Our only URLs are

All other sites are scams – especially be wary of:

benumbs.cards & bennumb.cards & bennumbs.cards & benumb.cc & many more…

(it can be hard to notice the S and extra N if not careful.) 

Welcome to the real deal. 

Please bookmark this link — the other sites have simply copy/pasted our html and don’t actually have any cards to sell. 

They can be easy to fall for if you aren’t cautious!

Are feeless cash bodily unimaginable?

Nano pumped over 100% at this time, and persons are speaking about it once more for the primary time shortly. I really like the concept of Nano and IOTA, however they may be bodily unimaginable on a big actual world scale. I see some extraordinarily troublesome issues with a feeless decentralized community:

Think about you may have a web site.

The web site runs on plenty of servers. You enable all people on Earth to add an infinite quantity of movies to your servers – free of charge. Additionally no one can ever delete the movies that get uploaded. Nice concept, you assume. Your web site grows, and instantly hundreds of thousands of persons are importing movies 24/7. You continue to cannot delete any movies to avoid wasting house in your servers’ arduous drives, and you may’t pause or restrict individuals’s uploads to 2 movies/day per particular person. A single particular person can add 100,000 movies daily in the event that they wish to. So you retain shopping for extra servers and extra arduous drives, to keep away from working out of house. How lengthy can you retain doing this for, till you hit a monetary or bodily restrict?

Transaction charges are the one precise protection that any decentralized networks have, towards spam assaults, and even simply towards unhinged database measurement progress. Think about a spam assault on Nano the place 100, 1000, or 10000 computer systems begin spamming transactions 24/7 for months. On different cash, this may value hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in transaction charges + electrical energy, however for Nano it might solely value electrical energy, making it at the very least 99.9% cheaper

This is the issue: All of those spam transactions have to be bodily saved on arduous drives to finish the Nano ledger – along with all the different common transactions. Keep in mind that if 100+ million regular individuals begin utilizing Nano, the pure progress alone will make the ledger develop to an insane measurement. How massive will the ledger develop, when there’s completely nothing limiting the quantity or frequency of transactions? Petabytes, then exabytes ultimately. So who will retailer the ledger on their arduous drives ultimately, particularly when there are not any transaction charges to pay them for his or her assist?

29 thoughts on “Are feeless cash bodily unimaginable?”

  1. You can offload storage elsewhere, things like Arweave exist so chains with high amounts of transactions can avoid unnecessary bloat. The thing is its a delicate balance because the more amount of txs -> more data created -> harder to physically store. It ends up manifesting itself in more centralized data storage facilities

    Reply
  2. However it shakes out, I check up on Nano development every few months to see how their anti-spam algorithm development progresses. It’d be cool if they succeed. At worst I see it as they’ve done a great deal of research into anti-spam algorithms that can at least contribute to itself and other chains being able to lower network fees to as low as possible

    Reply
  3. Yes, but it makes the blockchain vulnerable.

    The fee is a reward for the people who invest their ressources to secure the network..

    So it’s possible to not have fees. But someone needs to secure the blockchain, the more different people secure it, the better it is.
    That’s the technology of blockchain (short version)

    The smallest fee that is possible is data usage.
    But someone could just overload the servers with transactions, so transactions need to cost something (either money or ressources), to prevent those attacks.

    Reply
  4. Nano pumped because there’s very little supply of it on exchanges.
    The order book is very thin that arb bots don’t even touch it.
    I like using Nano but I don’t like holding Nano.
    They get attacked every few months and you are stuck.

    Reply
  5. I’ve found an answer in a thread from 1 year ago. He’s talking about implementations of V22. We’re now headed towards V24:

    >As a ballpark figure, say Nano can currently do roughly 100 CPS. An average transaction is 400 bytes. If we were to run at full saturation for an entire year, non-stop, that’d add roughly 1260 GB to the ledger, which is obviously a huge number. You can play with the [numbers for yourself here.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o_-flpg-9p0cgxPC8Updj1-pvv-CA2R2ssuZyjU7zuY/edit#gid=1088194049) I’d recommend looking into them – they also take into account price decreases over time of storage. Either way, what can be done here?
    >

    >Several things. The first option, an option that was used by some node operators, is to throttle bandwidth. Each node operator can set their own bandwidth limit. If this is throttled to say 20 CPS, that effectively decreases ledger bloat by 80%. This is a decentralized way to “cap” the network, every node can decide on their limit in a decentralised way, if any Nano holder thinks their representative has set their cap too low, they can redelegate to a representative with a higher limit.
    >

    >The reasoning for the throttling was that in terms of regular usage, Nano was doing perhaps 2 CPS on good days, say 5 CPS at a peak. The 100+ CPS capacity therefore allowed for the network to be spammed, but didn’t matter (yet) for actual usage. If actual usage grows, the limit can be easily raised or removed.
    >

    >A second option is ledger pruning. Not all transactions in the history need to be stored. What matters for the network is your current balance, and the last transaction done. So if an account has done 100,000+ transactions (yes, some have done this many), this can be pruned down to literally the last send block, saving on space. In V22, this was implemented, as [experimental pruning](https://github.com/nanocurrency/nano-node/pull/2881). This is currently only available for non-PRs, but should make it easier to run a non-representative node.
    >

    >A third option is to split storage into two. Currently, the full ledger is stored on SSDs. However, 99% of the ledger is never used. Think addresses that were used in the spam attack, holding just 0.000000000000000000001 Nano (less, actually), that are then never used again. What can theoretically be done is to allow node operators to define transactions that are deemed “dust”, so that a node operator can for example say “every account/transaction that is <0.00001 Nano and hasn’t transacted since >1 month ago is written to HDD”. HDDs are incredibly cheap. I mentioned 1260 GB for a full year of 100 CPS earlier. This seems immense, until you realise you can buy 3TB HDDs for under $50.
    >

    >Between these three measures and the fact that ledger bloat by definition takes time to play out, it seems like one of the “nicer” issues to have, and is probably relatively low on the list of priorities.

    Reply
  6. Nano exists because it isn’t important enough to garner enough attention for a real attack. If nano was created first, without bitcoin absorbing attention /attacks, nano would have poofed out of existence extremely quickly.

    So many shitcoins can only exist in bitcoins shadow.

    Reply
  7. Feeless is impossible, because you correctly found out that providing a service costs something and our resources are not unlimited.

    There must be a way to pay for using it to self-regulate its usage, otherwise it would die of malicious actors.

    Low fees, but tail emissions (xmr) are one way, or high fees (btc) are both viable attempts, fully feeless means someone else is paying for the service in an intransparent way (=scam?)

    Also avoid iota at all costs. They deliberately broke their crypto – its a broken crypto crypto coin.

    Reply
  8. Maintaining a Nano node has a cost (internet connection, disk, electricity, etc), but the cost of running a node is really small compared to the accumulated fees in other networks.

    If your business depends on transactions over Nano network, then it will be for your own benefit to have your own Nano node, so you can verify your own transactions (security, trustless).

    If other network fees to go into the next block cost you around 1~2usd per transaction and you need to do hundreds of transactions per month, then having a Nano node would be a cheaper alternative.

    Even small businesses do hundreds of transactions, so having their own Nano node is a cost effective solution for them and a contribution to the network.

    By the way, in PoW-based blockchains like Bitcoin the miners get the fees and a reward, but validators don’t receive those incomes. How do Bitcoin validators keep the full nodes running?

    TLDR: if you are really using the crypto, them running a Nano node is cheaper than paying fees each month!

    Reply
  9. Fee-less coins are as impossible as open source software. Imagine your cell phone as a lightweight node that can push your transaction to the rest of the network for verification or a group of user’s home PC’s working together. Like cars, PC’s produce waste while idling and instead of being left idle, small transactions can be distributed to idling devices like a global decentralized mainframe. If we wanted to engineer a network that was feeless or used off peak electricity or used idling cars, such a thing is possible, but this network would not be optimized for speed. Luckily, it is possible to create a network that resolves and transacts for pennies worth of electricity in less than a minute.

    Reply
  10. It’s a valid point of concern.

    >Transaction fees are the only actual defense that any decentralized networks have, against spam attacks, and even just against unhinged database size growth.

    I rather say that transactions fees are the **most intuitive** defense decentralized networks have against spam attacks and database size growth. But not the only one.

    Spam + Database size growth attacks has a goal. They want to harm the network somehow.

    If the harm they bring is negligible to the network and its users, then there are very few incentives to do any of them.

    Any system can be spammed, and every system deals differently with this threat.

    **i.e.** If **bitcoin** gets spammed, fees will rise and legitimate users with low balance will not be able to use it anyway.

    So, as I see it, nano is trying to deal with spam in a way that legitimate users (ANY legitimate user) are less affected. v.23 was a great start with the bucket prioritization solution.

    About database size growth, if you have a database that is so light as nano is, hardware upgrades will probably occur faster than any viable ledger bloat attack could “bloat” it.

    i.e. Nano ledger has <100GB, with more than 7 years of a live mainnet, with feeless transactions and after facing multiple spam+ledger bloat attacks during all these years.

    A 400GB SSD is very cheap and already obsolete to many hardware implementations.

    Reply

Leave a Comment