1. I said nano uses delegated stake in the video but want to point out that it is implemented very differently to the more traditional way dPoS is used 2. They are looking into ways of reducing the number of votes needed for each transaction. Currently 4 rounds of votes are needed before a transaction is fully confirmed (2 for the send block, 2 for the receive block). They are looking at removing the voting for the receive block but this is nothing more than talks right now. 3. Whilst there are no monetary incentives to run mode powerful nodes, there are other incentives such as from businesses that want to use a feeless token or users that want to guarantee they can trust their node. 4. NANO does have a variable level of proof of work to send a transaction which also helps prevent spam. 5. The NF are working on another way to prioritise transactions based on a mix of the account balance of the user and how long it has been since their last transaction. This means that users with more nano have a higher priority in the queue as well as users that haven't made a transaction in the longest time. 6. Whilst they aren't working on sharding they do have another proposal for horizontal scaling using cluster nodes. However this is nothing more than a proposal right now and even in the proposal it is using a trusted set up so would require significant research before they can be decentralised but shows that they recognise the need for horizontal scaling.
For what I've seen you can increase your PoW to get ahead on the transaction queue. If that's the case, would you agree that if Nano were used as much as Bitcoin its proof of work market would end up costing as much time and energy as Bitcoin does?
I don't think it would as the reason so much time and energy is put into Bitcoins proof of work is because of the block rewards. Nano doesn't offer any rewards for doing the proof of work so the only reason to do it would be to prioritise a transaction. Most people aren't going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on ASIC's just to prioritise some transactions
You are right, I was meant to remove that as a disadvantage but forgot. Initially I had a section about it in the video and removed it but forgot to from the ending
it's wrong... it's not DPoS because you don't stake your money anywhere, you assign servers as a representative and other servers will count your balance as vote weight for that server... also in DPoS a server would need to be selected to actually write the blocks, but in this case it's just a matter of counting and confirming once a 67% consensus is reached... so no, you can't call ORV a type of DPoS.
You delegate your voting power which is based on your stake in the network to a node. Nano clearly made changes from traditional delegated proof of stake protocols but it is still using stake as the scarce resource for sybil protection and the stake is being delegated to other nodes so I don't think it's wrong to consider it as delegated proof of stake. ORV is the overall consensus + sybil protection. I tried to split consensus and sybil protection into separate parts so I'm probably just not using the proper terms for things Was there anything else in the video that looked incorrect? I appreciate the feedback
If I have a 10% stake in a company it means I own 10% of the company. If I own 10% of the nano tokens, doesn't that mean I have a 10% stake of the nano supply? To me account balance and stake are the same thing Even though you aren't staking tokens in nano, stake is still the scarce resource used to provide sybil protection
@@altexplainer That would make sense for NF if the tokens weren't distributed for free. As for the network, it's just counting balance, there's nothing "at stake" no risk
@@rogercruz1547 Companies can distribute shares for free as well so that doesn't really negate the point. If you own 10% of the nano tokens that means you have a 10% stake of the nano network. Other delegated proof of stake protocols also have nothing at risk. There are only a few protocols like Ethereum that actually have slashing to make it risky. There is also nothing 'at stake' in cardano either. It might just be me not using the definition of words correctly but either way, nano uses something extremely similar to delegated proof of stake. Maybe I should say delegated proof of account balance instead
Video quality was nice and all but there's some info that is just wrong or misleading. Subscribed. I'll watch the others about coins I don't know the source code and expect someone from their community to do the same I did :P
Thank you, I hope so but I noticed the nano community is quite knowledgeable compared to most other coins. I'm doing a video on cardano next and already noticing it's more difficult to get good info compared to nano
A digital ledger cannot be 100% feeless, best you can do is create a leeway like maybe allow a certain number of free transactions per day. Otherwise you end up with spam. A critical problem with all digital ledgers is state bloat, Blockchains require knowing all prior transaction blocks to verify new ones. So in this way Blockchains just keep bloating till they're too heavy to run, though if Moore's law stands true it won't be an issue, but each new year seems to be challenging that law as memory space development has slumped. What we need is a system that can discard old transactions once they are completely validated, only keeping recent nonces required for validating the latest balance. And of course wiping balances that are presumed dead (older than 10 years without activity).
Thanks, I've loosely followed it for a while as it's always been popular on reddit so had a rough idea of how it worked. I only properly started researching it a few weeks ago to make this video though I've been following crypto in general since 2017 and managed to pick up how a lot of the tech works over time
1. I said nano uses delegated stake in the video but want to point out that it is implemented very differently to the more traditional way dPoS is used
2. They are looking into ways of reducing the number of votes needed for each transaction. Currently 4 rounds of votes are needed before a transaction is fully confirmed (2 for the send block, 2 for the receive block). They are looking at removing the voting for the receive block but this is nothing more than talks right now.
3. Whilst there are no monetary incentives to run mode powerful nodes, there are other incentives such as from businesses that want to use a feeless token or users that want to guarantee they can trust their node.
4. NANO does have a variable level of proof of work to send a transaction which also helps prevent spam.
5. The NF are working on another way to prioritise transactions based on a mix of the account balance of the user and how long it has been since their last transaction. This means that users with more nano have a higher priority in the queue as well as users that haven't made a transaction in the longest time.
6. Whilst they aren't working on sharding they do have another proposal for horizontal scaling using cluster nodes. However this is nothing more than a proposal right now and even in the proposal it is using a trusted set up so would require significant research before they can be decentralised but shows that they recognise the need for horizontal scaling.
For what I've seen you can increase your PoW to get ahead on the transaction queue.
If that's the case, would you agree that if Nano were used as much as Bitcoin its proof of work market would end up costing as much time and energy as Bitcoin does?
I don't think it would as the reason so much time and energy is put into Bitcoins proof of work is because of the block rewards. Nano doesn't offer any rewards for doing the proof of work so the only reason to do it would be to prioritise a transaction. Most people aren't going to spend tens of thousands of dollars on ASIC's just to prioritise some transactions
Another point: the receiver DOES NOT have to be online for a transaction to be irreversible.
You are right, I was meant to remove that as a disadvantage but forgot. Initially I had a section about it in the video and removed it but forgot to from the ending
it's wrong... it's not DPoS because you don't stake your money anywhere, you assign servers as a representative and other servers will count your balance as vote weight for that server...
also in DPoS a server would need to be selected to actually write the blocks, but in this case it's just a matter of counting and confirming once a 67% consensus is reached... so no, you can't call ORV a type of DPoS.
You delegate your voting power which is based on your stake in the network to a node. Nano clearly made changes from traditional delegated proof of stake protocols but it is still using stake as the scarce resource for sybil protection and the stake is being delegated to other nodes so I don't think it's wrong to consider it as delegated proof of stake.
ORV is the overall consensus + sybil protection. I tried to split consensus and sybil protection into separate parts so I'm probably just not using the proper terms for things
Was there anything else in the video that looked incorrect? I appreciate the feedback
@@altexplainer it's not a stake, it's your account balance, you don't have funds staked anywhere
If I have a 10% stake in a company it means I own 10% of the company. If I own 10% of the nano tokens, doesn't that mean I have a 10% stake of the nano supply?
To me account balance and stake are the same thing
Even though you aren't staking tokens in nano, stake is still the scarce resource used to provide sybil protection
@@altexplainer That would make sense for NF if the tokens weren't distributed for free. As for the network, it's just counting balance, there's nothing "at stake" no risk
@@rogercruz1547 Companies can distribute shares for free as well so that doesn't really negate the point. If you own 10% of the nano tokens that means you have a 10% stake of the nano network.
Other delegated proof of stake protocols also have nothing at risk. There are only a few protocols like Ethereum that actually have slashing to make it risky. There is also nothing 'at stake' in cardano either.
It might just be me not using the definition of words correctly but either way, nano uses something extremely similar to delegated proof of stake. Maybe I should say delegated proof of account balance instead
Video quality was nice and all but there's some info that is just wrong or misleading. Subscribed. I'll watch the others about coins I don't know the source code and expect someone from their community to do the same I did :P
Thank you, I hope so but I noticed the nano community is quite knowledgeable compared to most other coins. I'm doing a video on cardano next and already noticing it's more difficult to get good info compared to nano
A digital ledger cannot be 100% feeless, best you can do is create a leeway like maybe allow a certain number of free transactions per day. Otherwise you end up with spam.
A critical problem with all digital ledgers is state bloat, Blockchains require knowing all prior transaction blocks to verify new ones. So in this way Blockchains just keep bloating till they're too heavy to run, though if Moore's law stands true it won't be an issue, but each new year seems to be challenging that law as memory space development has slumped.
What we need is a system that can discard old transactions once they are completely validated, only keeping recent nonces required for validating the latest balance. And of course wiping balances that are presumed dead (older than 10 years without activity).
8:02 😂😂😂 these guys oh my god.
About the captcha, it was attacked at first, fixed, and shutdown 2 years later because it was enough
Good video. Is Nano something you have been watching for a long time? How long did you study it to be able to make this?
Thanks, I've loosely followed it for a while as it's always been popular on reddit so had a rough idea of how it worked. I only properly started researching it a few weeks ago to make this video though
I've been following crypto in general since 2017 and managed to pick up how a lot of the tech works over time
I'm a newb. I love Nano, but I also loved your detailed explanation of it's flaws
Thank you, I'm glad you liked it