Bitcoin vs. Nano
* Bitcoin transactions take an average of 10-60 minutes. Nano transactions take 0.2 seconds.
* Bitcoin transactions use ~741 kWh of electricity each. Nano transactions use 0.000112 kWh.
* Bitcoin can't scale past 7 tps. Nano's tps is uncapped and limited only by hardware.
* Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140. Nano is fully distributed.
Bitcoin is not the inevitable long-term "winner" of cryptocurrencies. Its technological limitations and disastrous environmental impact would create an incredibly bleak future for the everyday person. There is a clear alternative to Bitcoin, and they don't know it exists: Nano.
The rumor that Nano is being suppressed by crypto miners and Bitcoin maximalists has been around for a very long time, and it makes sense. Nano works ridiculously well, and is there to eat the cake of all the miners who are raking in millions a day. BTC maxis and miners hate the word Nano, and have a strong incentive to literally pay to have it disappear from the face of the earth. Bitcoin influences on Twitter have muted the word Nano because they know their thesis is fucked when it gets mentioned.
Github ref: https://github.com/nanocurrency Website ref: https://nano.org/ linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/nano-foundation/
47 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 92.2 ms ] threadhttps://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node
ref: https://nano.org/
The main reason it's not well known, is people like you. You made no effort to learn about it before dismissing it, just like you did for Bitcoin first time you heard about it.
ref: https://nano.org/
It's very easy to fix. Just increase the maximum block size. There is a fork that does that and a fork that use smaller transactions in a secondary chain.
> Bitcoin miners will inflate its supply until the year 2140.
The Nano foundation got 7M/133M = 5% of the initial coins for a "developer found". Did they spend/distribute all of it or it is still saved?
Miners will get 2.4M/21.0M, that is a 11% inflation. And they have to spend most of it in the mining. Just call this 11% a developer found, and the difference is not so much.
> Nano is fully distributed.
I still don't understand how is Nano protected of double spending without PoW or PoS or centralization.
Attack-vectors: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/attack-vectors/
A fork is not a feasible solution who knows if this fork get's ever merged into the master branch of bitcoin
> Miners will get 2.4M/21.0M, that is a 11% inflation. And they have to spend most of it in the mining. Just call this 11% a developer found, and the difference is not so much.
I don't understand your point please elaborate more on your point, thanks!
http://nanofud.com/
But this rant, with all the trappings of a fanboy conspiracy theory has the exact opposite effect to what you are trying to achieve: just reading it made me want to close the tab and never look at nano again.
It took quite an effort to keep on reading.
Now, please present us with a concise and solid technical argument as to why nano's consensus methodology is better than bitcoin's.
And I don't want to hear about "features" (it does this, it does that), but arguments proving the methodology is as least as secure as Bitcoin's.
Its bad for the evironment. It expensive to dig. Its expensive to store and its a hassle to things with.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f....
As normal user i don't want to pay so much money for a single transaction it will never replace money with such high transaction cost.
It was a "faucet" instead of an "airdrop" but the effect is very similar, only a few early enthusiast got the coins.
BTC isn't a tech for the commoner either. Institutional investors are swooping in and driving the price up. The mining isn't done by a bunch of people but data centers. China has a lot of influence in the network. I don't think that's a good thing.