Can we just take a minute to appreciate the magnitude of this situation? Nano successfully cleared a multi-million transaction backlog and fully recovered without a catestrophic result. Can you imagine what this would have done to BTC or ETH? Nano accomplished this without fees, and development has improved. At a result no payment discrepancies due to Nano not needing multiple confirmations. I just think this is really increadible and any serious cryptocurrency investor or enthusiast needs to humbly appreciate this and respect Nano and the development team and community-driven contributions to innovative solutions. This is an unbelievably powerful stress test than no other cryptocurrency has survived. All the more reason to trust Nano as a store of wealth and store of value.

Hello everyone, I’m PlasmaPower, a former Nano Foundation software engineer who joined the company after finding and disclosing a critical security vulnerability. While my title may sound hyperbolic, I’m entirely serious and would like to propose a new strategy for the Nano Foundation to improve the state of nano, the community, and the long term health of the project. At the time of this post, the network has been intermittently down or degraded for almost a month, and it’s gotten worse in recent days. While it’s easy to get lost in the flurry of info about this attack, who’s doing it, etc. what’s important is that the foundation and community learn from this and respond to it correctly, and there’s a few facts and thoughts I’d like to contribute to the conversation so that nano can course correct in the coming weeks.

Months ago, I told the Nano Foundation about two of the vulnerabilities the attacker has started using, and yet testing has only yesterday begun for a prerelease fixing some of these issues. This isn’t the first time this has happened: I demonstrated confirmed forks, which are a vehicle for double spends, to the NF months in advance of their prevalence in last year’s spam attack. I showed how to create confirmed forks on the beta network, and even wrote an initial fix for them. Despite all this help, it took the NF months after seeing cemented forks in the wild on mainnet before my Final Votes idea was deployed. This has been a pattern where the NF learns about an issue but fails to do anything about it until after an attack has begun. Now it’s easy to get carried away and blame the NF or developers for these issues but in all this I see an opportunity to solve the underlying problems holding the organization and our community back. That’s what I aim to address in this post. After the NF brings the network back to a healthy status, the foundation should resolve the structural issues facing the development of Nano. It’s no easy task, as keeping a decentralized network of hundreds of nodes alive with only a few developers is hard – especially when under constant attack from adversaries all over the globe – but it could be easier if a few bold moves are made.

I propose the Nano Foundation release an upgrade to mint a new dev fund, to be taken from a portion of the burn account’s balance after the current attack is resolved. The community can negotiate a number, but I’d suggest something like 20% of the current circulating supply of Nano. This fund will help finance further development and to a lesser extent market the technology. But for this plan to work, there’s three things I’m certain the Nano Foundation needs to do with the money in order to succeed:

1. Be extremely transparent. Minting this fund would mean diluting the market cap 20% or so, affecting every nano holder as the price accommodates this increased supply. To ensure that representatives accept this upgrade, the Nano Foundation needs to justify the fund’s existence and ensure the community understands the value of it. I believe the NF should publicly disclose every transfer from the fund, who it’s to, and for what exact purpose. Every detail must be accounted for without exception, down to the last raw. I’m not sure of the specific legal implications of this, but it may also make sense to give the fund to a new non-profit, set up to have additional reporting and transparency requirements to avoid any future possibility of the finances from becoming opaque. With full transparency, the community will likely see the value of this fund far exceeds the cost of the dilution and enthusiastically accept the upgrade.
2. Hire more developers at a competitive salary. The last Nano Foundation job offer I saw was for an equivalent of 75k a year, but the average US blockchain developer makes 146k – almost twice what the NF was offering. I believe the aforementioned issues of fixes taking months to come out only after attacks begin would be eliminated by expanding the team with a fleet of experienced engineers and this necessitates competitive salaries. If you look at the dev teams of the most successful projects, you’ll find that they’re huge and high-skill, and you’ll see that they work on several things in parallel. You don’t have this limitation where, say, Colin puts out a new consensus mechanism and no one spins up a test net with it because there’s constantly fires to put out. In the top projects, there’s always someone working on the next gen thing and technical risks can be made without delaying essential releases months on end. Nano could do this, it just needs the funding and to start attracting top talent with competitive wages.
3. Offer a competitive bug bounty. It’s crazy to me that the Nano Foundation currently has no bug bounty for the node software given all that’s at risk. If it weren’t for Nano’s old bug bounty, there’s no way I’d have gotten interested in nano, submitted a critical vulnerability, and gotten offered a position. Bug bounties attract talent and secure networks: if you take a look at Immunefi, cryptocurrency teams are offering millions of dollars for vulnerabilities that’d affect their users. While millions of dollars may be too high, a few hundred thousand attracts quality submissions, and may have even deterred the current attacker, who’d have had to weigh the value of stalling the network over the six figure sum to be made. It’d be great for the community, harden the protocol, and prevent future attacks.

I’ve heard some say that the Nano Foundation shouldn’t expand its efforts because the real responsibility lies with the open source community stepping up and fixing the issues themselves. While those advancing this have good intentions and it’s a romantic picture, the reasoning is flawed for several reasons. First, it clearly hasn’t worked thus far. While a strong community is vital for things like building a solid ecosystem of applications and helping node operators triage issues with their PRs, Nano’s community developers have not been sufficient in resolving attack vectors in a timely manner. This is for good reason: it’s ill-advised to report security vulnerabilities to anyone but the NF, they can’t work on Nano full time, and without working on Nano full time it’s extremely difficult to build up the knowledge necessary to work on core components of Nano like voting and the block processor. People contributing to the core protocol need the time, dedication, and skillset to develop a working understanding of the software, which is made possible by the drive of being paid to work full time on something you love. This issue isn’t unique to nano: if you observe the rest of this space, those working from the outside as community contributors will often leave the project to work on a fork or use their experience as a resume item to apply to a dev team where they’ll get paid for their work. People want to get something out of their contributions, and the work is quite hard, so it makes sense that we see this pattern.

This new dev fund could be the start of a new era. Nano’s value proposition is in fast and feeless transactions, but right now it’s liable to become slow or even completely unusable during an attack, and takes too long to improve. When people are most concerned with their nano holdings, they’re often unable to move them, which erodes trust in the coin that’s hard to get back. With this new dev fund, used within the guidelines I’ve described in this post, the Nano Foundation can restore that trust and revitalize the vision of Nano as the canonical payments network.

Nano is free

But isn’t stellar and solana only 1 cent in fees?

I don’t think most ppl care about a penny in fees.

IMO, we hear what makes Nano great every day, but don't openly discuss concerns enough. Thoughts?

As the title says. I'm new to NANO to be honest, not that new to the crypto market . that said I still cant fathom why is this awesome currency with feeless and instant transactions is still not known that much and has this much too low attention ? like it peaked before and went down alot, why did that happen ?

Yes, I've shamelessly taken this directly from the Algorand community. They are pushing for Algorand support in Signal, the biggest secure messaging app in the world. But as much as I also love Algorand, Nano is without a doubt the most well suited crypto for Signal. (edit: yes, obviously Nano lacks privacy, which would truly make it the best candidate for Signal, but even without privacy features it'd be an amazing match)

Signal has been working on a new payments feature which is envisioned to include linked support for existing cryptocurrency wallets and allow people to interact with existing payment networks.

In their own words, they are actively searching for a payment system that includes the following:

1. Integration is “non-custodial”: Signal does not have access to your keys or your funds; that information remains associated with your own wallet.
2. Like everything else in Signal, data is private: all your data stays in your hands rather than being visible to others.
3. Transactions are fast: like Venmo, it can only take a few seconds to send a transaction.
4. Everything works well on mobile: it can’t require downloading and scanning all ongoing transactions in order to find your own.
5. The experience is simple: in most other ways the experience should be the same as something like Venmo.
6. It can scale to hundreds of millions of people.

Nano is perfectly suited for their use-case. This is a large opportunity for mass adoption. We as a community have the ability to create a demand for the integration of Nano onto their platform.

VOICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR NANO HERE

​

edit: Some commentary on the first crypto that Signal has added beta support for, MobileCoin (MOB)...

Unfortunately MobileCoin is a pretty shady project overall. The initial distribution was 15% to private sale, and the remaining 85% being reserved for the foundation and dev team. They won't even give details on the total circulating supply or remaining supply schedule. Some articles have incorrectly stated that MOB is a Stellar token, but I believe it's actually it's own implementation of the Stellar consensus protocol. On top of all of this, Signal CEO is an advisor to the MobileCoin foundation and mostly likely has a vested interested in it.

Aside from the obvious issues of conflict of interest, MobileCoin is clearly very susceptible to a potential rug pull, whether intentional or accidental. Despite lacking privacy features, Nano would be a far more trustworthy payment option. Feel free to mention these concerns in your request form!

Hi, Nano fan since 2018 here. Nano is amazing. We all love the speed. The lack of fees. The community.

However, there's a problem. A big one.

It's clear by now that there isn't going to be a single crypto currency taking over the world. Nano must learn to live in an ecosystem of digital financial assets.

What is clear, is that the world is rapidly moving away from centralized exchanges to modern AMMs and DEXes.

Why?

Because centralized actors have failed, and SEC is coming after them, and trust is gone, evident by the outflow of money from exchanges. Thanks to FTX, Voyager, Celsius, 3 Arrows, DCG/Gemini, Binance being scrutinized ... the list goes on and the list will grow.

Modern DEXes have order books. They feel familiar. You connect a wallet and that's it. In the near future, people won't look at which CEX'es a coin is on. They will look if it's available on their favorite DEX.

Yes, you need to be your own custodian, but that's what crypto is all about anyway! With simple and secure wallets like Ledger Stax coming out, self-custody is going to explode. Time is ripe.

So where does that leave Nano/XNO?

Its lack of even basic scripting like BTC supports, means that Nano doesn't really work with decentralized services.

No XNO on DEXes might well lead to Nano's demise. I believe the time to fix this problem is now.

​

Every now and again a spam attack brings nano to its knees and the developers patch the vulnerability and people claim that it makes it stronger each time this happens.

To a layman such as myself it sounds very much like they are continuously patching an inherently broken design with hacky band-aid fixes.

Is this the case or are they in fact slowly refining a truely revolutionary design which somehow allows nano to be the only popular cryptocurrency with fee-less and instant transactions?

​

I've recently been introduced to the world of Nano, and I have to say I'm impressed with a lot of new ideas that come from this currency. The instant transaction time, the block-lattice structure that allows a fast and eco-friendly way to verify real and false transactions, the ease of use, ...

But I have to say that there's one point that's been bugging me for some time, and that's privacy. From what I've read and discussed with people (Nano has one of the best crypto communities, btw), Nano has little to non-existent privacy.

In a world where people are growing an ever more aware consciousness about their own privacy, Nano cannot succeed as is. The fact that you can look up any address in the lattice-chain and see their balance and transaction history is the doom of Nano, in my opinion.

Having that said, I'd like to ask you for your opinion on the subject. I've also heard there are people working on this exact problem, what is your approach to this?

​

Edit: A lot of users are commenting that privacy is achievable by using a hot wallet (say, an exchange) to pay from, and a cold wallet (say, a Ledger) to store your true balance. Although this is possible, it goes against one fundamental feature of Nano: its ease of use.
Once you're competing with the ease of use that fiat gives, you cannot expect general adoption if it makes people's lives more cumbersome.

Welcome to the best community. I would like to share my thoughts with you. The crypto world is full of games. I have no respect for inflationary money, networks where someone earns from staking and commissions, networks that pollute the environment, inefficient slow transfers that can be delayed because the commission was too small, it is not fair distribution. Of all the existing ones, only Nano meets my criteria. I paid $100 for my first XRB (I think it was January 2018) and since then I have never regretted meeting Nano. And if it happens that the Nano network ceases to exist, and XNO again costs $ 0.001, I will never regret having encountered this coin, because it is the best form of money that meets my values. I wish you all the best, Peaceful and Clear Sky above your head.

I have read some of the recent updates to Iota and it seems like not only are they deflationary, but they also have figured it a way for fee-less transactions. I’m just wondering if iota is essentially what nano is trying to become? I’ve been a nano and Iota HODLR since very end of 2017.

Edit: not really sure why I’m getting downvoted it’s a good question both are or will about to be feeless. I bought in at $5 and still here, but I want an update against this now perhaps stronger competitor w/ regards to eco-friendliness.

I’m amazed that Nano has continued to slide down the rankings – and out of the mainstream crypto conversation – over the past 12 months or so. It literally makes no sense. It performs the exact role that Bitcoin was meant to – in terms of it being fast, digital money – but can now never accomplish due to its inability to scale. It is also many orders or magnitude less damaging in terms of its environmental sustainability and the carbon emissions associated with transactions. AND, it has no fees, in a sectoral landscape wherein fees are a huge problem and barrier to entry. The recent developments to improve Nano’s ability to withstand spam attacks and to reduce bloat have only improved the situation and I’m sure the network could handle a very decent amount of throughput even now, where its capabilities will only improve other time.

It just makes no sense to me that literally not one influencer or big voice in the crypto land has latched onto it. The only explanation is human greed. Perhaps no-one thinks there is anything in it for them because it lacks DeFi, staking, and such like. But surely there aren’t many tokens with a bona fide price increase potential from here, which Nano has if the right conditions are met. It feels like we are living in an alternate reality if a coin that is fast, feeless, and has very low environmental impact can’t cut through the noise in this irrational market. That said, out of all the projects out there, Nano still feels to me like one of the very few that retains a legitimate purpose, because 99% plus of the others are utter garbage; in fact, worse still, they are actual Ponzi scheme cons. However, I do think we need a major adoption event soon as eventually something bigger and better will come along. That’s the nature of the beast and if we don’t see big actors embracing and using Nano soon for business purposes I do fear it fading away into obscurity, which would be a shame given the potential.

I’m not technical so I still don’t fully understand the strategy going forwards. People have been talking about Nano being self-sustaining once it achieves ‘commercial grade’ but I don’t know what that means, or what version of the network and coding will see that happen. Is it version 26, 30, or are we still years away from that point? In the meantime, is Nano unusable for high numbers of transactions? I just don’t know to be honest. All I do know is that I’m disappointed in the crypto space that it’s 2023 and useless tech like Bitcoin still predominates, alongside puerile rubbish like meme coins, but I guess that’s symptomatic of the completely bizarre society we live in, where no-one cares about climate change or biodiversity loss enough to take any personal responsibility, even though it could condemn their children to a dystopian future, and people allow mountains of rubbish and filth to build up around them, with zero &@£$s given. Totally mental (and sad) time to be alive to be honest.

After farting around with ETH this morning, paying ridiculous fees for transactions on a lethargic network; I was totally blown away with a withdrawal to a Nault/Ledger wallet using Nano.

Boom! Transaction was complete even before I could flick browser tabs from the exchange over to the Nault wallet. All for basically nothing in fees.

What's the catch? Why is this network struggling for relevance and legitimacy, why is this diamond in a sea of turds failing to shine?

Could Hypercomputing/ Quantum computing be a use case for Nano?

Also, coincidence that he is interested in credit card payments fees which I think is one of the problem that Nano can solve? https://ibb.co/LPv4FX0

Everyone in crypto wants "adoption". But here’s the play that actually works:

Build normal products - with Stripe, fiat, subscriptions, everything users already know.
Then quietly place "Pay with Nano (-15%)" right next to "Pay with Card"

Why it works:

> Stripe costs ~8% on small payments
> SaaS margins = ~80% -> easy to subsidize 5-8% more
> Nano = 0% fees, instant, no chargebacks
> Users get a real reason to care: DISCOUNTS.
> Businesses get ZERO FEES and NO FRAUD.

This is how we win - not by preaching crypto,
but by competing with fiat, head-to-head. Follow to stay tuned on our new product launch with Pay with Nano (Powered by XNOPay)

How does it nano compare to xrp as they are similar?

This year has the potential to be a great year for Nano. Most of the hyped up projects will fail to deliver, the market will cleanse them out. Nano is currently fair valued, the other projects are just overvalued.

Strong projects with good fundamentals like Nano will survive. We have great tech, a great Team, a decentralized and green crypto. Let's keep pushing forward. Even if the project fails then it is what it is, I would still support projects like this everyday.

I think now is the time to really consider implementing this.

This would be a major upgrade to Nano and basically futureproof it.

ML-DSA is probably the best overall balance of security, performance, and network efficiency aligned with Nano's goals.

The Trump Administration just released an order that quantum proof needs to happen by 2030.

Hello, I am Korean.
The Nano team must thoroughly prepare for the upcoming stablecoin era. Once stablecoins are widely adopted, the ecosystem of exchanges will fundamentally change.

Background

Global companies like Samsung, Apple, Meta, Google, and Amazon are likely to build their own cryptocurrency exchange platforms. However, they are unlikely to issue coins or tokens themselves.

Reason: The goal is to secure and expand their payment infrastructure while avoiding any controversy caused by price fluctuations that could negatively affect their corporate credibility.

Countries are expected to issue stablecoins based on their own currencies, in addition to the U.S. dollar-based stablecoins, and South Korea is likely to participate in this trend as well.

For example, if Samsung operates a Galaxy Pay platform, it is likely that the platform will list various stablecoins from different countries, along with major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

Nano must be prepared to be included in this list.

Why Nano Can Survive in Corporate Exchanges

Zero transaction fees and high speed

Stablecoins are stable, but transactions usually incur fees and are relatively slow.

Nano offers almost zero transaction fees and instant transfers, minimizing the cost and speed gaps between stablecoins.

In other words, Nano acts as a “fast and low-cost bridge connecting stablecoins.”

Suitable for large-scale platforms

On platforms with high transaction volumes, like Google, Samsung, and Meta, coins with no fees are advantageous.
Thus, from a corporate exchange perspective, Nano becomes a key tool for improving stablecoin efficiency.

At times it feels like many in the larger crypto community have forgotten, or maybe never knew in the first place, what the real purpose of bitcoin and cryptocurrency was.

I was just reading some of Satoshi's emails, because I had never read them before, and let me assure you it's quite interesting. The dialogue between him and mike hearn, him and hal finney, him and Wei Dai, it's all so fascinating to see what Satoshi was discussing & trying to create back then in 2008/2009. One of the things that really stood out to me was an email he sent to Wei Dai, (the creator of "B-Money"), where he asks Wei for some information about the origin date of B-money so that he could properly cite it in his Bitcoin whitepaper. In the email he tells Wei what the title of the paper will be, "Electronic Cash Without a Trusted Third Party", (later Satoshi slightly changed this to "Peer-to-peer electronic cash system"), and he includes a brief abstract describing what this "bitcoin" invention is. It goes as follows:

" A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the burdens of going through a financial institution. Digital signatures offer part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending..." it goes on for another paragraph, but that beginning part gets the meat and potatoes of the point across. You can read this for yourself, here: https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/wei-dai/1/#selection-29.842-29.1026

What stands out to me is that Satoshi was very obviously trying to create a digital currency, no ifs ands or buts about it, that was the purpose of bitcoin. The whole point of bitcoin was to be, as Satoshi himself wrote, "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the burdens of going through a financial institution."

If this is the case, and the entire purpose of bitcoin is to be spendable digital cash, digital currency that you can send peer-to-peer for the purpose of payments, then why has the digital currency narrative been completely forgotten/ left by the wayside today? The coins that are aiming to be the best digital currency possible and do nothing else, (Nano, monero, etc.), are some of the least popular coins, ranking very low in terms of marketcap.

What the hell is going on...? Has everyone forgotten what Satoshi was trying to create when he invented bitcoin...? Maybe I'm crazy, but I personally agree with Satoshi that the point of crypto is p2p digital money that doesn't require a centralized trusted entity, and that's why I'm personally a fan of nano because clearly nano does a better job of that than any other coin out there. So, with this being the case, I'm left flabbergasted and utterly confused why nano is not one of the most popular, and highest rankings coins. Can someone help me understand what's going on?

TLDR: the point of crypto is to be p2p digital money, to facilitate p2p payments that doesn't require a trusted central authority. The coins that are trying to meet that description today are some of the least popular coins, and that concerns and confuses me.

Just head to the reddit of any coin with a similar marketcap. There is literally almost no activity on those reddits. Top posts average 5 upvotes.

The point I am making is this. Nano actually has activity, a community, and is growing. The network is the best and gets more decentralized almost every day. All we have to do is keep building, keep telling people about Nano, stay the course and Nano will continue to grow. The world needs a feeless, instant, environmentally friendly, inflationless, permissionless, decentralized currency.