple aren't even proper cryptocurrencies unless you allow for a very lenient definition. > the know-it-all condescension really rubs me the wrong way - do they clone these people or what? Where do they all come from? In my experience the people being very optimistic about crypto real world use cases usually have their first exposure with economic theory from within the crypto sphere and lack the real world experience to know some actual pain points of the current economic system. For example the oracle problem is severly glossed over by smart contract approaches, which mostly try to solve trust issues that are essentially solved issues in the real world.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      > In my experience... That's probably true but it's also true for the author of the blog. He's a programmer and not an economist.
    - rvz 5y ago
      > All of Stellar, Hedera and Algorand have a big centralization problem, they have solved nothing. Such claims must be further substantiated with strong and sufficient evidence. Elaborate your claim further with each cryptocurrency with valid sources, otherwise your claim is baseless. > Stellar and Ripple aren't even proper cryptocurrencies unless you allow for a very lenient definition. So what is a 'proper' / 'real' / 'true' cryptocurrency then? Are there any true Scotsmen here? Did you just prove the point of the original comment in this thread? [0] Nano has been ignored once again. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331057
      - bildung 5y ago
        > Such claims must be further substantiated with strong and sufficient evidence. No, it's the other way around. Bitcoin only employed approaches that were well-researched already, the innovation essentially was combining these together. The projects I mentioned claim that they can achieve better performance without the known costs of bitcoin (really slow, really energetically expensive). It is up to them to post proof how they achieve that. > So what is a 'proper' / 'real' / 'true' cryptocurrency then? Are there any true Scotsmen here? Projects with some form of blockchain, which Stellar and Ripple don't have. They are essentially just a horizontically scaled, classic database (running on the nodes), which the clients access. The nodes each have a full copy of the database. There's no blockchain, no mining or any substitute etc. > Nano I only replied with the projects named by posters before me. Nano has no blockchain, only a DAG (a proven, decades-old data structure used e.g. in spreadsheets). Nano invented their own consensus protocol. They have the usual suspicious claims (fast, no transfer fees, no/low energy costs) that are only really achievable with a centralized design (i.e. a conventional database). How can they achieve security without heavy costs for appending to the ledger?
Ologn 5y ago
> There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send value instantly with no fees, with no dependence on a centralized authority. There is, the problem is you are not sending value, you are sending the modern equivalent of Charles Ponzi's postal reply coupons.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Yawn. Yes, there are straight Ponzi schemes in crypto. I seem to remember that 'PonziCoin' actually did quite well. Twice. Like, a quarter million dollars in eight hours well. But there is also utility. Huge utility, recognized by multiple governments by now. And people working relentlessly to free us from depending on the beyond-evil bankers strip-mining every facet of existence on this planet for their own short-term gain.

Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. *y*a*w*n*. There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send v

rvz 5y ago

> Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. And also something like Stellar or Hedera which isn't mineable at all and are used for CBDCs.

mandmandam 5y ago
Or Algorand, etc. I get that this is all 'new' and confusing, but the know-it-all condescension really rubs me the wrong way - do they clone these people or what? Where do they all come from?
- bildung 5y ago
  All of Stellar, Hedera and Algorand have a big centralization problem, they have solved nothing. Stellar and Ripple aren't even proper cryptocurrencies unless you allow for a very lenient definition. > the know-it-all condescension really rubs me the wrong way - do they clone these people or what? Where do they all come from? In my experience the people being very optimistic about crypto real world use cases usually have their first exposure with economic theory from within the crypto sphere and lack the real world experience to know some actual pain points of the current economic system. For example the oracle problem is severly glossed over by smart contract approaches, which mostly try to solve trust issues that are essentially solved issues in the real world.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    > In my experience... That's probably true but it's also true for the author of the blog. He's a programmer and not an economist.
  - rvz 5y ago
    > All of Stellar, Hedera and Algorand have a big centralization problem, they have solved nothing. Such claims must be further substantiated with strong and sufficient evidence. Elaborate your claim further with each cryptocurrency with valid sources, otherwise your claim is baseless. > Stellar and Ripple aren't even proper cryptocurrencies unless you allow for a very lenient definition. So what is a 'proper' / 'real' / 'true' cryptocurrency then? Are there any true Scotsmen here? Did you just prove the point of the original comment in this thread? [0] Nano has been ignored once again. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29331057
    - bildung 5y ago
      > Such claims must be further substantiated with strong and sufficient evidence. No, it's the other way around. Bitcoin only employed approaches that were well-researched already, the innovation essentially was combining these together. The projects I mentioned claim that they can achieve better performance without the known costs of bitcoin (really slow, really energetically expensive). It is up to them to post proof how they achieve that. > So what is a 'proper' / 'real' / 'true' cryptocurrency then? Are there any true Scotsmen here? Projects with some form of blockchain, which Stellar and Ripple don't have. They are essentially just a horizontically scaled, classic database (running on the nodes), which the clients access. The nodes each have a full copy of the database. There's no blockchain, no mining or any substitute etc. > Nano I only replied with the projects named by posters before me. Nano has no blockchain, only a DAG (a proven, decades-old data structure used e.g. in spreadsheets). Nano invented their own consensus protocol. They have the usual suspicious claims (fast, no transfer fees, no/low energy costs) that are only really achievable with a centralized design (i.e. a conventional database). How can they achieve security without heavy costs for appending to the ledger?

Ologn 5y ago

> There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send value instantly with no fees, with no dependence on a centralized authority. There is, the problem is you are not sending value, you are sending the modern equivalent of Charles Ponzi's postal reply coupons.

mandmandam 5y ago
Yawn. Yes, there are straight Ponzi schemes in crypto. I seem to remember that 'PonziCoin' actually did quite well. Twice. Like, a quarter million dollars in eight hours well. But there is also utility. Huge utility, recognized by multiple governments by now. And people working relentlessly to free us from depending on the beyond-evil bankers strip-mining every facet of existence on this planet for their own short-term gain.