I know naming is hard, but there are already other nano projects, so fuck any new ones.
Comment on 17 years*
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 22 hours agoIn case this is an honest question:
Ripple and Stellar are popular examples of networks that can process lots of transactions fast and cheap, but in my perspective they’re both examples of tech bros finding a new playground - especially true for Ripple.
But there are other gems such as nano.org/en, which come to mind. It’s true open source, was distributed for free, has transactions without a fee and can process hundreds of transactions per second with a tiny ecological footprint.
Yeah, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but if you have a closer look, it just is good.
Monero does not exactly have the capacity for hundreds of transactions per second, but offers a degree of privacy that’s awesome.
And then there’s the OG Ethereum, which in fact can process lots of transactions per second often at a quite low cost, which offers a Turing complete smart contract language.
You see, there are at least some alternatives, which offer lots of fast and cheap or even feeless transactions or transactions with other benefits, wuch as privacy.
The development didn’t stop with the “train wreck waiting to happen Bitcoin”.
I’m glad Bitcoin created the whole crypto sphere.
At the same time I’m dumbstruck how most of the whole sphere is just a soulless, useless money grab.
It’s hard to find the projects that aren’t, but they are here, hidden in a pile of shit.
You might realize that the projects I listed are more or less random examples, which mostly have one thing in common: they’ve been around for quite some time.
msage@programming.dev 21 hours ago
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Apple wants to have a word, Meta too.
Nano had a rebranding and was called Raiblocks before. While it was a quite distinct name, people wouldn’t even know how to pronounce it.
I’m not overly interested in the name, I do like the attributes of “Nano, the digital money” though.zergtoshi@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
By the way, do you care to name one Nano project?
msage@programming.dev 20 hours ago
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Thanks!
MrRandom@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
Good thing we have 20 million alternatives and 1 million more while I was typing
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
So trying to get legit projects off the ground makes no sense, because 99.9% of all projects are scams?
I beg to differ!
Or did you want to insinuate something else?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Nano gave out its supply with centrally administered CAPTCHAs. That means they could have simply exempted insiders from having to do the CAPTCHAs at all, getting >51% of the supply for free. You’re expecting everyone who ever uses that money supply to trust a central party for something we can’t audit.
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Well, maybe they have, maybe they haven’t.
At least they made the effort and a better system than CAPTCHAs to make it available to people without the need for special hardware or other prerequisites aside from a computer with internet access was just not there.
Plus I wonder why they’ve continued developing that project for the last 10+ years in case it was just meant as cash grab for insiders.
People use Bitcoin, although it’s clear that Satoshi (whoever that is) has shy of 10% of the total supply: bitslog.com/…/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satosh…
Needless to ask what happens to BTC holders, if that amount of BTC appear on the sell side of the market.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Nobody cares how much effort they put in if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam. You’d have to be nuts to trust anybody in the crypto space.
Why stop developing while it’s still producing revenue? With >51% of the supply, they can leech off any remaining suckers indefinitely. The price of Nano relative to Bitcoin has done exactly what one should expect. It would need to have been done correctly to begin with and can’t now be un-fucked.
zergtoshi@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
That’s where our perceptions differ. There’d be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.
The revenue could be had without additonal effort.
How is done correctly?
How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?
All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people’s biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.