Nano, security, implementation of improvements and price development

Hi, I just found out about Nano yesterday, and I have been studying it for a while now. Obviously zero fees, infant scalability and super fast transactions are great. Now some questions came up:

  1. I read that once a cryptocurrency exchange was hacked and lots of nanos were stolen, I think they still had its original name then but that should not make a difference. The exchange blamed the design of Nano, was there any truth in that at all? How secure is nano?

  2. Since its great qualities how come the price went down so much, from a top of around 37 dollar to less than a dollar now?

  3. I have seen an interviewer with the founder of Nano, and he said that they were still working on improvements. But are Nano transaction not a thing between the sender and the receiver only? Am I right that the nanos themselves cannot be changed anymore, but the software around it, wallets, exchanges can still be changed? Is it possible that an improvement will be developed, but that a transaction will be performed without that improvement being implemented, because they are unaware of that improvement or for other reasons?

  4. It has been said that Nano is not private, my question: how not private is it? Can this be solved? How would this solution be world wide implemented (this coincides party with the answer on question 3).

  5. is it true that nano can only be bought with another crypto currency? If so, is that not an important disadvantage? Does Coinbase work with Nano too?

Thank you very much in advance

Michael

1 Like

Welcome and thanks for asking some very good questions. I'll attempt to answer what I can.

From my understanding, the hack involved a bug in the withdraw code where someone was able to manipulate their browser and request a withdraw more than once and it was not validated correctly on the server side. There were also reports of people getting credited twice for some deposits, even for other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum. There are a lot more details but I'm not sure an official/legal account exists yet of everything that transpired.

I can't speculate much on the price, but Nano had one of the biggest bull runs in late 2017 and early 2018 and crashed similarly. Nano was only on a couple exchanges at the time that were not very large which could have contributed to some of it. There has also been very little marketing, the focus has been on continuing to develop the software making it faster and more scalable.

Nano is fully functional, secure, fast and feeless right now. It's been that way for a while but there are many improvements that can improve the throughput (number of transactions per second) in the future as well as make it easier for services to build on top of the node implementation. The total supply of nano has been distributed and there cannot be anymore created. The node software for communicating transactions between users can be improved as well as services built on it and wallets like you mentioned.

The only risk might be if a significant enough change happens to the node software and a wallet provider does not upgrade that they might run into issues processing a transaction if the network level communication protocol changes, however the protocol has been fairly stable for a few releases now.

This is true, privacy like Monero has does not exist in Nano. However individual accounts are not linked to a specific user unless you show someone your address. It's about as private as Bitcoin is now from my perspective. You can use an exchange as a mixer for example, deposit 100 Nano to Binance and withdraw 10 nano to a spending account and then 30 nano another time etc and it's not traceable to know where those 10/30 came from since Binance sends withdraws from a combined hot wallet account.

The protocol could be changed if there is an easy to implement, secure and tested solution and Colin has mentioned that he's not apposed to it but wants to take it slow and carefully to ensure security of the network. This is likely an area of interest for government regulators also, so probably time is needed to wait and see what different countries do with projects like Monero.

This is not accurate. There are multiple exchanges that offer direct fiat USD/EUR etc trading pairs. For example Kraken, Binance US, Bitvavo. ProBit has KRW. There are also services like Wirex that offer nano purchases with fiat. This has improved a lot over the last 2 years but still some room for improvement to get on additional exchange options that offer direct fiat trading pairs.

5 Likes

Great Answers !! Nano indeed have done better in terms of price as well.

1 Like

It is important to understand that Nano is scalable with hardware and bandwidth whose throughput is not intentionally constrained to maintain a fee market or small ledger. Describing it as infinitely scalable is potentially doing it a disfavour by inviting scepticism.

Long term is has a different trust model to BTC. Trust minimisation in Nano is achieved by delegating weight to a variety of validators (principal representatives) which reduces the risk of malicious majority attacks.

Trust minimisation in BTC is achieved by receiving a transaction via a full node synchronised from the genesis block that is following the chain with the heaviest PoW.

In essence, Nano recognises a couple of realities.

  1. Very people few will likely self validate their BTC transactions. Additionally, even if they found themselves on a valid but “wrong” chain during a hashpower attack they would not know how to invalidate_chain or invalidate_block
  2. The inevitable rise in onchain transaction fees required to maintain security in the context of repeated halvings means that people will be increasingly priced out. This is despite of 2nd layer solutions like the lightning network.
    https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Utility-Threshold-Property
1 Like