3 ms·

There is nothing wrong with directed acyclic graph crypto schemes but shilling nano is not a good example of 'having the patience to listen to what's going on u

There is nothing wrong with directed acyclic graph crypto schemes but shilling nano is not a good example of 'having the patience to listen to what's going on under the hood'. Nano is able to process transactions quickly and cheaply because it makes the tradeoff that it is exceptionally susceptible to no cost or low cost spam attacks / sybil attacks - I can trivially make multiple copies of my agent 'self' and flood the network with invalid or zero value transactions, ensuring that nobody else can use the network. This in fact happened in 2021, which brought the service down globally. The only reason that doesn't happen constantly is that nano is not very widely used.

mandmandam 4y ago
Nano now uses a 'bucket' system which works well to mitigate spam, and they are developing it further. I don't claim that it's perfect, but it is better than most every alternative with a higher market cap - and I find that very interesting in the context of marketing. Think about how absurd it is to claim that high fees are a feature and not a bug. Really think about it. It's so obviously upside down. Now think of the eco impact from mining - also often claimed as a feature rather than a bug. Real damage is being done with this nonsense. People only take these claims seriously out of ignorance, deluged by the loud repeated claims of BTC maxis and bag holders. That was kinda the whole point of my post. Btw - shilling? Really? No lies were told, or false claims made. You are really helping prove my earlier points though.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is saying high fees are a feature. What I am saying is that the tradeoff that nano makes to avoid those fees makes it a poorly designed protocol. Low or no fees is a fantastic feature - as long as it doesn't degrade the main use of the system - which in the case of nano it certainly does.

mandmandam 4y ago

Nano now uses a 'bucket' system which works well to mitigate spam, and they are developing it further. I don't claim that it's perfect, but it is better than most every alternative with a higher market cap - and I find that very interesting in the context of marketing. Think about how absurd it is to claim that high fees are a feature and not a bug. Really think about it. It's so obviously upside down. Now think of the eco impact from mining - also often claimed as a feature rather than a bug. Real damage is being done with this nonsense. People only take these claims seriously out of ignorance, deluged by the loud repeated claims of BTC maxis and bag holders. That was kinda the whole point of my post. Btw - shilling? Really? No lies were told, or false claims made. You are really helping prove my earlier points though.

idiotsecant 4y ago
I don't think anyone is saying high fees are a feature. What I am saying is that the tradeoff that nano makes to avoid those fees makes it a poorly designed protocol. Low or no fees is a fantastic feature - as long as it doesn't degrade the main use of the system - which in the case of nano it certainly does.