456
17 years* (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/37913022

https://mastodon.online/@FranckLeroy/109627512801712672

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Nano gave out its supply with centrally administered CAPTCHAs. That means they could have simply exempted insiders from having to do the CAPTCHAs at all, getting >51% of the supply for free. You're expecting everyone who ever uses that money supply to trust a central party for something we can't audit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Well, maybe they have, maybe they haven't.
    At least they made the effort and a better system than CAPTCHAs to make it available to people without the need for special hardware or other prerequisites aside from a computer with internet access was just not there.
    Plus I wonder why they've continued developing that project for the last 10+ years in case it was just meant as cash grab for insiders.

    People use Bitcoin, although it's clear that Satoshi (whoever that is) has shy of 10% of the total supply: https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/
    Needless to ask what happens to BTC holders, if that amount of BTC appear on the sell side of the market.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody cares how much effort they put in if it walks like a scam and quacks like a scam. You'd have to be nuts to trust anybody in the crypto space.

    Why stop developing while it's still producing revenue? With >51% of the supply, they can leech off any remaining suckers indefinitely. The price of Nano relative to Bitcoin has done exactly what one should expect. It would need to have been done correctly to begin with and can't now be un-fucked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    That's where our perceptions differ. There'd be zero need to continue development, if scamming was the goal.
    The revenue could be had without additonal effort.

    How is done correctly?
    How would it have been done correctly a decade ago in your opinion?
    All distribution schemes I know or can think of (shy of using people's biometric data to stop them from getting more than their fair share) is at risk of being expoited by in-groups - see the fortune of Satoshi.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •