This is another useful example to have handy against the canard: "You're only skeptical of cryptocurrencies/blockchain because you haven't learned enough about how they work."
I believe the correlation is the other way around... at least once you get past some early local maxima near "people who don't understand how money can be in a computer."
P.S.: To digress (rant) a bit: The linchpin is whether your system needs to allow anybody to create and control any number of new participant-nodes at any time. That fundamental requirement is actually very rare, and it's also the root causing a cascading tree of workarounds, compromises, inefficiencies, and risks.
Quite well, thank you! Coming up on nine years without hacks, and apparently quantum-resistant.
The next release of Nano (the original and best imo*) manages spam to the point where fee-less sub-second transactions can be maintained even while under a directed spam attack.
If you want to learn more there's plenty of documentation:
I was wondering where your previous comment was heading - I assumed you were referring to Yet Another Niche Cryptocoin, and that was confirmed. Thanks!
People said the same thing about renewable energy for decades ... "It's so niche! How could it ever replace fossil fuel?".
The point stands - BTC's limitations mean nothing to the potential of digital currency as a whole. Cryptocurrency has been proven not to need fees or mining, and yet people love to attack it on that basis. Anything to feel superior I guess.
It’s not about superiority, it’s about the pie in the sky claims made by crypto, none of which have demonstrably helped real world use cases at any scale.
Even taking your example coin, they’re making it production-grade, for what? How many people seriously use it? What is the real plan to adoption? Or is it just another fun tech project.
Each transaction uses a tenth the energy of a credit card, confirmed in milliseconds. It's decentralized. It's secure. Isn't controlled by a shadowy entity working to hoard wealth and power backed up by military threat. Etc.
Why am I doing basic research for you?
These aren't "pie in the sky" "claims", they are statements of fact that can be verified by trying it out yourself. I already linked the docs if you want to know how it works, what the upcoming milestones are, what work has already been done, etc.
One example of a great use case is Nano-gpt(.com), where you can try the latest AI models straight away and pay by the question. The bottleneck here is your imagination.
My point about the features you claim have to do with adoption and scale. You don’t need crypto to make a more efficient payment network.
Regarding nano-gpt, that’s already a solved problem. Literally all API platforms support pay-as-you-go credits. I went to your link, and I loved the irony of them asking for a 0.10$ minimum deposit - note the complete lack of crypto rates. That is par for the course for crypto apps, nobody cares what the coin conversion is - it’s just a gimmick.
TBF, that particular data-point tends to have a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" extrapolation, ex:
1. "If sellers only care about what regular currency it can be turned into, that means it has failed as a currency because it's just an intermediate payment scheme."
2. "If sellers don't care about what regular currency it can become, that probably means it has failed as a currency because it's really just a speculative-bubble asset."
Raiblocks was never hacked, an exchange was (though it could have been an inside job, and BitGrail was at the very least negligent). Very different, though yes, still damaging.
And this isn't about personal beliefs, market cap, market share, etc. The conversational point was that it's technically vastly superior to BTC, which it undeniably is. On market cap, adoption and hype, BTC wins hands down, for now, but there's no reason at all for that to always be the case.
People here love dunking on cryptocurrency for the slow times and the mining and the hacks (like this post) - yet none of that is a necessary characteristic of cryptocurrency.
Btw, Nano is very much alive. V27 is coming out soon making major improvements, regardless of like, your opinion man.
Do I need to paste the definitions of fact, vs prediction, prophecy, belief and opinion in here?
I remember hearing similar pronouncements presented as 'ironclad fact' after Mt. Gox, and after the DAO hack, and even during the Bitcoin Cash debate. The field is more full to the brim of people presenting opinions as fact than I would ever have believed. Even if you were someone I'd heard of and respected, a known expert; if you claimed your opinion in this space as fact I would yawn and put my respect for you down a notch.
And, the discussion wasn't about market cap, top 100, or anything like that - just verifiable technical characteristics.
The scam talked about in this thread wouldn't work in Nano, because Nano doesn't require mining or fees. Many other coins have the same characteristics, Nano was an example. I would bet that any other example would have been just as triggering to people.
I believe the correlation is the other way around... at least once you get past some early local maxima near "people who don't understand how money can be in a computer."
P.S.: To digress (rant) a bit: The linchpin is whether your system needs to allow anybody to create and control any number of new participant-nodes at any time. That fundamental requirement is actually very rare, and it's also the root causing a cascading tree of workarounds, compromises, inefficiencies, and risks.