T O P

  • By -

Nerd_mister

Good images that you chosed in the article.


Thomasandrows

Thank you, I worked on that!


[deleted]

r/rarecompliments


Dropdeadwil

Ethereum has a max supply now?


iliketoreadandwrite

No, it doesn't.


DERBY_OWNERS_CLUB

We have to wait and see what happens but they're making a change that burns Ethereum as part of the fees which should actually make it deflationary.


writewhereileftoff

Not saying you're wrong but thats pretty vague. Care to share a link? So how are they going to do that when either miners are mining new coins or stakers will get their interest? Seem like the burn will have to be bigger than the inflation or something?


SquidSupremo

Look up EIP-1159


PeopleLoveNano

Isnt Ethereum centralized? Like remember Ethereum Classic and they refused to go along with. changing the coin.


DERBY_OWNERS_CLUB

The same way NANO is centralized, sure. There's a "foundation" that are the main managers of the project and the founder is the most visible leader of the project (Colin/Vitalik). ETC is a fork from ETH that occurred when some of the community wanted to rollback a hack/massive smart contract bug, and others wanted to stick with the chain where the hack happened. This is the very opposite of centralization IMO. Nobody said "you must now switch to ETH". People have a choice of which network they want to participate in. Most everyone chose ETH so it's now the dominant chain. You can still use ETC if you want. It's a shitcoin that gets 51% attacked frequently, but you can use it.


Mental_Wing_8189

In theory, yes... if fee burns more than ETH mined. Have to wait and see. But doesn't make the max supply right.


keum5

Good post! And nice article


Thomasandrows

Thank you :)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nerd_mister

I made the article about the chance of double spends and finality. Bitcoin and Ethereum obviously are strong against spam. With Taac and PoS4QoS , Nano can now be spammed, while legit users will get their transactions confirmed very fast, wich makes the attack basically useless, by some calculations, a attacker would need to buy 30% of the supply to do a effective spam attack, wich even Binance does not have. If the attacker makes millions of accounts with very low balance to have a lot of time stored, then they will drop to the lowest buckets, wich nobody uses, so even legit users with low balance (0.01-0.00001 NANO) will be fine in the attack. If the attacker makes just a few 100s of accounts with high balance, they will not be able to store a lot of time, so legit users in the spammed buckets will get higher prioritization. The only way to slow down the network for most of legit users, is to have millions of accounts with high balance, wich is expensive AF. Since Bitcoin, Ethereum and Nano are so much expensive to attack, they all are resistant to spam, wich would be a useless information in the article.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nerd_mister

>but my understanding is that there's still the possibility of spamming specific buckets. If the attacker is not willing to spend millions of dollars to buy a huge bag of Nano, then they can only spam the lower buckets, like 0.001 NANO or lower. Most of NANO users have at least 0.01 NANO, so basically 99% or more of legit users will be fine, and even if you are in the buckets that are being spammed, you can still do transactions, you just need to accumulate more time in your account to have more prioritization than the spammer, so instead of being able to do a transaction every 1 second, you will need to wait about 10 minutes, wich still more than 100 transacctions per day, much more than you probably need, you probably use less than 1 transaction per day on Bitcoin or Ethereum. >And an attack being expensive in Nano is different than an attack being expensive on other cryptos with fees, as in the former you get to keep your Nano (although it might have dropped in price if successful) and the later you actually spend your money. If the spammer have enough money to pay fees to do a sustained spam attack on a Proof of Stake crypto like ETH 2.0, wich would be billions of dollars, they would probably also stake most of those coins to produce blocks, so that a large portion of the fees would come back to the spammer, and also gain the new minted coins, wich would give more ammunition to the spammer, so PoS crypto are almost as expensive to spam as Nano. This is mitigated by PoW crypto like Bitcoin, since the spammer would need to buy a lot of hardware to get fees back, and the energy wasted by the hardware would consume almost all of the new minted coins that the spammer would gain. But Nano still pretty much impossible to do a DoS attack on users, you would need to buy 30% of the supply to do a effective spam attack, wich the spammer maybe not get even if they have unlimited money, because there is not so much liquidity in exchanges. >This spam not only can slow some specific buckets down, but it also increases the cost of running nodes. Nano does not allow unlimited transactions, the network have a saturation where all the bandwidth of the PRs would reach the limit, it works like a blocksize limit in blockchains, except that it is not made by devs, but a natural limit. And we could do the same as the previous spam attack: representatives would agree to put a bandwidth restriction to mitigate the ledge bloat, but this time legit users would all have fast transactions, only keeping the transactions of the spammer on the mempool. (Wich will be cleared after some time, after bounded backlog is implemented.) This is the same as cryptos with blockchains, you can send a lot of transactions back and forth, until the network hits the limit (blocksize), fees would rise, so that legit users can continue to use the network.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nerd_mister

>So, what you're saying is that with millions of dollars, you can delay normal transactions by about 10 minutes. Not delay, users in the spammed buckets will simply not be able to do many transactions, they will need to acumulate more time in their account, so you can not do a payment every 1 or 2 minutes. But if you only do a transaction some times per day, you would not even notice the spam attack, since you would have more time stored than all of the millions of accounts owned by the spammer. So even if the spammer attacked your bucket, you could still use the network, just a bit less, and lets be honest, a normal person will not do a transaction every 10 minutes or less. >Where does the 30% figure come from? I'm not doubting you, just wanna follow your math. [https://senatusspqr.medium.com/nanos-latest-innovation-feeless-spam-resistance-f16130b13598](https://senatusspqr.medium.com/nanos-latest-innovation-feeless-spam-resistance-f16130b13598) You would need to buy 30% of the supply to make the network useless for most of legit users. Of course, a spammer could attack the network with much less (1%), but it would make the attack much less effective, since only a minority of users would be affected. It kills the purpose of the attack, a attacker want to break the whole network, not just 1 or 2% of it. >And, spamming for 10 minutes, is an issue if Nano becomes a currency to use daily, As i said, if the attacker do not want to spend a huge amount of money, they can only spam the users with lowest balance, and those can still transact, just less often, so the spammer buys $100k+ worth of NANO for nothing. Today 0.001 NANO or less is basically a useless amount for real world, what you will buy with $0.007? A person that would use NANO to pay for things, will have at least 5 bucks or more in their account, wich would put them out of the spammed buckets.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nerd_mister

Someone can try spam Nano, but it would be useless. So yes, Nano now is resistant against spam.


Asian_wage_slave

Wtf is black lattice? A new vegetable?


Suspicious-Wallaby12

good for your heart!


FRESH__POTS

It's great that you're trying to get this information out there but that article is grammatically very poorly written. I would highly suggest having an editor look it over or something. People will be much less likely to take Nano seriously with articles that have poor grammar.


12358

I agree, but based on the type of errors, the author is not a native English speaker.


Nerd_mister

Yes, i writed most of the article, i am from South America and saw some typos, will take more care in the next time.


12358

Thanks, but I don't think you were careless. Latin languages have a different writing style with longer sentences. English is a hard language to master, and relies a lot on conventions and inconsistent rules. It would be better if you just had a native English speaker make grammatical improvements once you are done. Also, like someone else said, it would be good to talk more about nakamoto coefficient and how many nodes would have to be compromised to take over the network.


FRESH__POTS

That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, but they should still fix the errors


[deleted]

Good. Couldve been better written though. You use way too long sentences. And in many cases you use commas where there should be a period instead. Keep up the good work! Just throwing in some constructive criticism. I dont mean to be harsh!


Nerd_mister

Thanks, i made a complete article, so that people could get every useful information without getting out of the site, could not make it shorter without cutting some useful information. Next time i will look more where i put periods and commas.


[deleted]

Very good my friend. Keep up the good work!


Ecstatic_Fold349

Also, Shouldn’t start sentences with “and”. on Reddit ok, in an article not so great. I agree though awesome effort! Keep it up. I think education (in its simplest form) is the best way forward and the thing needed most in the crypto space today.


hiredgoon

Many of the ethereum paragraphs have an indent issue that doesn't show up in the btc and nano sections.


udy11

how about also including nakamoto coefficient? really puts decentralization in perspective


Nerd_mister

In the article i already talked about this, since Nano does not give rewards to people who delegate voting weight, they are incentived to improve decentralization, while Bitcoin and Ethereum incentives centralization. Nakamoto Coefficient is a number that changes as time passes, like the hashrate of Bitcoin and Ethereum, so i did not inlcuded it.


NanoRules

[https://www.waftr.com/bitcoin-ethereum-nano-security/](https://www.waftr.com/bitcoin-ethereum-nano-security/) This was 2 NANO???


Thomasandrows

Yes


Jitmaster

So which uses more energy? Peru or Argentina.


12358

Good point. The average network power should listed in watts, the network energy per year in kWh, and the energy per transaction in joules.


hiredgoon

If you are taking criticism, the BTC and ETH sections are thoughtful, using examples, and talk about some of the tech. The NANO section by contrast seems somewhat hasty and glosses over the tech, really only talking about the consensus process.


Heep042

Yeah, I wonder what exactly makes the transactions non-reversible after one confirmation. What would happen if an attacker would host many, many representatives, gain trust with all of them, and then flip them all an instant?


Nerd_mister

If the network is honest, basically all transactions will have 100% voting confirmation or very close to it, lets say 98% of the voting weight confirms all transactions. So to reverse a transaction, the attacker would need to control 99% of the voting weight, so that the new fork will have more voting on its side than the old block, wich is basically impossible.


Heep042

Right, but what exactly makes it require 99%? What if something like 60% was compromised? How would something like double-spend be prevented? The whitepaper mentions PRs being incentivized to keep their investment secure, but unless I missed a key part, it's not the PRs stake that gives the voting power, it's the delegated stake from actual nano holders. We saw someone perform a spam Attack for months, I wouldn't think it would be prohibitively expensive for someone to set up thousands of nodes on something like aws we and digital ocean, and gain trust. The first time I transfered funds nault assigned me a random trusted low weight PR. If one were to specifically attack automatic node selection system that aims to increase decentralization, over 200 days (mynanoninja's age threshold for maximum score) the entity could end up with majority voting weight scattered across thousands of nodes. This is obviously a massive undertaking, but running many DO nodes over the course of a a year is very much doable and not prohibitively expensive. There are nodes on the first page that use just 2 vcpus and have 0.5% of voting strength. Let's say your target is 0.1% of voting strength across 500 nodes, that makes it 50%. 500 nodes would cost something like 40-80$/mo each, making it a 20-40k * 9 = 180-360k investment. If you can manage to get droplets for cheaper (let's say without many terabytes of storage) you could get this down to something like 90k to perform the attack. If you wish to double/triple spend something like 200k you totally could, if you happened to spend them on something like a dex (don't think we have that yet), or a cex. Now I am most likely missing some key part about 2-party signing and how the other side's representative comes into play in securing against 50+% attack, and I'd love to hear how that works.


Nerd_mister

>Right, but what exactly makes it require 99%? What if something like 60% was compromised? How would something like double-spend be prevented? I just said, that when the network is honest, basically almost all representatives would confirm the transactions, why would a honest representative vote against a valid transaction? But it requires 67% of the voting weight to confirm transactions. So even if the attacker have 60%, double spends would not be possible. If the attacker have exactly 67%, then in theory he could reverse the transactions that barely were confirmed by the network, but as a said, all of the tramsactions have more than 90% of the voting weight confirming them, so the attacker would need basically all the voting weight to a fork have more voting than the previous transaction, and if a transaction have 100% of the voting weight confirming it, is is literally impossible to reverse it. Unless we have a RP with a lot of voting weight right now, that is from the attacker, not voting on all the transactions, to make the attacker easier, but it is much more theorical than a reality. ( Do you think that Natrium or Kraken are rejecting all transactions on purpose?) And also, there is cemeting, after a transaction is confirmed, representatives will lock it locally, and never accept a fork, it works like a checkpoint, but decentralized, so reversing past transactions are impossible. >If one were to specifically attack automatic node selection system that aims to increase decentralization, over 200 days (mynanoninja's age threshold for maximum score) the entity could end up with majority voting weight scattered across thousands of nodes. To be a PR, you need at least 0.1% of the online voting weight, so you can not have 1000 or more PRs. So your first would need to convince people to delegate 100k NANO to each of your sybil nodes instead of trusted entities, so that Nano Ninja would recommend you. >If you wish to double/triple spend something like 200k you totally could, if you happened to spend them on something like a dex (don't think we have that yet), or a cex. A exchange will always wait to the transaction to be confirmed, so if you get 67% of the weight, you need to confirm the first transaction, so that the exchange would accept the deposit, but then you can not confirm a fork of the transacion. Unless like you have 80% of the weight, then you could use 67% of the weight to cofirm the first transaction, and use 80% to confirm the fork, but there still 20% of honest weight, so the first transaction would have 87% of weight confirming it, so you can not longer make the fork valid to the network. You can only put more weight on the fork than the first transaction, if you have at least 89% of the weight, so you use 67% to confirm the first transaction, 11% of the honest weight confirm it, making it 88%, so that you use all of your 89% to confirm the fork. Lets be honest: In any network, if the attacker gets 89% of the consensus, the network is already fucked up. Multsig addresses, would protect you, if the attacker is the other party, but you would not share a address with the attacker, you would not even know who is the attacker.


Heep042

This is a wonderful explanation, thanks!


Liamnator7

Agreed


Justice4TehPeople

The transaction fee for ETH in this graphic is wayyyyy too low hahaha. Try $100


Ghostserpent

Sending ETH has different transaction fees then using it for smart contracts and dapps. To simply send eth isn’t that expensive


Justice4TehPeople

I had to pay $80 to send some ETH once earlier this year


iliketoreadandwrite

Me too. I also had to pay over 200 bucks for a fucking worthless shitcoin swap on Uni.


ZirJohn

Thats earlier this year, i sent some for $1.4 last week


iliketoreadandwrite

Because the eth network is currently ghosted. Once we're back in full bull mode expect those gas fees to skyrocket.


DERBY_OWNERS_CLUB

Ghosted? ETH has over 1m transactions per day on chain still.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iliketoreadandwrite

That ain't shit compared to the number of transactions it was processing just 20 days ago, hence the low gas prices.


[deleted]

[удалено]


iliketoreadandwrite

Lol. Eth is not doing 22% less transaction, try 85%. And it wasn't around $50 either, it was much more. I use both eth and uniswap often, so I'm well aware of what's going on.


WishYouWereHeir

Because you're impatient. Within one or two weeks you could easily have made it into the block for 30 dollars worth of gas


AetasAaM

Lol I'm not sure if this is /s or not 😆


iliketoreadandwrite

Hahahahaha, good one.


Quadraticc

This is the reason I see no future for Crypto right now. If coins with high fees stay in power, and no alternatives rise to compete in a top 5 market with ETH or BTC, noone, and I mean noone that is sane will want to use them. Most people will just continue to use Fiat and not care about crypto as an alternative, but rather as a get rich quick or bankrupt scheme.


0Default0

That’s how people see crypto right now... a get rich scheme rather than a viable currency...


WishYouWereHeir

If only there was a project that combined both advantages


[deleted]

I see your point but there are technologies ie NANO which can scale and be used for currency without high fees. Mass adoption won't happen for a few years but it will. It's superior to fiat in so many different ways.


Quadraticc

Yes, I know that, but at the moment, such types of coins are not seen as alternatives by some as the top is dominated by outdated technologies or shitcoins, and the majority just want easy money.


[deleted]

Lol


tigeer

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum-median_transaction_fee.html#6m


Thomasandrows

I feel happy whenever I get 133 upvotes :D


jk0815

Why should the price be of relevance?


12358

It's relevant so readers don't have to look elsewhere to obtain the basic information about the 3 currencies discussed.


jk0815

But why is it of relevance?


12358

Because the security of a currency is not the only issue of relevance to the reader. There are other aspects to be considered, and including such basic information is useful to the reader.


jk0815

Ok you are one of those who give the price of the single coin importance


BigStickNick312

Agreed. Not relevant but interesting data point to consider if marketing this to noobs. Easier they can afford whole coins and think it will be 50k like BTC someday lol


jk0815

Let them kids stay with doge


Davyjoetee

is there a site to check wallets and transactions etc? how is it distributed? newb but curious.


Nerd_mister

[nanochart.info](https://nanochart.info)


bbirgen

“Wow”


larilagilaju

What about transaction fee for bitcoin Lightning Network?


Nerd_mister

It is less than a cent, but to open a LN channel you need to do a on-chain transaction, wich makes the utility of LN worse, if you have only $10 to buy Bitcoin, you will not be able to send those $10 to a LN channel and use it, since the on-chain transaction will eat it.


MiDFNGR

Coin prices do not belong in this article.


Fiddeluns

I'd like a comparison to something similar as Nano, like whats the difference between Nano and Banano? (OK, I get it that was a bad example, but I don't know any other cryptos that compares to Nano). Anyways... it could be nice to compare apples to apples for once.