Can't make it right for everyone... Some people will complain about mining and the energy consumption (Bitcoin is supposed to currently use about 850 kWh per transaction), others complain about a supposedly unfair premine. They didn't even hold an ICO.

51%

That's not currently a required percentage, you need 67% of votes to confirm a transaction. Which in turn means 33% are enough to stall the network. But even then, what would their gain be, apart from owning more of their own currency?

Which is irrelevant because holders can just choose different representatives.

You can, but then you can no longer vote. And if you can't vote, holding Nano does nothing.

I don't think there's a cryptocurrency today that comes without downsides, be it high resource usage, lack of anonymity or others, if they're not straight up money grabs and a copy paste of another random junk on ETH. Bitcoin is not an option for me because of the monster mining has become - I don't blame Satoshi, this is something I didn't expect either, but it's insanity currently.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That's whataboutism - a low carbon footprint doesn't change whether or not Nano is a scam. My Excel spreadsheet has an even lower carbon footprint than the AI you're pitching here. If they own a large enough majority to control the network, then they can dictate policy or favor their own blocks for free money.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's ok dude, I'm not trying to sway you. I'm not invested into the topic enough to defend something against theoretical and unsubstantiated claims. Use what you want or don't

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

I'm warning potential readers about the scam you're promoting. If you don't care, then stop.

If a cryptocurrency involves trusting a central foundation at any point, it's a scam. It's an unnecessary security hole, and one would be damn foolish to invest in it just because the hole remains unused.