The Security Model of Nano is Greater than the Security Model of Bitcoin. [DEBUNKED]
Sorry to break it to you guys but lets not get ahead of ourselves please.
[The post I am refering to](https://old.reddit.com/r/nanocurrency/comments/dtdbuv/the_security_model_of_nano_is_greater_than_the/) concludes that nano is more secure as an attacker would need to aquire 51% of the funds to sucessfully attack the network while in the process he'd be at a loss since the nano would be worth less than what he invested in the first place.
2 misconceptions I see here:
1. Attackers wont always have the incentive to profit. A attack could be coordinated to solely kill the competition thus indirectly profiting by having existing networks sustain their value.
2. You do NOT need 51% of the funds to attack the nano network. You need 51% of the network. This is because PoS is based off of pure logic in the node that checks certain accounts for certain balances. When the consesus algorithm is based off of merely that and nothing else, all it takes is to have 51% of the nodes checking altered ledgers and thus validating malicious blocks.
This means that nano's algorithm is not more secure than that of bitcoins. In fact its far less secure. The only advantage nano's consesus algorithm brings to the table is decentralization. NOT security.
Not sure what Im trying to achieve with this post, I mainly just want to make this clear, so that in the case of an actual attack, you guys wont hold colin accountable because "I thought its not possible without owning 51% of the funds"
PS: If someone can prove me wrong, please do! I'd love it
EDIT: So after talking to more experienced nano devs we concluded that such an attack would NOT open the possibility to lost funds but merely bloat the network. Not something completely fatal but still an "issue".
In conclusion, buy nano