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.
Are there any substantial flaws in my thinking you want to point out or was that it?
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.
By the way, do you care to name one Nano project?
Apple wants to have a word, Meta too.
Nano had a rebranding and was called Raiblocks before. While it was a quite distinct name, people wouldn’t even know how to pronounce it.
I’m not overly interested in the name, I do like the attributes of “Nano, the digital money” though.
Lots of the issues Bitcoin faces are not based on the design, but by and large what tech bros made out of it.
If you really want to learn more about it, have a look at the blocksize wars and Bitcoin Cash. Or just wait until Bitcoin finally collapses, which will happen eventually, but I’m not able to tell whether this year, decade or century.
What will break Bitcoin’s neck eventually is the OPEX of its mining. Mining on the one hand is a crucial part of keeping the network secure, but on the other hand is expensive way beyond the money that can be earned from transaction fees collected when doing the mining.
Bitcoins being generated from thin air when a new block is being produced are a major part of the revenue for the miners, but the amount of BTC getting created this way gets reduced over time until it reaches 0.
The thing about the mining is that it’s being done with more and more computing power, and it can’t go below whatever the current amount of computing power is by a lot without putting the network at risk.
In case this is an honest question:
Ripple and Stellar are popular examples of networks that can process lots of transactions fast and cheap, but in my perspective they’re both examples of tech bros finding a new playground - especially true for Ripple.
But there are other gems such as https://nano.org/en, which come to mind. It’s true open source, was distributed for free, has transactions without a fee and can process hundreds of transactions per second with a tiny ecological footprint.
Yeah, I know, it sounds too good to be true, but if you have a closer look, it just is good.
Monero does not exactly have the capacity for hundreds of transactions per second, but offers a degree of privacy that’s awesome.
And then there’s the OG Ethereum, which in fact can process lots of transactions per second often at a quite low cost, which offers a Turing complete smart contract language.
You see, there are at least some alternatives, which offer lots of fast and cheap or even feeless transactions or transactions with other benefits, wuch as privacy.
The development didn’t stop with the “train wreck waiting to happen Bitcoin”.
I’m glad Bitcoin created the whole crypto sphere.
At the same time I’m dumbstruck how most of the whole sphere is just a soulless, useless money grab.
It’s hard to find the projects that aren’t, but they are here, hidden in a pile of shit.
You might realize that the projects I listed are more or less random examples, which mostly have one thing in common: they’ve been around for quite some time.
So trying to get legit projects off the ground makes no sense, because 99.9% of all projects are scams?
I beg to differ!
Or did you want to insinuate something else?