3 ms·
> apparently Nano is trivially DDOSable for very small amounts of money Do a little more research - Nano had real life spam attacks, then mitigated the spam pr
by mandmandam 5y ago
> apparently Nano is trivially DDOSable for very small amounts of money
Do a little more research - Nano had real life spam attacks, then mitigated the spam problem with an innovative 'bucket' method. This put the lie to the common Bitcoin Maxi claim that "There has to be something expensive to compensate for the lack of central coordination."
As for Nano not being a blockchain; hint: there are chains of blocks. Look at the Nano Wiki page (very short): "Nano uses a block-lattice data structure, where every account has its own blockchain (account-chain)."
I'd say it's funny how confidently wrong your comments are; but it's just way way to common to be anything but tedious. Which was my original point precisely.
- bildung 5y ago> Nano had real life spam attacks, then mitigated the spam problem with an innovative 'bucket' method So option a) - the whitepaper doesn't reflect reality. And the solution was to make transactions more expensive and slower. > there are chains of blocks. With the caveat of the blocks being single transactions and the "blockchain" reflecting only single accounts.
- mandmandam 5y agoThe transactions are still fee-less and well under a second. And yes, that's the caveat, if you want to ignore the genius of it and completely get it wrong instead of learning something. It uses blockchain; it's blockchain tech, but you are soo right to say it's not blockchain because it uses blockchian in an innovative way. Jesus fucking Christ; people who can't admit when they're out of their depth really irritate the ever-living shit out of me. Not you though, you are hilarious.