I've been a Bitcoin maximalist since 2015, never owning any alts. And, I've first heard about Nano back in november 2017. I was skeptical about Nano at first, due to 2 reasons:
1 - The coin was too new. Possible big bugs could appear, it needed time to prove itself.
2 - Bitcoin already existed. I did not understand the core flaws in the BTC network at the time (I'm talking about security and not speed/transaction cost). As such, in my perspective at the time, Nano did not bring anything new and was simply dividing the community.
This night, I've read a debate on a crypto forums about how Bitcoin failed to accomplish what it was created to do. Basically:
1 - PoW centralizes around China due to the cheap energy there, caused by their government's corruption. In order for the rest of the world to compete, governments would need to subside energy, which would centralize the power of mining into the hands of the state.
2 - Low scalability = centralization. The Bitcoin community has been forced to search for off-chain solutions. Exchanges and companies like Paypal and Square. This neglects the positive aspects of Bitcoin, that is being able to transaction without a middleman. It introduces trust into the equation. Governments may also control these companies which are transacting Bitcoin. And, these companies may do fractional reserving. Although this problem will happen in any crypto, Bitcoin is pushed to this direction with force due to it's low scalability.
This has blown my mind and has shaken my confidence in Bitcoin's potential as the destroyer of central banks.
Well, I've been hearing a very loud (and annoying to the bone, while we're at it) Nano community over the past years. It always sounded like a strong project, but as a Bitcoin maximalist I've never seen the need to look for something else. I've spent this entire night doing research, and it appears Nano solves these issues presented here, whilst not introducing others. I'...