• makeasnek@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The problem with nano is that it makes the assumption you can just give away transaction space for free. You can’t. If you do, spammers and other low-value uses take up all the space. The more space gets taken up, the more expensive it is to run a node, and the more centralized your network becomes. So what did they do when they ran into this problem? They added a proof-of-work component. The very thing they created their coin to avoid! If you look at almost all of these non-PoW cryptos, the only reason they can get better transactions per second or low tx fees is because they are very centralized or because nobody is actually competing for that space because nobody uses them.

    Bitcoin solves this scaling/fee problem with Bitcoin lightning, which is a layer on top of the main chain. The main chain provides security, while actual transactions live on the second layer. Fees on lightning measure in the pennies and confirm instantly. The scale you can take lightning to is basically infinite. That’s actually useful as a currency.

    • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nano has alwas has a computational part associated with transactions. It once was used to prioritize transactions. Nano has evolved to a different prioritization scheme. That computational part will be phased out.
      The lightning network is a silly attempt to merge bad parts of cryptocurrencies with bad parts of traditional finance: you need the electric energy guzzling Bitcoin and middlemen just like in traditional finance - or would you care to open and close your own channels, pay watchtowers etc. or “simply” use the channels of middlemen?
      And how would you have cheap transactions without those middlemen, if operating your own channels requires transactions on layer 1?