You are one of those suckers if you believe every distributed coin was solved by a CAPTCHA. The centralized(!) foundation pinky promises that they didn’t sock puppet ten times as many suckers at launch, and then keep a controlling share of stake permanently.
A better way to do the initial “airdrop” is to not do centralized issuance at all, because anyone would be a complete fool to trust any crypto foundation.
What would be a controlling share with Nano? The largest representatives according to voting weight were the exchanges last time I checked, which would imply most of the currency is in “circulation” as in no longer held by the foundation. And even then, voting weight doesn’t grant you an immediate advantage in Nano, as there’s no staking.
So I mean, while I can’t prove that the foundation held now coins than they claimed, I’m unaware that there was ever a sign of them actually doing so.
A better way to do the initial “airdrop” is to not do centralized issuance at all, because anyone would be a complete fool to trust any crypto foundation.
It has to come from somewhere, right? How would you fairly distribute coins that aren’t mined?
Anyhow, I’m not here to shill the coin, the ones I bought I bought off an exchange long after the original issuance and all I wanted to show was an example for a good technical solution. Not perfect mind you, just something of which I thought is a positive example where it’s just used as a means of payment.
The largest representatives according to voting weight were the exchanges last time I checked
Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.
So I mean, while I can’t prove that the foundation held more coins than they claimed, I’m unaware that there was ever a sign of them actually doing so.
The sign is them creating a design that expects this tremendous amount of trust. It’s extremely conspicuous to create a vulnerability that only the foundation can exploit, that can go undetected if they don’t make a huge mistake.
It has to come from somewhere, right? How would you fairly distribute coins that aren’t mined?
You can’t fairly distribute a premine. Don’t use coins with premines.
I’m glad you’re not here to shill Nano, but it is a scam and you are promoting it.
Can’t make it right for everyone… Some people will complain about mining and the energy consumption (Bitcoin is supposed to currently use about 850 kWh per transaction), others complain about a supposedly unfair premine. They didn’t even hold an ICO.
51%
That’s not currently a required percentage, you need 67% of votes to confirm a transaction. Which in turn means 33% are enough to stall the network. But even then, what would their gain be, apart from owning more of their own currency?
Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.
You can, but then you can no longer vote. And if you can’t vote, holding Nano does nothing.
I don’t think there’s a cryptocurrency today that comes without downsides, be it high resource usage, lack of anonymity or others, if they’re not straight up money grabs and a copy paste of another random junk on ETH. Bitcoin is not an option for me because of the monster mining has become - I don’t blame Satoshi, this is something I didn’t expect either, but it’s insanity currently.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/premining.asp
You are one of those suckers if you believe every distributed coin was solved by a CAPTCHA. The centralized(!) foundation pinky promises that they didn’t sock puppet ten times as many suckers at launch, and then keep a controlling share of stake permanently.
A better way to do the initial “airdrop” is to not do centralized issuance at all, because anyone would be a complete fool to trust any crypto foundation.
What would be a controlling share with Nano? The largest representatives according to voting weight were the exchanges last time I checked, which would imply most of the currency is in “circulation” as in no longer held by the foundation. And even then, voting weight doesn’t grant you an immediate advantage in Nano, as there’s no staking.
So I mean, while I can’t prove that the foundation held now coins than they claimed, I’m unaware that there was ever a sign of them actually doing so.
It has to come from somewhere, right? How would you fairly distribute coins that aren’t mined?
Anyhow, I’m not here to shill the coin, the ones I bought I bought off an exchange long after the original issuance and all I wanted to show was an example for a good technical solution. Not perfect mind you, just something of which I thought is a positive example where it’s just used as a means of payment.
51%
Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.
The sign is them creating a design that expects this tremendous amount of trust. It’s extremely conspicuous to create a vulnerability that only the foundation can exploit, that can go undetected if they don’t make a huge mistake.
You can’t fairly distribute a premine. Don’t use coins with premines.
I’m glad you’re not here to shill Nano, but it is a scam and you are promoting it.
Can’t make it right for everyone… Some people will complain about mining and the energy consumption (Bitcoin is supposed to currently use about 850 kWh per transaction), others complain about a supposedly unfair premine. They didn’t even hold an ICO.
That’s not currently a required percentage, you need 67% of votes to confirm a transaction. Which in turn means 33% are enough to stall the network. But even then, what would their gain be, apart from owning more of their own currency?
You can, but then you can no longer vote. And if you can’t vote, holding Nano does nothing.
I don’t think there’s a cryptocurrency today that comes without downsides, be it high resource usage, lack of anonymity or others, if they’re not straight up money grabs and a copy paste of another random junk on ETH. Bitcoin is not an option for me because of the monster mining has become - I don’t blame Satoshi, this is something I didn’t expect either, but it’s insanity currently.