Why NANO haters are wrong:
>It's just fast & free, it doesn't do anything
qz.com
Remittances, or immigrants sending money back home, involve $500b annually. Things like Western Union are ripping you off w/ their exorbitant fees, but it also takes a long time to send.You may not care about fast & free, but pajeet who wants to send all his funds home to pay his mothers emergency medical funds cares about a currency that can instantaneously transfer wallet-to-wallet for free.
>but network security, man in the middle 51% attacks
When a minimum of 51% of voting is required for a tx, a mitm attacker cannot control 51% of the representatives. a receiver will wait for confirmation from the majority of the representatives before they add the block to their history. representative nodes will sign blocks as they propagate through the network & a node will refrain from committing the block into their local database unless a high threshold of representatives have signed off on the block.
This can be solved at a wallet level, & protocol level implementation is also possible. Bitcoin offers protocol level solution for this, but at the cost of centralization by miners, lack of scalability/transaction fees. Nano offers no fees so a trade off must be made & this form of attack can be solved by the paranoid mode protocol
github.com
>exchange issues
To be expected. The tech is new, & centralized exchanges are shit, but the dev team keeps the community updated DAILY & works tirelessly to fix them. It's a good thing that exchange issues are currently the biggest problem w/ something that mainly exists to be a transfer of value between personal wallets
>no incentive to run nodes
Merchants who run nodes for cheap will save money by avoiding debit/credit card tx fees with anyone pays in nano. This is amplified the larger the business is.