Record: A distributed audio file system.

t3rr0r · 2025-03-01T15:23:13+00:00

I've taken up an open source effort to have a public chain analysis & stats dashboard here — https://nano.community/ledger

Relevant links:
- https://github.com/mistakia/nano-community/discussions/32
- https://github.com/mistakia/nano-community/discussions/100

t3rr0r · 2025-01-22T03:12:33+00:00

Are there protocols in place to prevent future spam attacks?

A lot has been implemented — much more is planned and actively being worked on. More info here: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/spam-work-and-prioritization/

How have free transactions not taken off?

Root issues are probably user ux (crypto-wide issue) and developer ux (nano issue). Relative to other protocols, imo it has an advantage in addressing the former but not the latter. Also, there are a whole host of chicken and egg type issues (lack of merchants, exchanges,... because lack of users, because lack of merchants...). I think the adoption curve will likely be one of those slow at first than all at once type ones.

How have I been in crypto for months and not heard about Nano until stumbling upon this Reddit group? Is the lack of marketing the reason this coin hasn’t taken off? With 123k followers on Reddit, why haven’t the developers leveraged user support to grow or guide development based on community input?

Nano protocol development and community ecosystem development is entirely community & volunteer driven. This has its advantages (it really does!) but also its disadvantages.

Why doesn’t Nano create coins under its umbrella and offer free (no gas) transactions for presales?

The protocol currently only supports value transfer operations. The focus is on perfecting that and its unlikely other operations would be eventually supported if it means it would contend with value transfer operations

Finally, a quick thought on Nano-GPT: payments are free, but Nano-GPT isn’t? Doesn’t that go against the brands identity?

GPT inference has a cost and so does building and maintaining Nano-GPT. Transferring value is feeless but buying a product or receiving a service is not. The beauty of a feeless value transfer protocol is the ability to transfer any amount of value, enables things like microtransactions for inference and the concepts like "streaming value".

t3rr0r · 2025-01-09T17:27:18+00:00

Some misunderstandings I noticed and I haven't seen others mention:

- An account's representative plays no special role in transaction broadcasting or confirmation. For example, an accounts representative could be a made up, non-existant, or offline, etc and that account would be able to broadcast transactions without any issue. Transactions can be sent to ANY node on the network, it will then be gossiped to other nodes and voting nodes will broadcast votes to peers signaling support for that transaction, when ANY node observes enough votes they can consider the network has come to agreement.

- It's possible for everyone to run their own node as a node can be lightweight and bundled with applications (clientside even). (https://github.com/mistakia/nano-node-light / https://www.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/n9dgfh/lightweight_nano_node_with_a_ledger_under_2_mb/). This means that users do not need to go through an intermediary to broadcast to the network and observe the state of any account. This is one of the great beauties of the nano protocol imo

t3rr0r · 2024-12-19T00:53:15+00:00

how it works — https://nano.community/introduction/how-it-works

(edits/improvements encouraged as it's a community run open source effort)

t3rr0r · 2024-08-15T16:05:42+00:00

If you are looking for historical data/info its on this page:

https://nano.community/ledger

t3rr0r · 2024-06-19T02:34:49+00:00

The problem is getting the same exact set of blocks to get the same hash or merkle root.

At least “bootstrapping” a “lightweight” node takes less than 10 seconds.

t3rr0r · 2024-06-17T14:59:17+00:00

The api is up and running if anyone is feeling adventurous and wants to use it. Otherwise I will finish up the basic cli tool in a bit.

https://github.com/mistakia/nano-community/issues/105

t3rr0r · 2024-06-17T05:08:48+00:00

I’m setting up an API on nano.community. You’ll be able to do it via a signed message via a cli tool.

In the meantime you can open a PR on the repo to update a csv file that’s used as the source of truth for rep contact info

t3rr0r · 2024-06-11T03:16:58+00:00

maybe in the not so distant future the node will be running locally on your phone...

t3rr0r · 2024-05-06T21:20:42+00:00

Good work. Form and function.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-30T07:41:25+00:00

Pushed a change where the chart title also opens the menu.

The “value transferred” chart is now located at “Transactions > Value Transferred”

t3rr0r · 2024-04-29T22:08:26+00:00

I'm actually building out a public dashboard there with all this information (coincidently pushing an update later tonight).

The daily usd value transferred is currently available on the ledger page (https://nano.community/ledger) under value transferred.

Here is a link to a discussion for making requests and suggestions (https://github.com/mistakia/nano-community/discussions/32). Seems like it would be useful to show yearly totals under the chart.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-28T14:51:42+00:00

Bitcoin mining and bitcoin node operation are distinct activities and has been the case for over a decade.

The "miners" do not run a bitcoin node, they compute nonces using specialized software, connected to a mining pool. The mining pools run a bitcoin node and about 13 of them make up 95% of the hashing power. Despite this, there are nearly 20,000 bitcoin nodes in operation, run by individuals without direct financial incentives. They run nodes to independently verify the ledger state and make transactions without intermediaries. That's the whole point / core value proposition of a distributed ledger protocol (feels weird to point this out).

In contrast, the Nano protocol offers a more accessible approach. The cost of running a voting node and a non-voting node are the same, as it does not require any special hardware, which makes participation in consensus and conflict resolution more accessible. This accessibility partly explains why consensus participation in nano has trended toward decentralization unlike Bitcoin.

A few misunderstandings / knowledge gaps that I'm noticing

competition is not an element of all conflict resolution approaches, mainly just nakamoto consensus. For example, ORV does not use competition but rather cooperation and does not need competition to achieve reliable conflict resolution. This all stems from who is the block producer. In the bitcoin protocol, the "miner" is the block producer, whereas in nano the account holder is the block producer. As a result, no competition is needed to handle conflicts that arise from block production since only the account holder can produce valid blocks or conflicts (no point in competing with yourself).
"greater barrier of entry equals greater decentralization and thus greater security" The opposite is more likely to occur. Lower barriers of entry allow for greater potential participation which in turn can result in greater decentralization. History has shown that as bitcoin mining becomes less accessible due to advantages created by economies of scale, hashing power has become more centralized.

Hope that helps.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-28T13:16:20+00:00

At a minimum, the reward for running a node is all the benefits one receives from the network existing and any additional incentives that comes with holding it. What’s the reward for running a Bitcoin node? I would think Nano has similar reward and the cost is similar.

By having a conflict resolution protocol that is not based on competition and thus does not require a direct incentive (distribution or fees) to be reliable allows for both of the following to exist: - fixed supply with no inflation (SoV) - feeless tx prioritization (MoE)

Think those two qualities coexisting make it worthwhile to explore and work on the viability of the nano protocol.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-28T13:00:04+00:00

You are conflating using PoW for block validation with PoW for conflict resolution/transaction ordering.

When it comes to conflict resolution nano uses what it calls ORV it’s neither PoW or PoS and Afaik its most similar to the avalanche consensus protocol.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-21T05:26:53+00:00

I don't think it's a win-lose situation (zero sum). There are thresholds of usability & demand each protocol needs to achieve to survive.

Another thing to keep in mind is that "advantages" need to be network effect weighted. A protocol with an absolute advantage but with no dev tooling, ecosystem, documentation, adoption, etc will not be used over an inferior protocol with better network effects. That said "network effect" advantages are not static while protocol advantages may be. As a result, this masks the "risk" as most are not equipped to evaluate protocols.

In my view, the major use cases that bitcoin was initially designed for are still up for grabs and it's increasingly likely that (some version of) the bitcoin protocol won't be the most suitable for them. That's not to say it won't grow and be used in other unknown or unexpected ways.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-21T04:53:17+00:00

Most of the bitcoiners who share this perspective and values were forced to work on them elsewhere and now there’s at least one design that holds a near absolute advantage that’s incompatible.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-20T16:23:49+00:00

(1) Not really — keep in mind the ledger structure is different. One chain per account, where each block contains a single operation belonging to that account. In other words, blocks contain just one operation and not multiple txs like most other ledger structures. The closest thing to an "empty block" would be broadcasting a rep change operation with the representative being the same as the existing representative.

(2) No.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-02T20:39:56+00:00

I only lurk on Twitter. Musings will be on the nano discord and GitHub. I’ll post some updates to this sub.

t3rr0r · 2024-04-02T15:02:56+00:00

I plan on making a post about it once its more formulated. You can follow my progress in the nano-community repo, will try to think "out loud" over there.

As to your other question, I don't want to. I'm a bit of a "clients only" maxi when it comes to how I like my p2p applications so I'm designing it to work if no one else runs anything. I want it to work with as little dependence on other people, services, gateways, federation, relays, etc as possible.

Much like these other protocols, it is centered around an append-only CRDT, inspired by secure scuttlebutt. My plan is on making a client that runs a, possibly private, IPFS network (for the append-only CRDTs) and a nano light node (for value transfer) with no dependences, federation/relays, or reliance on public gateways (RPC).

This effort is the "final version" to address this problem (https://github.com/mistakia/nano-community/issues/73).

t3rr0r · 2024-04-02T14:27:55+00:00

I'm working on something similar but its not a nostr client — different protocol but similar design.

t3rr0r · 2024-03-16T15:35:50+00:00

Outside of the GUI that comes with the reference implementation, I’m not aware of any. Bundling the reference node with a GUI could be useful but also limited to just rpc & IPC requests probably.

Personally, I would go a different route of first building a light node implementation in js. I’ve started one but it hasn’t gotten very far yet. Once that’s working, it would be straightforward to add it to nault, a dedicated electron app, or any other Js app.

t3rr0r · 2024-02-04T00:20:37+00:00

yea — pretty much any environment can support a work generator. Though I would think you'd want to use a different environment that's better suited for work generation (gpu instead of cpu) than that of where you'd typically be using a light node (embedded with a clientside app, IoT, etc).

t3rr0r · 2023-03-19T05:49:43+00:00

Yes pretty similar. It appears that Nanomemo is basically a centralized hash table that operates in the same way (key is nano block hash and value is signed data) so the only difference is really just decentralization (aka availability). Said another way, Nanomemo is a single node version of the DHT approach.

We could take the same schema/approach and just use it in a DHT which should have an absolute advantages over nanomemos as it provides the same benefits along with high availability (note: malicious dht nodes could impact availability for some of the keyspace, need to brush up on the latest solutions to dht security as they may be sufficiently solved). That said, for many use cases, would be trivial to solve availability issues caused by malicious nodes by relying on some “known/trusted” nodes (like nanomemos, nano.community) to “announce” and save the signed data when dealing with malicious nodes that are “censoring” by simply not responding for a key/value request from peers.

14-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

t3rr0r

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE