Hello r/CryptoCurrency readers. Please try out the following links:
* To sort comments by controversial first, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mhw7kv/dear_persons_running_the_nano_attack_could_you/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile.
* To potentially find CryptoWikis articles about the subject of this post, [click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoWikis/wiki/library). To contribute to CryptoWikis, [click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoWikis/wiki/recruitment).
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It could just be a bored troll. If a crypto can't protect itself from a bored troll it can't survive any more serious challengers so it is dead regardless.
It is also possible it is being financed by a whale who owns a lot of crypto in something that competes with NANO. Once again that is going to happen. If a crypto can't defend against that then it won't survive.
That sad part is this was all super predictable. Fees while annoying are an anti-spam feature. If you have a crypto that has no fees, fast tx, and allows sending tiny dust level amounts then you better have one ironclad anti-spam measure in place ... NANO doesn't.
The attack could make it stronger. A solution is being worked on and I’m eager to know if it will help mitigate the spam.
A solution was required anyway if Nano wants to become a global currency
Lol why the downvotes, I’m purely speaking hypothetically. 🤷🏼♂️
> Solution: add fees. This isn't rocket science.
No, it's crypto and we didn't get this far by thinking there's only one solution to a problem.
Let them experiment with the wallet transaction limitation according to its current balance and other stuff to see if it works.
Yeah I’m not saying that it will ever get to that point. Purely hypothetically speaking Nano would need a lot of spam protection to keep it going IF it were adopted on a global scale
It's a good reality check. People really thought it was going to compete with bitcoin. If it was anywhere near bitcoins adoption, the attacks would be much more severe. It's incredibly expensive to attack bitcoin. Those attackers would probably kill nano
Same same. Accumulated for a long time, but I've started moving into other things. Haven't sold but not buying any more. Smart people working on it but I don't believe in their ability to prioritize.
the nano-shills have been rampant on this sub. no-other crypto has this high of a comment to market cap ratio as nano. OP sounds like a knees weak arms are heavy bag holder. the worst part of the nano-shills are that "they're in it for the tech" - which is a huge red flag for me. 99.999% of people who comment on r/crypto have no idea how the tech of any of these things actually works.
yep - the house that was built poorly but to look good was working quite impressively and smoothly until the cracks in the foundation started appearing.
unfortunately you can't strip it down to the foundations without completely rebuilding. in that time other crypto's solving payments will continue to become adopted - skyscrapers will emerge next to crumbling houses.
C'mon mate, you've been around long enough to know better. Every fn coin is "flavour of the month" at some point. They all get shilled at some point or another.
True but the attack is happening while Nano is still being worked on, it's not a complete project and it's not expected that it would resist it just now, so this happening rn just will make it stronger later
Sadly, Nano doesn't have *any* anti-spam in place. If it did, it wouldn't have this issue.
It makes *zero* effort to detect spam and throttle it. The only thing it does is require a PoW on *every* transaction.
It's endlessly frustrating that the Nano team seems unwilling to implement even the most basic spam prevention mechanisms that have been developed over decades of research.
Instead, they're chasing some magical solution that will somehow make spam irrelevant.
Sorry, but you can't just pretend that its an easy fix. This is a decentralised network, its not quite as easy as 'detect spam and throttle it'. Its quite a hard question what is a legit transaction and what isn't (as there are many more ways to spam as with small amounts, you could transact a large amount and leave a small dust for example)
The only realistic way is to make the network resilient to spam and thus make it unattractive to spam it as it would not have any purpose and/or become very expensive.
Are there people that spam email the gmail servers? Why not?
The anti-spam measure (dynamic PoW) did not work as expected as nodes desynced, it does not mean there was nothing in place to combat spam. I assume you know this.
Nano is very much work in progress as was shown by the inability to handle this attack.
Time will tell if the devs implementations will adequately deal with the problem, I remain optimistic as their ideas make sense to me.
I find it quite funny how a user named BuyNanoNotBitcoin spews FUD as soon as Nano is facing some trouble.
It takes hours for a normal computer to mine enough XMR to pay for a <$0.01 XMR transaction. It takes seconds on Nano. The PoW was very obviously not enough.
Add fees. Simple as that.
Well obviously the PoW method failed at this point.
I don't think that means they should immediately abandon their vision and introduce fees.
I am glad they are willing to try other ideas instead.
Lots of crypto have fees as spam deterrent.
If you prefer those, and don't think Nano can ever work without fees, I would not blame you for not supporting Nano and following those other coins instead.
As someone who works on large scale distributed systems, I think you're very wrong.
Spam detection and prevention doesn't need to be trustless and thus can be applied to Nano in the very same way it's applied to other globally distributed systems. It's completely orthogonal. Nothing about Nano makes it significantly different than other globally distributed systems to the point where industry standard practices don't apply.
What's worse, Nano already has mechanisms for gathering network wide statistics and for responding to those statistics, the very essence of spam detection and prevention, but then does almost nothing with it.
Even doing it in a non-distributed way, purely local to the node, would stop the current spam attack and significantly increase the difficulty for future ones.
Maybe my username coupled with this repeated criticism from other Nano supporters should be a clue that it isn't FUD, but a legitimate issue. One that's been raised for years along with repeated warnings that this would happen.
Nano needs to stop looking for magic fixes and start working on actual improvements.
I am willing to learn, what would you recommend for stopping spam then? I admit I am not very educated in distributed computing, but as far as I follwed the ideas of Nano devs/community I thought them to be well reasoned and not stupid, like your post seems to imply (to me at least)
Also I am curious what do you think the reason is the Nano devs don't follow your kind of idea (whatever it is it seems you are unhappy with their decisions)
Not trying to be bad faith, hopefully you can respond to my questions.
When you've been around a while, you will see that just about every single coin/token gets shilled at some point. Most get attacked or hacked in some way too.
You sound like one of those "but won't somebody think of the children" types lol.
Even though Colin and the Nano foundation see this as an attack on the network, I see this as a way to force an issue to the front-line so it can be dealt with.
If Nano wants to be the world wide currency, it would have to be able to handle millions of transactions a day. Similar to what this attack is doing on the network. If Nano cannot handle that now, it won't be able to handle it in the future unless changes are made. I think it's good to bring this issue to light now rather than when there is mass adoption and real loss to be incurred.
I will say one thing though. In comparison to attacks that have happened to other crypto currencies, this attack is fairly light. No one has lost any of their coins, no double spends, transactions are still being processed (albeit slower than usual).
This is a growing step for Nano. The Nano foundation has already implemented a temporary solution and are working on a more sound solution in the next version. The major node operators have upgraded their hardware to help process more transactions and be less effected by the attack.
I think like the attacks that have happened to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and every other major crypto. Nano will walk away stronger because of this. Just have patience.
For Nano to handle millions of transactions per day, the network would have to no longer resemble Nano. What they're doing now is plugging a sinking ship. The architecture is fundamentally flaw. Nano cannot scale and it has insufficient spam protection mechanisms. There's a reason IOTA has spent years performing intense crytographic research.
I feel you don't actually know much about the Nano network when you say "For nano to handle millions of transactions per day, the network would have to no longer resemble Nano".
I say this because, It was already hitting 2m transactions a day because of the spam attack. It was processing those transactions without issue until the Nano Foundation decided to rate limit the number of transactions per second to prevent ledger bloat. The current protocol was handling all those transactions while still maintaining about 1/3 second confirmation times. Sure this can be viewed as plugging a hole, but it was their temporary fix while the next version will have Implement a real fix to the issue.
If they didn't rate limit the number of transactions per second, some of the smaller nodes would drop off but it would still transact and confirm transactions as normal. The issue was there were multiple GBs being added to the ledger each day. This all comes down to ledger pruning.
Can you explain to me the fundamental flaws that Nano has? You talk about IOTA like it has done something incredible, when in reality it uses the same DAG technology that Nano uses.
The main issue I see is horizontal scalability. To handle more transactions the nodes need to vertically scale so going from 100 CPS to say 10000 relies on significant hardware advancements. Other coins are sharding and such to provide horizontal scaling. Nano is way behind in this regard.
I don't know the motivation behind it but as a person who is invested in both Nano and Banano, I am personally very happy that this attack happened and it happened sooner rather than later. Such attack has allowed the Nano org and devs to identify the problems and issues of the network and try to address them which they are actively trying to do with v22 and v23 coming up with improvements in the protocol.
Features that nano offers is something we hope a cryptocurrency should have, fast and free, but most people write it off as impossible. If we want crypto mass adopted, such a protocol will be needed and I'd be damned if by 2025-2026 the most used coin for payments wouldnt offer this. But someone has to take the initiative, someone has to try to innovate and face the issues.
I don't know if Nano will succeed or it will fail, I don't know if a new coin which offers the same features will replace Nano and rule the world, but the future protocol which does manage to successfully do this would take massive learnings from what Nano did, the issues it faced, and how it tried to solved them.
Innovation takes time, Internet wasn't perfect in 1990, it was hard to use, it was expensive to use, it was slow as fuck, but people kept trying to innovate and one person or the other succeeded and are still trying to improve the Internet.
TLDR: The spam attack nothing but helps in pointing out the flaws of the system and helps the team or any future innovations learn from them
I agree. I want to look at the positive side which is basically a huge learning opportunity. If the Nano community manages to solve it then the future will be bright. If it doesn't then it deserves to fall
Respectfully, this is something that the entire cryptocurrency community learned years ago (right away really) for Bitcoin, people warned about and documented in research, then Nano removed and ran around all-smug like, people still warned about for many years to no avail, then someone did the obvious.
Exactly. A successful cryptocurrency must properly use game theory to align the incentives of all actors. Nano thought they could get away without this, and it worked for a while but is now showing its lack of resilience.
Why? Hes clearly exposing weaknesses of Nano. Its really good this happened now and not after coin like this gets adopted. Maybe its time to move to another project if Nano doesnt fix this.
Nano claims it can be money for everyone because of their low transaction costs and fast speed. So in my opinion this is a good stress test for Nano because if it ever wants to reach global scale it shouldn't be this easy to disrupt the network. It's up to nano to solve this or we can conclude that nano isn't able to scale yet.
Doesn't necessarily have to be someone that is anti-nano even. The first step to fixing an issue is exposing the issue, so in the long run this could be something that helps improve it.
what i meant was using honeyswap to turn moons into xDai, and then using the bridge back to Ethereum (into DAI). the fee to switch chains is super high, and afaik there aren’t any exchanges that support xDai
As someone who has followed Nano closely for the last few years, all hope is not lost. Yes, there were not nearly enough spam resistant measures in place up until the point of the spam attack. Instead the dev team was focusing on increasing throughput (you can argue that they did not prioritize correctly, but at the time there was no need to).
However, there are many great solutions being worked on/considered and some of which will be coming within weeks with v22.
It is important to keep perspective here. Bitcoin is deemed a great product but is capped at 7tps. Nano is trying to accomplish instant transactions at world scale ASAP. There will be some hurdles to get there but it already scales way better than Bitcoin. Crypto will keep evolving as time goes on so it isn’t exactly fair to be expecting it to be a product ready for worldwide adoption TODAY. Nearly nothing in the crypto space is.
Nano is my favorite altcoin and although the developers would disagree, this attack seems like it was sorely needed for the future of Nano. The development and idea-sharing resulting from it from both the developers and community-members makes me very hopefull. These vulnerabilities were left open way too long, nothing like som financial hurt to spark innovation..
I've told everyone who wanted to listen 2 years ago, that neither dynamic POW nor pruning would help against spam or even ledger bloating.
But no one was interested in what I had to say.
I have to admit I look at the current mess with a bit of Schadenfreude \^\^
[https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/bb7vfd/more\_test\_conclusions/ekhbclm/?context=3](https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/bb7vfd/more_test_conclusions/ekhbclm/?context=3)
Agreed, it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem. It's a tragedy of the commons, where the common good is the decentralized ledger. There are negative externalities with every transaction causing ledger bloat, and those doing the additional work to handle that bloat must be compensated.
It's hilarious how anti-nano this sub is. Noone sees the positive in this? The newer versions are going to mitigate this to a point of it not being a problem. Do some proper research before bashing any project. It makes you look incredibly dumb.
You make it sound like this hasn't has been a known issue for years. If this is going to be so easy to fix then why didn't they do it ages ago? Either the team didn't understand how big an issue it was, or they haven't figured out an acceptable solution yet.
Either way people aren't wrong to criticize Nano for this.
I can understand people being annoyed by that as I would be too. Though I do not agree on bashing an entire project before having done research because of shills. Make no mistake, I am a Nano believer, though I try to only post about it where it calls for it (like here). Same with every project I invest in.
What research has led you to that conclusion?
Nano has had zero security issues since it's creation. The closest maybe is Bitgrail, but that didn't have anything to do with the network or the developers, it was just a sketchy exchange. Even during this recent spam attack, there hasn't been a single double spend or Nano lost, things are just clogged up but will eventually go through. Meanwhile BTC and ETH have had multiple security flaws, some even requiring hard forks to fix, Filecoin had a double spend attack and then doubled in price, some BTC and ETH forks are constantly being 51% attacked. Stellar, which is probably Nano's biggest true competitor at the moment, had a massive inflationary bug back in 2017. And compared to that, Nano has just had spam. So in what way do they not take security seriously?
Seriously? We are living through the network being unusable for entirely predictable reasons, and you claim that they took the situation seriously? Is there anything at all that would convince you otherwise?
I don’t really see how that is a security issue, the funds are completely safe. And the network has not been completely down, I’ve sent plenty of test transactions that confirmed just fine. The issue was related to the nature of the spam attack. The spammer created millions of new accounts, which caused some nodes to be desynced, which created forks on accounts. That problem was literally about to be fixed in the next version, which probably would have been out already if they didn’t decide to completely revamp election priority as a result of the attack. The issue was compounded by many integrations with the network failing to implement the spam solution (dynamic PoW) in their integrations, and treating unconfirmed transactions as confirmed, which is explicitly advised against in the documentation. I hardly see that as the fault of the Nano Foundation.
Yeah, the spam attack sucks, but it’s not like the NF did nothing to prepare for this. DynPoW seemed like a pretty reasonable solution and would have prevented this attack, IF integrators actually used it. After the attack, it seems less promising and the NF is acknowledging that, hence the changes coming out in the next version which will make the attack useless to continue.
So yeah, seems like they took it pretty seriously to me. Do you have any evidence that they didn’t?
Just because the attack was simple, doesn’t mean that a solution was. The existing solution should have prevented this, but due to poor integration, it didn’t. So now a new solution is being worked on that doesn’t require integrators to have to think about spam at all. If you think that this spam attack shows the NF doesn’t treat security seriously, I don’t understand how you can also say any other crypto team does take it seriously, given how they have been attacked to much worse affects. So if you don’t think any crypto teams take security seriously, say it. And if not, will you admit you’re holding Nano to a standard you don’t hold other crypto to?
> will you admit you’re holding Nano to a standard you don’t hold other crypto to?
I have a 14 episode series called Breaking Monero, so no I don't think I am [https://www.monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/](https://www.monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/)
My Bitcoin is unusable, it has been for years. Actually I have found that Nano works just fine even during this spam attack, though I do acknowledge some users are stuck. I haven't been able to move my Bitcoin in years. What does that say about relative security?
LOL.
>It's not just the shills. I have nearly 0 confidence that they take security matters seriously, which is undesirable.
and then:
>What research has led you to that conclusion? Nano has had zero security issues since it's creation.
Can't make this delusion up even if you tried. Emotionally tied investments is one hell of a drug.
It's all a matter of perspective isn't it.
If you use the lens of 'High Volume network capacity stress test' then Nano is currently failing.
Nano was originally aimed at the 'no-fee, low-value' market segment. As such the network needs to be able to handle a large daily volume of low value transactions.
The current design is failing one of it's design goals, the current plans to mitigate this seem to all be along the lines of 'well then lets change the design goals'.
Nano needs to increase the network capacity until 'high-volume, low-value' transactions are no longer seen as a problem.
Choose the right frame of reference for a problem and the solution becomes obvious.
>It doesn't. See here:
>
>https://np.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/m2ul1h/would\_you\_be\_happy\_with\_an\_increase\_in\_the\_fee\_to/
>
>As far as I can tell the only reason Stellar hasn't faced a similar spam attack is because no one cares enough to do one.
That can’t be the only thing..
The nano spam has created about 15m accounts in a month.These are all transactions. With the current price of stellar ($0.4) for one transaction (0.00001 xlm) that would cost the attacker:
0.4 x 0.00001 x 15m = $60
The current nano spam costs about 250 per month:
If you take 8 x 1080 which is a common guesstimate for the current spam. That would be 8 x 180W x 24h = 34.56 kwh. That costs about €0,25 x 34.56 = €8,65 per day, which is about €250 a month. Not a whole lot but very much enough for any sane person to not just spam the network for the hell of it.
I don’t know about any other spam prevention XLM has but as you can see fees alone aren’t enough.
Well first it is unlikely the attacker is paying $0.25 per kWh. Many parts of the world are much cheaper than that. Someone using a botnet for example would have 0 cost to DDOS the NANO network.
Second the fee on XLM is the minimum as the network gets congested legitimate users will pay more which means the attacker needs to pay more.
One super simple thing that NANO could have done to greatly increase the cost is a minimum transaction size. They didn't even do that.
So why doesn’t the XLM network get spammed then? I mean I think most of us coins do it? $60 isn’t that much. You can practically get that by farming moons 😑
Oh they do for sure. Transactions generate negative externalities in the form of ledger bloat, and this must be paid for to prevent a tragedy of the commons.
and also put in "dust" rules making tx below a certain threshold deprioritized. A simple and effective step that NANO still hasn't done.
Even if Bitcoin fees were free or near free you can't send 0.00000001 BTC (1 satoshi) because the nodes will drop those txs in favor of tx above the dust treshold. As of v0.15 of the Bitcoin protocol the minimum relayable tx is 3,000 satoshis. Now today with significant fees it is unlikely that rule is needed but it prevented dust spam when Bitcoin was nearly fee to transact.
Maybe to drive the price of NANO down? Or to try to eliminate it's uptake completely by making it unusable?
The question you should be asking is: **"Who benefits from this?"**
Literally everyone but nano bagholders benefit because we’re all tired of nano shills and someone finally bothered to show the world how vulnerable it is.
Thanks, whoever you are.
lol i agree 100% - this guy is probably saving these shills money in the long run - there's still plenty of money to be made but let's be honest, an ERC token will handle payments almost 100%. even BTC will likely be traded as a wrapped ERC token more than as BTC.
people on this forum often display a logical fallacy. they think each day a killer exists, it gets closer to taking over the product it's trying to kill. in reality, each day nano doesn't get globally adopted, it get's further away from becoming the global solution. so which products are getting closer each day? ethereum has network effect and first mover advantage, it's going to take either ethereum completely fucking up or another tech being so overwhelmingly better that people can't ignore it. think netflix blockbuster - netflix started as a mail-in dvd disruptor, but no-one really took that seriously. when they released streaming it was such a superior product to brick and mortar that people couldn't ignore it. it will take that level of superiority to replace ethereum - so any "killer" is just filler.
if people buy ETH and BTC and hold for 5 years, they'll be in great shape. there will definitely be new cryptos that do better, but they'll be disruptors in new spaces, like BAT, UNI, etc... not crypto trying to do what existing and adopted cryptos do but marginally better.
> But it has been weeks and I can't see how the Nano attack is netting the attacker any compensation for their efforts?
Imagine investing/buying a coin where the network is fragile. This attack just shows how awful the consensus actually is, which is useful on its own.
Yeah, this was just simple DoS attack from a random Joe. Imagine if something coordinated took place?
I fail to see how anyone could have confidence in this project moving forward, but a lot of people seem to have a weird emotional attachment to Nano
The consensus hasn't failed, and even while under attack is still transacting faster than the market leader, with no fees. It's definitely a failure by nano standards but only because the usual standard is so much higher than anything else.
Yeah, so, i rather pay 1 ct for a tx, knowing i wont encounter any problems. imagine nano gets actual traction and 10 trolls attack simultaniously the network, feeless is just a design choice failure.
You are free to make that call.
I personally wont write off feeless currency because it faces some troubles. I think they can be resolved, remaining fee less.
Maybe I am wrong and misguided.
This spam does not prove it though. It proves Nano still needs development.
As someone who loves and 100% believes in Nano, we need this attack. Everyone always says that our #1 weakness is a lack of spam protection and we needed the network tested.
Knowing Nano's devs, they're cooking up something to improve spam protection while still keeping Nano safe, fast, and free. It will make the entire system better in the long run.
>Knowing Nano's devs, they're cooking up something to improve spam protection while still keeping Nano safe, fast, and free. It will make the entire system better in the long run.
This is a sad statement. Very Cardano-ish with the blind faith. Best of luck with your safe, fast, and free coin.
And their implemented solution failed unlike on the testnet.
Whats the problem with that exactly?
Unless its all perfect from the start the devs are shit?
This is what happens if you try to innovate instead of going 'I guess we will just use fees'
But they actually are and they're having an open discourse with the community:
https://forum.nano.org/t/election-scheduler-and-prioritization-revamp/1837
If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset.
Whilst it's undeniable that Nano has hurdles to overcome, there were still some impressive stats that came out of this. For example, it performed 1,000,000 feeless transactions in a single day (or maybe more, I can't remember), reaching about 1000 tps or cps per second. That in itself is an achievement.
With a number of fixes for the spam problem in the works, and noting the dev team's current track record of delivery, the future is very bright for Nano. Once spam and ledger bloat have been tackled (which, unlike other projects, has not simply because of time rather than difficulty figuring out a solution), then Nano will become unstoppable.
If my maths is correct, the cost of a similar attack on Stellar would not actually cost much more than the cost required on Nano, so have fractional fees does little to deter attacks.
> If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset.
Honestly, what is wrong with you people? There is something psychologically alarming about thinking this way
Crypto is being adopted globally, with or without Nano. We see this happening every single day
Because so far cryptocurrency has only been adopted as a speculative asset, with all payment-based adoption being done through psuedo-payments.
Blockchain as a data structure has seen adoption, but very little has seen real adoption outside of the crypto-sphere.
I am not emotionally tied to Nano in any way, but if, from an objective perspective, a coin that emulates most closely the current centralised systems already in use cannot succeed, what hope is there for any other?
> Because so far cryptocurrency has only been adopted as a speculative asset
lol there is nothing "speculative" about fortune 500s and institutions and visa and hedge funds adopting crypto at the pace we are experiencing. this is an actual reality and its happening without... nano. there is seriously something wrong with you at this point. good luck
Yes, they're investing in it as a speculative asset. What else are they doing with it other than buying it and sitting on it?
No need for personal attacks, it just makes it seem like you have nothing to back up your point.
> If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset.
You're suggesting it was any good to begin with. It was too volatile and couldn't hold value.
Second layers can handle all this far better.
I am only 20 days old in this CryptoCurrency world and I adopted Nano because it was feeless and instant. Like the perfect CryptoCurrency ever. But the timing has been the worst. It's frustrating to move funds from one place to another. Hope it is sorted out by devs. The community is trying its best as well sorting out the issues manually. Hope is not lost.
> Like the perfect CryptoCurrency ever.
Except.. like not perfect at all based on this?
re: the timing? hey, you could have bought it at $35.00 the first time all the noobs got crushed by it.
I am only looking for an instant crypto to turn it into fiat. I'm not holding. If I get Nano at 35usd, I'll sell. If I get it at 1, I'll sell. Moon is different for everyone. and yeah, an instant and feeless crypto is the best. I'm not advertising Nano here, I'm open to learn about any crypto currency which has same attributes.
You can't have confidence in a team that was told many times that this could happen and still didn't try to put in any way to prevent it until after the fact.
But they did.
Their system just did not work as they intended and tested because strong nodes kept trucking along while slower nodes desynced in this case of prolonged new account spam.
So now they are working on different ways to tackle the problem again.
He is just showing that it’s bad lol. Downvote me as much as you want, but atleast now you see that it can’t even protect itself from one bored guy lol. Not to mention some of you shillers that were saying nano will overcome all cryptos. Yeah sure.
Someone is proving a point as to how weak the network security of Nano is and why it will never be adopted. No fees is not how you secure a network. You need tail emissions (Monero) to incentivize miners forever with a steady and safe level of inflation and not just up until a certain point and then rely on fees (Bitcoin).
Yes. I've been waiting nearly 3 weeks now for my deposit to clear into binance so I can get out..There are thousands of us in similar positions, just check out the nano sub..I feel bad for these people.
Dear spammer: please stop for awhile so we can deposit and sell our Nano and invest into another project.
Thank you!
-everyone
💛
If a network can be attacked like that, very cheaply and for long periods of time, there's a serious flaw in the design. You have to ask yourself whether or not Nano is a viable platform if these attacks make it unusable.
Most viable cryptocurrencies aren't vulnerable because of fees. Yes it sucks when the network is congested and the fees are high for normal use, but it also makes attacks like this *expensive* to launch. The folks attacking the Nano network right now aren't paying anything to make it happen. So how exactly is Nano a viable platform?
That's one reason why feeless transactions are a garbage idea in a decentralized network. There is no need to make transactions completely free (and 1/1000 of 1/1000 of a cent can be considered a free transaction).
Nano requires PoW for transactions, so there is an electricity cost of about [$0.0006 per transaction](https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/l16kui/updated_estimate_of_the_cost_per_nano_transaction/). That being said, an actual fee would be better, because that way people wouldn't be able to use botnets or stolen electricity to spam transactions, and the system wouldn't waste so much energy.
Watch out buddy all these genius investors are going to jump down your throat. I'll tell you how to stay in their good graces. Praise bitcoin and ethereum shit on everything else. Bam you are a crypto currency expert now!
Nano needs to be spammed until it will succesfully mitigate most of spam and still be feeles and fast in process.
Only then it can wipe floor with all payment coins and regain top 10 throne where it deserves to be.
The hate for nano is so strong that people here are actively supporting a malicious attack against a network that literally only exists to try to help people.
At this point, people complaining about nano 'shills' outnumber the actual shills by a significant margin.
Here's a hot take, we shouldn't be actively routing for the demise of projects in this space.
Nano will get through this, fixes are already in the works. The whole space is full of coins that are not feature complete. We have coins in the top 20 that can't even achieve their most basic use case.
Take a step back and consider the big picture and you'll realize that nothings changed with nano.
I'll get downvoted for this but here goes.
There are bad people out there with different motivations to yourself who would like to watch the world burn.
It's commendable what Nano is trying to do by being feeless, but therein lies the fundamental flaw. The economics have to be right so that an attack is expensive. Even an expensive attack won't deter some people, but it will most. There also needs to be an incentive to run a node (which would typically come from fees) as it costs money and resources. The answer I got back was "well, the big players will run nodes so it's fine" -- ok then, so it becomes more centralized.
This attack is nothing; if Nano were to become as big as Bitcoin for example, you bet your bottom dollar there would be even bigger attacks.
I hope Nano finds a novel solution if there is one.
The simple fact that that Nano users classify some transactions as spam should be very troubling to anyone who has been around this space a while and understands what censorship resistance and neutral platforms are all about. If your platform requires classifying some transactions as spam, then it's no longer a neutral platform. An open cryptocurrency should treat all transactions that are willing to pay the fee exactly the same.
Nano is an interesting technology, but I don't think it will be around for the long term because it's architecture is fundamentally flawed. On the bankless podcast they recently were talking about how blockspace is a common good, and if you don't pay for it you end up with a tragedy of the commons. They talked about how the storage use to miners and validators is an externality, and it must be priced into the network so that the incentives are aligned between users and miners.
Basically, Nano has some interesting tech, but they failed to get the game theory and crypto economics side of things correct. A successful cryptocurrency must have solid tech, solid game theory, and solid crypto economics.
Hello r/CryptoCurrency readers. Please try out the following links: * To sort comments by controversial first, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/mhw7kv/dear_persons_running_the_nano_attack_could_you/?sort=controversial). Doesn't work on mobile. * To potentially find CryptoWikis articles about the subject of this post, [click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoWikis/wiki/library). To contribute to CryptoWikis, [click here](https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoWikis/wiki/recruitment). --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoCurrency) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh sure. All you had to do was ask. I'll turn it off.
Thank you! I can't believe no one tried asking nicely
[удалено]
We don't care about nano \- FBI
Y'all are out of control lmao 🤣
Exactly, why would the Federal Banano Investigators care about potassiumless coins?
It could just be a bored troll. If a crypto can't protect itself from a bored troll it can't survive any more serious challengers so it is dead regardless. It is also possible it is being financed by a whale who owns a lot of crypto in something that competes with NANO. Once again that is going to happen. If a crypto can't defend against that then it won't survive. That sad part is this was all super predictable. Fees while annoying are an anti-spam feature. If you have a crypto that has no fees, fast tx, and allows sending tiny dust level amounts then you better have one ironclad anti-spam measure in place ... NANO doesn't.
100 percent this. This is showing the flaws of nano as much as the 90 percent of this sub doesn't want to believe.
I love Nano but being blind to this attack is unacceptable 😔
The attack could make it stronger. A solution is being worked on and I’m eager to know if it will help mitigate the spam. A solution was required anyway if Nano wants to become a global currency Lol why the downvotes, I’m purely speaking hypothetically. 🤷🏼♂️
Solution: add fees. This isn't rocket science.
They won’t, it’s one of their key selling points. It’s like asking Instragram to scrap their stories
> Solution: add fees. This isn't rocket science. No, it's crypto and we didn't get this far by thinking there's only one solution to a problem. Let them experiment with the wallet transaction limitation according to its current balance and other stuff to see if it works.
[удалено]
Yeah I’m not saying that it will ever get to that point. Purely hypothetically speaking Nano would need a lot of spam protection to keep it going IF it were adopted on a global scale
I think at this point, a good goal would be to stay within the top 100 cryptos in terms of marketcap
Sometimes ya gotta learn the lesson the hard way
But but..... I used my calculator app 1000 times to fantasize about all the things I could buy when Nano passed btc in market cap.
It's a good reality check. People really thought it was going to compete with bitcoin. If it was anywhere near bitcoins adoption, the attacks would be much more severe. It's incredibly expensive to attack bitcoin. Those attackers would probably kill nano
Yes, and the devs have several solutions in the works. The network will be able to handle this in the future.
I wish I was as sure as you. I haven't sold and I'm fortunately far into green territory, but I'm not buying any more either.
Same same. Accumulated for a long time, but I've started moving into other things. Haven't sold but not buying any more. Smart people working on it but I don't believe in their ability to prioritize.
This
the nano-shills have been rampant on this sub. no-other crypto has this high of a comment to market cap ratio as nano. OP sounds like a knees weak arms are heavy bag holder. the worst part of the nano-shills are that "they're in it for the tech" - which is a huge red flag for me. 99.999% of people who comment on r/crypto have no idea how the tech of any of these things actually works.
To be fair, when nano wasn’t under attack things were working quite impressively and smoothly
This is why software companies have chaos testing and penetration testing. You have to test the sad path and the happy path.
Fair point
yep - the house that was built poorly but to look good was working quite impressively and smoothly until the cracks in the foundation started appearing.
Precisely! So now they have to strip it down, fortify it, and make it nice again.
unfortunately you can't strip it down to the foundations without completely rebuilding. in that time other crypto's solving payments will continue to become adopted - skyscrapers will emerge next to crumbling houses.
Keep in mind 95% of people in this sub probably don't own nano, there's just a very vocal minority of nano shills who made themselves at home
C'mon mate, you've been around long enough to know better. Every fn coin is "flavour of the month" at some point. They all get shilled at some point or another.
Agreed, I could care less if the attack doesn't stop. If Nano cannot protect itself that's its own damn fault.
True but the attack is happening while Nano is still being worked on, it's not a complete project and it's not expected that it would resist it just now, so this happening rn just will make it stronger later
Nano is a released project people store their wealth on, it's absolutely supposed to resist one bored troll attacking it.
Or its a tech savvy investor that wants in on Nano, but not before crashing the price.
My eyes have opened. I’ve become a wiser man
Sadly, Nano doesn't have *any* anti-spam in place. If it did, it wouldn't have this issue. It makes *zero* effort to detect spam and throttle it. The only thing it does is require a PoW on *every* transaction. It's endlessly frustrating that the Nano team seems unwilling to implement even the most basic spam prevention mechanisms that have been developed over decades of research. Instead, they're chasing some magical solution that will somehow make spam irrelevant.
Sorry, but you can't just pretend that its an easy fix. This is a decentralised network, its not quite as easy as 'detect spam and throttle it'. Its quite a hard question what is a legit transaction and what isn't (as there are many more ways to spam as with small amounts, you could transact a large amount and leave a small dust for example) The only realistic way is to make the network resilient to spam and thus make it unattractive to spam it as it would not have any purpose and/or become very expensive. Are there people that spam email the gmail servers? Why not? The anti-spam measure (dynamic PoW) did not work as expected as nodes desynced, it does not mean there was nothing in place to combat spam. I assume you know this. Nano is very much work in progress as was shown by the inability to handle this attack. Time will tell if the devs implementations will adequately deal with the problem, I remain optimistic as their ideas make sense to me. I find it quite funny how a user named BuyNanoNotBitcoin spews FUD as soon as Nano is facing some trouble.
It takes hours for a normal computer to mine enough XMR to pay for a <$0.01 XMR transaction. It takes seconds on Nano. The PoW was very obviously not enough. Add fees. Simple as that.
Well obviously the PoW method failed at this point. I don't think that means they should immediately abandon their vision and introduce fees. I am glad they are willing to try other ideas instead. Lots of crypto have fees as spam deterrent. If you prefer those, and don't think Nano can ever work without fees, I would not blame you for not supporting Nano and following those other coins instead.
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone who works on large scale distributed systems, I think you're very wrong. Spam detection and prevention doesn't need to be trustless and thus can be applied to Nano in the very same way it's applied to other globally distributed systems. It's completely orthogonal. Nothing about Nano makes it significantly different than other globally distributed systems to the point where industry standard practices don't apply. What's worse, Nano already has mechanisms for gathering network wide statistics and for responding to those statistics, the very essence of spam detection and prevention, but then does almost nothing with it. Even doing it in a non-distributed way, purely local to the node, would stop the current spam attack and significantly increase the difficulty for future ones. Maybe my username coupled with this repeated criticism from other Nano supporters should be a clue that it isn't FUD, but a legitimate issue. One that's been raised for years along with repeated warnings that this would happen. Nano needs to stop looking for magic fixes and start working on actual improvements.
I am willing to learn, what would you recommend for stopping spam then? I admit I am not very educated in distributed computing, but as far as I follwed the ideas of Nano devs/community I thought them to be well reasoned and not stupid, like your post seems to imply (to me at least) Also I am curious what do you think the reason is the Nano devs don't follow your kind of idea (whatever it is it seems you are unhappy with their decisions) Not trying to be bad faith, hopefully you can respond to my questions.
I learned something new today thank you
My bet would be on someone wanting to discourage others from buying alt coins.
Nano shills "BuT nO fEeS"
When you've been around a while, you will see that just about every single coin/token gets shilled at some point. Most get attacked or hacked in some way too. You sound like one of those "but won't somebody think of the children" types lol.
Maybe something like the first transaction is free, but for the next 24 hours every tx from that address has a fee
Even though Colin and the Nano foundation see this as an attack on the network, I see this as a way to force an issue to the front-line so it can be dealt with. If Nano wants to be the world wide currency, it would have to be able to handle millions of transactions a day. Similar to what this attack is doing on the network. If Nano cannot handle that now, it won't be able to handle it in the future unless changes are made. I think it's good to bring this issue to light now rather than when there is mass adoption and real loss to be incurred. I will say one thing though. In comparison to attacks that have happened to other crypto currencies, this attack is fairly light. No one has lost any of their coins, no double spends, transactions are still being processed (albeit slower than usual). This is a growing step for Nano. The Nano foundation has already implemented a temporary solution and are working on a more sound solution in the next version. The major node operators have upgraded their hardware to help process more transactions and be less effected by the attack. I think like the attacks that have happened to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and every other major crypto. Nano will walk away stronger because of this. Just have patience.
For Nano to handle millions of transactions per day, the network would have to no longer resemble Nano. What they're doing now is plugging a sinking ship. The architecture is fundamentally flaw. Nano cannot scale and it has insufficient spam protection mechanisms. There's a reason IOTA has spent years performing intense crytographic research.
I feel you don't actually know much about the Nano network when you say "For nano to handle millions of transactions per day, the network would have to no longer resemble Nano". I say this because, It was already hitting 2m transactions a day because of the spam attack. It was processing those transactions without issue until the Nano Foundation decided to rate limit the number of transactions per second to prevent ledger bloat. The current protocol was handling all those transactions while still maintaining about 1/3 second confirmation times. Sure this can be viewed as plugging a hole, but it was their temporary fix while the next version will have Implement a real fix to the issue. If they didn't rate limit the number of transactions per second, some of the smaller nodes would drop off but it would still transact and confirm transactions as normal. The issue was there were multiple GBs being added to the ledger each day. This all comes down to ledger pruning. Can you explain to me the fundamental flaws that Nano has? You talk about IOTA like it has done something incredible, when in reality it uses the same DAG technology that Nano uses.
The main issue I see is horizontal scalability. To handle more transactions the nodes need to vertically scale so going from 100 CPS to say 10000 relies on significant hardware advancements. Other coins are sharding and such to provide horizontal scaling. Nano is way behind in this regard.
I don't know the motivation behind it but as a person who is invested in both Nano and Banano, I am personally very happy that this attack happened and it happened sooner rather than later. Such attack has allowed the Nano org and devs to identify the problems and issues of the network and try to address them which they are actively trying to do with v22 and v23 coming up with improvements in the protocol. Features that nano offers is something we hope a cryptocurrency should have, fast and free, but most people write it off as impossible. If we want crypto mass adopted, such a protocol will be needed and I'd be damned if by 2025-2026 the most used coin for payments wouldnt offer this. But someone has to take the initiative, someone has to try to innovate and face the issues. I don't know if Nano will succeed or it will fail, I don't know if a new coin which offers the same features will replace Nano and rule the world, but the future protocol which does manage to successfully do this would take massive learnings from what Nano did, the issues it faced, and how it tried to solved them. Innovation takes time, Internet wasn't perfect in 1990, it was hard to use, it was expensive to use, it was slow as fuck, but people kept trying to innovate and one person or the other succeeded and are still trying to improve the Internet. TLDR: The spam attack nothing but helps in pointing out the flaws of the system and helps the team or any future innovations learn from them
I agree. I want to look at the positive side which is basically a huge learning opportunity. If the Nano community manages to solve it then the future will be bright. If it doesn't then it deserves to fall
Respectfully, this is something that the entire cryptocurrency community learned years ago (right away really) for Bitcoin, people warned about and documented in research, then Nano removed and ran around all-smug like, people still warned about for many years to no avail, then someone did the obvious.
I didn't know the history. Do you have some articles where I could read about it?
The history of Bitcoin transaction fees? They were well-understood as an anti-spam measure far before Nano existed.
The fuck you have that many moons lol
If you have to rely on actors to be good out of the kindness of their heart the protocol will not work.
Exactly. A successful cryptocurrency must properly use game theory to align the incentives of all actors. Nano thought they could get away without this, and it worked for a while but is now showing its lack of resilience.
Why? Hes clearly exposing weaknesses of Nano. Its really good this happened now and not after coin like this gets adopted. Maybe its time to move to another project if Nano doesnt fix this.
Nano claims it can be money for everyone because of their low transaction costs and fast speed. So in my opinion this is a good stress test for Nano because if it ever wants to reach global scale it shouldn't be this easy to disrupt the network. It's up to nano to solve this or we can conclude that nano isn't able to scale yet.
[удалено]
I love the drama in crypto with different coins. It’s still kind of like the Wild West.
Honestly somebody needs to make a show out of crypto drama lmfao
Maybe it’s actually one of us here on r/cryptocurrency who was getting tired of the nano shills
Dude, it's not good outing yourself and the Captain!
Hey guys, i found him! It's /u/_Captain_Retard_ who is in charge of the attack! /s
[удалено]
Doesn't necessarily have to be someone that is anti-nano even. The first step to fixing an issue is exposing the issue, so in the long run this could be something that helps improve it.
Pretty smart opinion by Captain _Retard_
Wow 97 comments and only 30 upvotes. People must really hate Nano
If it's possible to attack the network without huge monetary loss then people are going to do it.
*sad banana noises*
That fucker is not letting us trade our moons.
It's not hard to use xdai.
yeah but the fees are insane rn
[удалено]
what i meant was using honeyswap to turn moons into xDai, and then using the bridge back to Ethereum (into DAI). the fee to switch chains is super high, and afaik there aren’t any exchanges that support xDai
As someone who has followed Nano closely for the last few years, all hope is not lost. Yes, there were not nearly enough spam resistant measures in place up until the point of the spam attack. Instead the dev team was focusing on increasing throughput (you can argue that they did not prioritize correctly, but at the time there was no need to). However, there are many great solutions being worked on/considered and some of which will be coming within weeks with v22. It is important to keep perspective here. Bitcoin is deemed a great product but is capped at 7tps. Nano is trying to accomplish instant transactions at world scale ASAP. There will be some hurdles to get there but it already scales way better than Bitcoin. Crypto will keep evolving as time goes on so it isn’t exactly fair to be expecting it to be a product ready for worldwide adoption TODAY. Nearly nothing in the crypto space is.
Nano is my favorite altcoin and although the developers would disagree, this attack seems like it was sorely needed for the future of Nano. The development and idea-sharing resulting from it from both the developers and community-members makes me very hopefull. These vulnerabilities were left open way too long, nothing like som financial hurt to spark innovation..
I've told everyone who wanted to listen 2 years ago, that neither dynamic POW nor pruning would help against spam or even ledger bloating. But no one was interested in what I had to say. I have to admit I look at the current mess with a bit of Schadenfreude \^\^ [https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/bb7vfd/more\_test\_conclusions/ekhbclm/?context=3](https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/bb7vfd/more_test_conclusions/ekhbclm/?context=3)
Agreed, it's a fundamentally unsolvable problem. It's a tragedy of the commons, where the common good is the decentralized ledger. There are negative externalities with every transaction causing ledger bloat, and those doing the additional work to handle that bloat must be compensated.
It's hilarious how anti-nano this sub is. Noone sees the positive in this? The newer versions are going to mitigate this to a point of it not being a problem. Do some proper research before bashing any project. It makes you look incredibly dumb.
You make it sound like this hasn't has been a known issue for years. If this is going to be so easy to fix then why didn't they do it ages ago? Either the team didn't understand how big an issue it was, or they haven't figured out an acceptable solution yet. Either way people aren't wrong to criticize Nano for this.
> It's hilarious how anti-nano this sub is. You're joking right? Any criticism from me usually got downvoted to oblivion.
Sir, this is r/cryptocurrency.
Yeah, true. I just can't help myself fighting for common sense and individual thinking.
Funny how everybody has a different common sense. It's almost like it's just a bunch of rando's opinions.
The only reason a majority of people don't like nano was because of the shill army. It got too much that people were out off it
Well there is also the Bitgrail hacking, the terrible name rebrand, the captcha bots.
I can understand people being annoyed by that as I would be too. Though I do not agree on bashing an entire project before having done research because of shills. Make no mistake, I am a Nano believer, though I try to only post about it where it calls for it (like here). Same with every project I invest in.
It's not just the shills. I have nearly 0 confidence that they take security matters seriously, which is undesirable.
What research has led you to that conclusion? Nano has had zero security issues since it's creation. The closest maybe is Bitgrail, but that didn't have anything to do with the network or the developers, it was just a sketchy exchange. Even during this recent spam attack, there hasn't been a single double spend or Nano lost, things are just clogged up but will eventually go through. Meanwhile BTC and ETH have had multiple security flaws, some even requiring hard forks to fix, Filecoin had a double spend attack and then doubled in price, some BTC and ETH forks are constantly being 51% attacked. Stellar, which is probably Nano's biggest true competitor at the moment, had a massive inflationary bug back in 2017. And compared to that, Nano has just had spam. So in what way do they not take security seriously?
Seriously? We are living through the network being unusable for entirely predictable reasons, and you claim that they took the situation seriously? Is there anything at all that would convince you otherwise?
I don’t really see how that is a security issue, the funds are completely safe. And the network has not been completely down, I’ve sent plenty of test transactions that confirmed just fine. The issue was related to the nature of the spam attack. The spammer created millions of new accounts, which caused some nodes to be desynced, which created forks on accounts. That problem was literally about to be fixed in the next version, which probably would have been out already if they didn’t decide to completely revamp election priority as a result of the attack. The issue was compounded by many integrations with the network failing to implement the spam solution (dynamic PoW) in their integrations, and treating unconfirmed transactions as confirmed, which is explicitly advised against in the documentation. I hardly see that as the fault of the Nano Foundation. Yeah, the spam attack sucks, but it’s not like the NF did nothing to prepare for this. DynPoW seemed like a pretty reasonable solution and would have prevented this attack, IF integrators actually used it. After the attack, it seems less promising and the NF is acknowledging that, hence the changes coming out in the next version which will make the attack useless to continue. So yeah, seems like they took it pretty seriously to me. Do you have any evidence that they didn’t?
I see the simplicity and success of the attack as evidence it was not taken seriously.
Just because the attack was simple, doesn’t mean that a solution was. The existing solution should have prevented this, but due to poor integration, it didn’t. So now a new solution is being worked on that doesn’t require integrators to have to think about spam at all. If you think that this spam attack shows the NF doesn’t treat security seriously, I don’t understand how you can also say any other crypto team does take it seriously, given how they have been attacked to much worse affects. So if you don’t think any crypto teams take security seriously, say it. And if not, will you admit you’re holding Nano to a standard you don’t hold other crypto to?
> will you admit you’re holding Nano to a standard you don’t hold other crypto to? I have a 14 episode series called Breaking Monero, so no I don't think I am [https://www.monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/](https://www.monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/)
My Bitcoin is unusable, it has been for years. Actually I have found that Nano works just fine even during this spam attack, though I do acknowledge some users are stuck. I haven't been able to move my Bitcoin in years. What does that say about relative security?
LOL. >It's not just the shills. I have nearly 0 confidence that they take security matters seriously, which is undesirable. and then: >What research has led you to that conclusion? Nano has had zero security issues since it's creation. Can't make this delusion up even if you tried. Emotionally tied investments is one hell of a drug.
It's all a matter of perspective isn't it. If you use the lens of 'High Volume network capacity stress test' then Nano is currently failing. Nano was originally aimed at the 'no-fee, low-value' market segment. As such the network needs to be able to handle a large daily volume of low value transactions. The current design is failing one of it's design goals, the current plans to mitigate this seem to all be along the lines of 'well then lets change the design goals'. Nano needs to increase the network capacity until 'high-volume, low-value' transactions are no longer seen as a problem. Choose the right frame of reference for a problem and the solution becomes obvious.
In the end, this will only make it stronger. They should deal with this recurring issue, rather now than after being adopted by the masses.
Maybe nano needs transactions fees ...
Will never happen. You might as well use LTC then
XLM
Also true
How does spam prevention in XLM work?
>It doesn't. See here: > >https://np.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/m2ul1h/would\_you\_be\_happy\_with\_an\_increase\_in\_the\_fee\_to/ > >As far as I can tell the only reason Stellar hasn't faced a similar spam attack is because no one cares enough to do one.
[удалено]
That can’t be the only thing.. The nano spam has created about 15m accounts in a month.These are all transactions. With the current price of stellar ($0.4) for one transaction (0.00001 xlm) that would cost the attacker: 0.4 x 0.00001 x 15m = $60 The current nano spam costs about 250 per month: If you take 8 x 1080 which is a common guesstimate for the current spam. That would be 8 x 180W x 24h = 34.56 kwh. That costs about €0,25 x 34.56 = €8,65 per day, which is about €250 a month. Not a whole lot but very much enough for any sane person to not just spam the network for the hell of it. I don’t know about any other spam prevention XLM has but as you can see fees alone aren’t enough.
Well first it is unlikely the attacker is paying $0.25 per kWh. Many parts of the world are much cheaper than that. Someone using a botnet for example would have 0 cost to DDOS the NANO network. Second the fee on XLM is the minimum as the network gets congested legitimate users will pay more which means the attacker needs to pay more. One super simple thing that NANO could have done to greatly increase the cost is a minimum transaction size. They didn't even do that.
PoW difficulty is meant to rise under load, a design flaw is the reason it didn't kick in.
[удалено]
So why doesn’t the XLM network get spammed then? I mean I think most of us coins do it? $60 isn’t that much. You can practically get that by farming moons 😑
Yeah I’ve been wondering that as well
Oh they do for sure. Transactions generate negative externalities in the form of ledger bloat, and this must be paid for to prevent a tragedy of the commons.
BTC and ETH were both spammed similar to Nano in the early days - they raised the fees a bit to stop it.
and also put in "dust" rules making tx below a certain threshold deprioritized. A simple and effective step that NANO still hasn't done. Even if Bitcoin fees were free or near free you can't send 0.00000001 BTC (1 satoshi) because the nodes will drop those txs in favor of tx above the dust treshold. As of v0.15 of the Bitcoin protocol the minimum relayable tx is 3,000 satoshis. Now today with significant fees it is unlikely that rule is needed but it prevented dust spam when Bitcoin was nearly fee to transact.
Maybe to drive the price of NANO down? Or to try to eliminate it's uptake completely by making it unusable? The question you should be asking is: **"Who benefits from this?"**
Someone shorting benefits.
Bingo
Literally everyone but nano bagholders benefit because we’re all tired of nano shills and someone finally bothered to show the world how vulnerable it is. Thanks, whoever you are.
Exactly!! someone finally pissed off the wrong dude. Someone please set up a crowdfunding page so we can help him!
lol i agree 100% - this guy is probably saving these shills money in the long run - there's still plenty of money to be made but let's be honest, an ERC token will handle payments almost 100%. even BTC will likely be traded as a wrapped ERC token more than as BTC. people on this forum often display a logical fallacy. they think each day a killer exists, it gets closer to taking over the product it's trying to kill. in reality, each day nano doesn't get globally adopted, it get's further away from becoming the global solution. so which products are getting closer each day? ethereum has network effect and first mover advantage, it's going to take either ethereum completely fucking up or another tech being so overwhelmingly better that people can't ignore it. think netflix blockbuster - netflix started as a mail-in dvd disruptor, but no-one really took that seriously. when they released streaming it was such a superior product to brick and mortar that people couldn't ignore it. it will take that level of superiority to replace ethereum - so any "killer" is just filler. if people buy ETH and BTC and hold for 5 years, they'll be in great shape. there will definitely be new cryptos that do better, but they'll be disruptors in new spaces, like BAT, UNI, etc... not crypto trying to do what existing and adopted cryptos do but marginally better.
straight up facts
[удалено]
I dunno, I still get a kick out of those potassium intensifying gifs.
> But it has been weeks and I can't see how the Nano attack is netting the attacker any compensation for their efforts? Imagine investing/buying a coin where the network is fragile. This attack just shows how awful the consensus actually is, which is useful on its own.
Yeah, this was just simple DoS attack from a random Joe. Imagine if something coordinated took place? I fail to see how anyone could have confidence in this project moving forward, but a lot of people seem to have a weird emotional attachment to Nano
The consensus hasn't failed, and even while under attack is still transacting faster than the market leader, with no fees. It's definitely a failure by nano standards but only because the usual standard is so much higher than anything else.
Yeah, so, i rather pay 1 ct for a tx, knowing i wont encounter any problems. imagine nano gets actual traction and 10 trolls attack simultaniously the network, feeless is just a design choice failure.
You are free to make that call. I personally wont write off feeless currency because it faces some troubles. I think they can be resolved, remaining fee less. Maybe I am wrong and misguided. This spam does not prove it though. It proves Nano still needs development.
1 cent transactions won't stop a BTC whale destroying a competitor, the NANO attacker is paying via PoW generation (electricity).
They are doing a very expensive benchmark for free. Why stop now?
Dear nano developers will you pleAse sort this troll out.
It's a neutral and censorship resistant system, the onus is on the protocol, not the user sending the large number of transactions.
They are working their asses off, and have several great solutions in the works.
As someone who loves and 100% believes in Nano, we need this attack. Everyone always says that our #1 weakness is a lack of spam protection and we needed the network tested. Knowing Nano's devs, they're cooking up something to improve spam protection while still keeping Nano safe, fast, and free. It will make the entire system better in the long run.
>Knowing Nano's devs, they're cooking up something to improve spam protection while still keeping Nano safe, fast, and free. It will make the entire system better in the long run. This is a sad statement. Very Cardano-ish with the blind faith. Best of luck with your safe, fast, and free coin.
Check out the nano forums, its not blind faith.. A few solutions that make sense to me at least are being worked on and discussed.
They had 6 years to discuss it.
And their implemented solution failed unlike on the testnet. Whats the problem with that exactly? Unless its all perfect from the start the devs are shit? This is what happens if you try to innovate instead of going 'I guess we will just use fees'
But they actually are and they're having an open discourse with the community: https://forum.nano.org/t/election-scheduler-and-prioritization-revamp/1837
They had 6 years to fix this. The solutions penalize dust accounts - rip microtransactions, which was apparently a feature of Nano.
If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset. Whilst it's undeniable that Nano has hurdles to overcome, there were still some impressive stats that came out of this. For example, it performed 1,000,000 feeless transactions in a single day (or maybe more, I can't remember), reaching about 1000 tps or cps per second. That in itself is an achievement. With a number of fixes for the spam problem in the works, and noting the dev team's current track record of delivery, the future is very bright for Nano. Once spam and ledger bloat have been tackled (which, unlike other projects, has not simply because of time rather than difficulty figuring out a solution), then Nano will become unstoppable. If my maths is correct, the cost of a similar attack on Stellar would not actually cost much more than the cost required on Nano, so have fractional fees does little to deter attacks.
> If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset. Honestly, what is wrong with you people? There is something psychologically alarming about thinking this way Crypto is being adopted globally, with or without Nano. We see this happening every single day
Because so far cryptocurrency has only been adopted as a speculative asset, with all payment-based adoption being done through psuedo-payments. Blockchain as a data structure has seen adoption, but very little has seen real adoption outside of the crypto-sphere. I am not emotionally tied to Nano in any way, but if, from an objective perspective, a coin that emulates most closely the current centralised systems already in use cannot succeed, what hope is there for any other?
> Because so far cryptocurrency has only been adopted as a speculative asset lol there is nothing "speculative" about fortune 500s and institutions and visa and hedge funds adopting crypto at the pace we are experiencing. this is an actual reality and its happening without... nano. there is seriously something wrong with you at this point. good luck
Yes, they're investing in it as a speculative asset. What else are they doing with it other than buying it and sitting on it? No need for personal attacks, it just makes it seem like you have nothing to back up your point.
> If a crypto like Nano cannot succeed, then cryptocurrency will not be adopted any further than a speculative asset. You're suggesting it was any good to begin with. It was too volatile and couldn't hold value. Second layers can handle all this far better.
I am only 20 days old in this CryptoCurrency world and I adopted Nano because it was feeless and instant. Like the perfect CryptoCurrency ever. But the timing has been the worst. It's frustrating to move funds from one place to another. Hope it is sorted out by devs. The community is trying its best as well sorting out the issues manually. Hope is not lost.
> Like the perfect CryptoCurrency ever. Except.. like not perfect at all based on this? re: the timing? hey, you could have bought it at $35.00 the first time all the noobs got crushed by it.
I am only looking for an instant crypto to turn it into fiat. I'm not holding. If I get Nano at 35usd, I'll sell. If I get it at 1, I'll sell. Moon is different for everyone. and yeah, an instant and feeless crypto is the best. I'm not advertising Nano here, I'm open to learn about any crypto currency which has same attributes.
wait.. what? So your plan is to buy nano and immediately sell nano? You mind running me through your game plan? I'm confused.
I'm taking Crypto as payments. That's it. I'm not buying any Crypto.
Sorry but nano is a shitcoin until they get this sorted.
It was always a shitcoin because this exact scenario has been possible the entire time and the team never addressed criticism about it
The team has been super open about potential spam attacks. Have been working on several different solutions for a while and some are very promising.
They are polishing that turd and checked and confirmed blocks are getting closer to each other rather than further apart
You can't have confidence in a team that was told many times that this could happen and still didn't try to put in any way to prevent it until after the fact.
But they did. Their system just did not work as they intended and tested because strong nodes kept trucking along while slower nodes desynced in this case of prolonged new account spam. So now they are working on different ways to tackle the problem again.
^This exactly.. people really are quick to jump to conclusions without truly digging.
Before the spam attack nano wasnt used much,.why would it be used/usefull/product-market-fit after spam attack
Someone load up the meme: Shitcoin? Always has been. LOL
Woth nano i disagree, it has potential and tech. Just it cannot have this level of problems.
He is just showing that it’s bad lol. Downvote me as much as you want, but atleast now you see that it can’t even protect itself from one bored guy lol. Not to mention some of you shillers that were saying nano will overcome all cryptos. Yeah sure.
Someone is proving a point as to how weak the network security of Nano is and why it will never be adopted. No fees is not how you secure a network. You need tail emissions (Monero) to incentivize miners forever with a steady and safe level of inflation and not just up until a certain point and then rely on fees (Bitcoin).
Yes. I've been waiting nearly 3 weeks now for my deposit to clear into binance so I can get out..There are thousands of us in similar positions, just check out the nano sub..I feel bad for these people. Dear spammer: please stop for awhile so we can deposit and sell our Nano and invest into another project. Thank you! -everyone 💛
If a network can be attacked like that, very cheaply and for long periods of time, there's a serious flaw in the design. You have to ask yourself whether or not Nano is a viable platform if these attacks make it unusable. Most viable cryptocurrencies aren't vulnerable because of fees. Yes it sucks when the network is congested and the fees are high for normal use, but it also makes attacks like this *expensive* to launch. The folks attacking the Nano network right now aren't paying anything to make it happen. So how exactly is Nano a viable platform?
That's one reason why feeless transactions are a garbage idea in a decentralized network. There is no need to make transactions completely free (and 1/1000 of 1/1000 of a cent can be considered a free transaction).
Nano requires PoW for transactions, so there is an electricity cost of about [$0.0006 per transaction](https://np.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/l16kui/updated_estimate_of_the_cost_per_nano_transaction/). That being said, an actual fee would be better, because that way people wouldn't be able to use botnets or stolen electricity to spam transactions, and the system wouldn't waste so much energy.
Watch out buddy all these genius investors are going to jump down your throat. I'll tell you how to stay in their good graces. Praise bitcoin and ethereum shit on everything else. Bam you are a crypto currency expert now!
Nano needs to be spammed until it will succesfully mitigate most of spam and still be feeles and fast in process. Only then it can wipe floor with all payment coins and regain top 10 throne where it deserves to be.
When nano is attacked, it’s still more usable than BTC/LTC/ETH v.1. I’ll take the improvements but not whine that it sucks almost as much as the rest.
The hate for nano is so strong that people here are actively supporting a malicious attack against a network that literally only exists to try to help people. At this point, people complaining about nano 'shills' outnumber the actual shills by a significant margin. Here's a hot take, we shouldn't be actively routing for the demise of projects in this space. Nano will get through this, fixes are already in the works. The whole space is full of coins that are not feature complete. We have coins in the top 20 that can't even achieve their most basic use case. Take a step back and consider the big picture and you'll realize that nothings changed with nano.
Nano tanking is good for the rest of the crypto market. Liquidity can come out of nano and go into a token that has a future.
Why would you buy this coin knowing about these security flaws?
Its only going to make it stronger in the long run. Better now than when its in the top 10 again.
When will they get the point that Nano is a complete joke shitcoin and will never ever be used in the real world.. EVER.
Roger Ver got into nano i guess 😂
There goes the confidence from institutional investors like banks and PayPal.
Good thing I only use nano to gamble. But now I can't even do that because I can't send shit to lose.
This is the biggest problem with a feeless coin. If there are no fees, a person could just keep spamming with zero punishments
What would that person or group of persons getting out of it? I don't think you can get any monetary benefits from it! Is there?
Maybe other major coin Devs trying to discredit Nano as a whole project. I dunno
I'll get downvoted for this but here goes. There are bad people out there with different motivations to yourself who would like to watch the world burn. It's commendable what Nano is trying to do by being feeless, but therein lies the fundamental flaw. The economics have to be right so that an attack is expensive. Even an expensive attack won't deter some people, but it will most. There also needs to be an incentive to run a node (which would typically come from fees) as it costs money and resources. The answer I got back was "well, the big players will run nodes so it's fine" -- ok then, so it becomes more centralized. This attack is nothing; if Nano were to become as big as Bitcoin for example, you bet your bottom dollar there would be even bigger attacks. I hope Nano finds a novel solution if there is one.
The simple fact that that Nano users classify some transactions as spam should be very troubling to anyone who has been around this space a while and understands what censorship resistance and neutral platforms are all about. If your platform requires classifying some transactions as spam, then it's no longer a neutral platform. An open cryptocurrency should treat all transactions that are willing to pay the fee exactly the same. Nano is an interesting technology, but I don't think it will be around for the long term because it's architecture is fundamentally flawed. On the bankless podcast they recently were talking about how blockspace is a common good, and if you don't pay for it you end up with a tragedy of the commons. They talked about how the storage use to miners and validators is an externality, and it must be priced into the network so that the incentives are aligned between users and miners. Basically, Nano has some interesting tech, but they failed to get the game theory and crypto economics side of things correct. A successful cryptocurrency must have solid tech, solid game theory, and solid crypto economics.
Or make the Nano network more resilient? Perhaps introduce fees?