"Nano has a unique consensus mechanism called Open Representative Voting (ORV). Every account can freely choose a Representative at any time to vote on their behalf, even when the delegating account itself is offline. These Representative accounts are configured on nodes that remain online and vote on the validity of transactions they see on the network. Their voting weight is the sum of balances for accounts delegating to them, and if they have enough voting weight they become a Principal Representative. The votes these Principal Representatives send out will subsequently be rebroadcasted by other nodes.
As these votes are shared and rebroadcasted between nodes, they are tallied up and compared against the online voting weight available. Once a node sees a block get enough votes to reach quorum, that block is confirmed. Due to the lightweight nature of blocks and votes, the network is able to reach confirmation for transaction ultrafast, often in under a couple seconds. Also note that delegation of voting weight does not mean staking of any funds - the account delegating can still spend all their available funds at any time without restrictions.
Because Nano accounts can freely delegate their voting weight to representatives at any time, the users have more control over who has power with consensus and how decentralized the network is. This is a key advantage to the design of Open Representative Voting (ORV). With no direct monetary incentive for nodes, this removes emergent centralization forces for longer-term trending toward decentralization of the network."
Open Representative Voting is just a proprietary term for Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPoS) consensus [1]. Basically transaction validator nodes are elected by votes weighted by the sum of the amount of tokens in the voters' wallet.
Apparently Nano wanted to highlight the fact that anyone can become a validator instead of a preselected list by coining a new term.
While better than most DPoS chains there is still a higher risk of centralisation than with PoW. [2]
PoS doesn’t work for money. It works as system of value transfer for the wealthy at best. Ask the millions of stranded wallets that can’t move funds because of fees. The other arguments around centralisation are moot then, if you can’t actually use the system.
Bitcoin cannot scale well enough to be used as a global currency
.Consumes a huge amount of energy
.Is extremely slow at processing transactions, degrading usability
.Has high transaction fees, which would be even higher if it were to be more adopted
.Most people in the industry do not think that Bitcoin is/can be a day-to-day currency
I see a lot of centralised digital currency projects gaining traction in the current bull market.
The innovation of Bitcoin was the game theoretical incentive of mining to teach consensus on blockchain state. It would cost you more to attack the network than to cooperate.
The whole value add over traditional money is the decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies. For code platforms it is the potential of fully autonomous apps that operate as long as people are paying for their use without central control.
It is sad to centralised chains take off such as the Binance Smart Chain that runs on delegated proof-of-stake on just 21 validators picked by Binance.
You are just playing with someone else's funny money that they control.
Yup, how do you obtain trust in a trustless society. Bitcoin nailed it. It's just unfortunate that sending one bitcoin at the moment uses as much power as charging a 100kwh tesla few times.
>Transaction fee savings for businesses and organizations accepting Nano as payment
Can someone sense check me? So following that argument, a payment processor (e.g. Amazon, Stripe, all the way down to the mom and pop stores) would be incentivized to run a node in order to accept Nano and be part of the Network. Correct? But hypothetically...if Stripe knows that Amazon is running a node, why would Stripe run its own node? And if Stripe isn't running a node, why would a smaller player want to participate? I'd love to understand this as it's my only missing gripe with Nano.
> Bitcoin's big invention is that miners are economically incentivized to work in the best interest of the network.
That sure is a powerful invention, but this does not mean decentralized networks cannot exist without it. Most are running fine without any financial incentive.
There are always incentives to aid the network simply by being a user.
If Nano can provide security with a different model, why would that be "dumb"?
Incentivization of miners creates a centralization force due to economies of scale effects.
Ironically, nanos approach is itself an improvement on bitcoin's approach to consensus. Bitcoins nakamoto coefficient has been bending toward centralization whereas Nano's is bending toward decentralization. Nano's level of decentralization depends on the weighted opinion of its holders.
Bitcoin is not capable of scaling upwards. If the price of bitcoin reaches 1 millions us dollar. How much do i need to pay for one single transaction or how many miners do i need to keep bitcoin alive?
Government tries to fight climate change and bitcoin destroys all hard earned energy reductions. The network needs more energy then a whole country (today). I don't want imaging how much energy it will consume in 10 years.
Nano throws that away and says people will invest to protect the network just because.
Genius? Nah, it's just dumb.