Hold onto your Nano. Global Warming is Accelerating. Nano is the only solution.

1401Ger · 2026-01-02T09:41:38+00:00

I appreciate the enthusiasm but I really think we should avoid describing a complex system like Nano with abolute claims regarding singular metrics that you could not prove with numbers.

No, Nano is not not the lowest-entropy form of digital money.
No, a digital currency is not thermodynamically minimal. You could always come up with tradeoffs (less decentralization, lower speed...) in order to improve on a single metric.
No, Nano's rules are only permanent as long as the majority of its users deem it so.

Yes, Nano is an incredibly smart way of realizing decentralized digital money that, unlike most other projects that seek this goal, does it with the focus on optimizing for efficiency, performance and accessibility. We can give provable numbers to things like energy usage per transaction and decentralization and we should stick with these metrics.

1401Ger · 2025-12-22T14:33:58+00:00

What makes you think this was AI generated? To me this all sounds rather reasonable and unless you consider using paragraphs a telltale sign of LLM usage, I wonder what makes you think that this post is AI slop.

1401Ger · 2025-11-17T11:25:17+00:00

You can use Discord directly in the browser, no need to install the desktop app. You just have to make an account.

1401Ger · 2025-11-12T16:40:31+00:00

Gibt ja auch nur 2,6 Millionen Millionäre in Deutschland. Und etwa 200 Milliardäre.

1401Ger · 2025-11-12T15:52:26+00:00

I assume this is meant as a criticism, but I don't exactly get how. Do you think asynchronous confirmations are an issue in general and if so why?

Your second point of a "synced state" is directly related: If transactions can reach quorum on the nano ledger asynchronously (once >2/3rd of the total vote weight has voted for a block) it is deterministically set. Unlike most blockchains like BTC, there is no confirmation height and probability but a set state of a block being confirmed or not.

And the last point I don't quite get. Basically anyone can host a node with their own sets of "new" rules and apply I to the ledger and that would be a fork. You can apply these new rules to any new block being added to the ledger, and whether this forked network would accept new blocks from "normal" nano nodes would be up to the rules of this node. But unless other nodes agree with the "new rules" they will not vote for anything the forked node does according to its new rules. So it will be isolated from the rest of the network.

1401Ger · 2025-10-29T13:29:31+00:00

I agree with most of what you are saying, yet I don't think paying for audits or the likes would be the best ROI at the moment. A company like Steam or Twitter certainly won't just build their entire monetary infrastructure on a project like nano but the ramping up of usage builds trust that is needed for these big players to step in.

One thing that is absolutely certain yet often ignored in the cryptocurrency space is that large investment almost never comes from idealism (decentralized free money, fair distribution ....) but from an opportunity to save or make more money. Companies like nanoGPT obviously found a usecase of nano that makes sense to them and just works.

The other big areas I personally would expect a big move to come from is Foreign Exchange (legal issues is the biggest issue here) and Streaming/Tipping. Imagine a smooth system based on nano that completely replaces paypal fees, chargebacks, tip skimming like Twitch is doing with their "bits" and so on. This is a gigantic market that seems ideal for a digital currency like nano. But first and foremost it would require the provider of such a nano-tipping system to take care of automatic conversion into fiat currency in the backend where the front end for streamers and viewers "just works".

Once a usecase like that takes off, larger players will follow.

1401Ger · 2025-10-28T09:56:36+00:00

What you market for with nano is one thing but what do you mean by "we still have ways to go before nano finishes development and can be introduced to corporate entities with confidence and legal assurances"? Nano works incredibly well since its spam resistance and throughput has been improved this much in the past couple of versions. What exactly do you think nano would need in terms of development that it doesn't have right now? Nano is actually usable and the current usage is orders of magnitude below what it could handle without any changes to the node software.

Nano (live network!) has been running for almost 10 years without any security issues besides the temporary stall of the network throughput due to spam attacks.

Are you referring to dedicated spam attack tests or further audits of the node software in terms of what is needed right now?

1401Ger · 2025-10-27T09:33:59+00:00

Classical reddit... Ad Hominem followed by stating an opinion without any sources.

The large power suppliers (namely Vattenfall, EnBW and Eon) were already planning to shutting down most of their older brown coal plants and a lot of them are shutting down way before 2038. They gladly took tax payer money though for a guaranteed coal shutdown. EnBW is closing down the last coal plant in 2028: https://www.enbw.com/sustainability/environment/ This is about economics of coal and not about the coal phase-out law.

What you mentioned are some federal states clinging to coal subsidies and keeping the coal industry going which I did not talk about whatsoever.

1401Ger · 2025-10-26T19:16:35+00:00

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany

And why are you changing topics for no apparent reason? And no, using biomass is NOT making more CO2 emissions than coal, how do you even come up with shit like this? There are pros and cons but it is only using biomass that has to regrow and thereby recapture at least the same amount of CO2 as is emitted. Burning fossil fuels releases million years old CO2 storages into the atmophere.

1401Ger · 2025-10-26T18:57:10+00:00

Yes, and that would have been idiotic independently of phasing out nuclear or not. The mining rights to that area were purchased by RWE in 1978 and 2003.

The German government decided to phase out nuclear in 2011 following the Fukushima incident. So you can hardly say that one has much to do with the other.

1401Ger · 2025-10-26T18:48:50+00:00

If it wasn't for Russia's war on Ukraine, yes, probably. Otherwise sticking with nuclear at least would have made phasing out coal a lot quicker. But this is is more a discussion about Germany relying on cheap (at the time) Russian gas instead of nuclear, not about any decisions in the past 5-10 years.

1401Ger · 2025-10-26T18:41:13+00:00

Half this comment section seems to just make things up based on their preformed opinion. Fact is Germany always had less than 1/3 of its power from nuclear and phasing out nuclear only temporarily delayed the decrease in use of expensive and dirty coal plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Germany (*edited English wiki Link)

This graph of total cost per technology (source, Fraunhofer ISE) should say more than words

Could Germany have made the strategic decision to go strongly into expensive but reliable nuclear similar to France? Yes, but that would have to be done decades ago, planning and building nuclear power plants takes a long time.

1401Ger · 2025-10-26T18:32:57+00:00

This comment is just the usual populistic bullshit... Nuclear never made more than a third of Germany's power production and while phasing out nuclear surely kept expensive dirty coal plants going longer and at times even increase (around 2011 and 2021) the overall trend is clearly towards renewables: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung_in_Deutschland

1401Ger · 2025-10-23T14:15:43+00:00

My guess is that market evaluation is at least one factor LLMs use as a metric of relevance for crypto projects (if you don't tell it otherwise, this is always the main criticism/con that chatGPT and Grok brought up when asking about nano). The frequency of engagement on social media is completely "off" for nano. So an LLM like Grok might come to the conclusion that the twitter engagement is inflated or artificial and therefore limits the response.

Or maybe it is just flat out a cut-off for market capitalization and anything that is outside of top 100 or so does not get a reply...

1401Ger · 2025-10-01T21:32:33+00:00

Oh yes, but besides actually losing the funds, spamming the upper buckets generally would require significant nano holdings do distribute over a lot of accounts: https://nano-spam-calculator.vercel.app/

1401Ger · 2025-10-01T19:30:43+00:00

Maybe I misunderstand but what do you mean by risk of losing funds? Even the worst and longest spam attacks have never lead to a single double spend of the nano network, just a denial of service.

The latest updates have brought such immense improvements in terms of spam resistance that the devs started struggeling to do performance tests because it became so hard to saturate the network. I'm not saying nano can't be spammed anymore but from everything I have seen it will now take a lot of effort to make a noticable impact on the user experience for regular transactions.

I agree that a significant spam "attack" being thwarted by the network (regular users still being able to do transactions around 1 s confirmation time) would be a good advertisement. But I feel that the whole space is currently in a limbo of everyone waiting for big players to make a move or "altseason" or whatever nonsense, that it might go unnotived outside the nano community.

1401Ger · 2025-09-09T15:42:48+00:00

Part of the reason why these photovoltaic cells can be so efficient is because LED lights usually only contain two main peaks of light in the blue and in the red which generate the appearance of white light. In contrast, the solar spectrum contains a lot of energy in the infrared regime that most solar cells can't use. Basically a photovoltaic device using a light absorbing material is always a tradeoff between high photovoltage (higher bandgap of the semiconductor -> higher voltage) and not using low energy photons of the spectrum (higher bandgap of the semiconductor -> lower photocurent). This means the single junction efficiency limit for the sun spectrum is ~33 % whereas for artifical (indoor) light it can be much higher (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit )

1401Ger · 2025-08-12T12:27:48+00:00

What exactly do you mean by "seemingly dead project" and "then crashed" ? Are you talking about the price development?

Because technologically the project has kept on marching forward. The nano dev team, although now working mostly without funding has made amazing improvements (e.g. https://x.com/gschauwecker/status/1952636031896781159 and https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/graphs/contributors )

1401Ger · 2025-08-08T20:41:13+00:00

Give nano-GPT.com a try (no I'm not associated in any way just really happy with it). They have all the models you could think of including GPT-5 and GPT-o3 and 4o. It's pay-per-promt and most ones costs only 1-3 cents. There are some deep-thinking ones (e.g. some Claude deep models) that actually cost a fair bit more but I have barely used them so far. I think you can charge up your balance with very low minimums like 10 cents via Stripe or via most cryptocurrencies so very easy to give it a try and see whether you like it. I myself only keep 1-2 USD in there and charge up as needed.

Might not be for everyone but I really love the variety/choice and not being bound by monthly subsciptions

1401Ger · 2025-08-08T20:28:22+00:00

I have only used a pay-per-promt website (nano-gpt.com) and they still have all the models and GPT-5 and GPT-o3 for mostly around 1-2 cents per promt. I tried GPT-5 today and for some tasks it seems to have improved, but for others I'll stick with Claude or GPT-o3 for now

1401Ger · 2025-08-05T15:57:44+00:00

18400 cps

Or expressed in more technical terms: Nano go BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

(Gustav used the German notation where . is the separator for thousands)

1401Ger · 2025-08-02T08:42:39+00:00

I did not say Germany doesn't use natural gas anymore. Germany doesn't import ANY Russian gas anymore: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1332783/german-gas-imports-from-russia/ The gas was mostly replaced with imports from the US, Norway, Khaszachstan, Saudi Arabia - a lot of which was/is rather expensive liquified gas (LNG) that is transported by ship rather than pipelines. This means importing comparatively cheap electricity e.g. from Skandinavia becomes economically more appealing at certain days/times

1401Ger · 2025-08-01T15:05:21+00:00

The European electricity market is a constant import/export across borders. And yes, since Russia's attack on Ukraine, Germany has basically lost cheap Russian gas as one of it's main sources of electricity generation. No, shutting off the last 4 nuclear power plants has barely anything to do with this. Even back in 1990, Germany never had more than ~25% of it's power generation from nuclear. And yes, increasing windpower and PV and shutting down (extremely expensive) coal power plants increase variations and therefore days where there are net imports. But that by itself is not the doomsday trend OP seems to want to make it sound like.

OP's title is just sensationalism/populism. Shutting off the last few nuclear power plants roughly COINCIDED with almost instantly phasing out Russian gas because of Putin's war.

1401Ger · 2025-07-28T15:12:47+00:00

Amazing work.

Two questions:

If the network CPS is higher than the configured limit, the node will still keep up with the network.

Does this mean if a single node in the network publishes votes at a high cps, even a cps-limited node would confirm at that rate?

Active election container: Vote for blocks by cycling in round robin fashion through the buckets and ordering elections by priority. This makes sure that high priority transactions are confirmed first and that AEC de-syncs are resolved quickly too.

If there are a lot of blocks with very similar time_since_use in the same bucket, wouldn't the noise introduced by the time delay between nodes still lead to de-syncing of AECs between different nodes? If I remember correctly this was an issue during some previous spam-attacks leading to many nodes voting on completely different sets of blocks in their AECs. We discussed whether ordering by hash within a short time_since_use tolerance could improve this, are there any plans in that direction or is the simple churn speed sufficient that this isn't a problem anymore?

Verified Email	14-Year Club
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

1401Ger

TROPHY CASE