This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/nanocurrency by /u/OwnAGun on 2023-12-28 01:03:32.

I am sitting here just thinking and trying to explain to someone why Nano has solved the spam problem without imposing any fees on transactions. It dawned on me I think I need to change how I think about it. Nano doesn’t impose a direct fee on any transaction, but it sort of does an indirect fee (although it’s still not an actual fee). More like imposes a stake of size and stake of time.

Basically let’s say you want to send a raw nano to someone and it’s really important even though the notional value is very small. Let’s say the network is being spammed and getting congested…How will the system prioritize your transaction over a similar sized transaction amount of spam? Easy. All you need to do is own /and hold in your account an actual amount of Nano that is more than dust. By proving you have a stake in the value of the Nano network as a whole, you are essentially telling the algorithm you are a priority. Your little transaction will then get moved ahead of the spam transactions.

So it’s like proof of stake (not for confirmation) but for prioritization.

It also has the time layer as well.

So basically Nano has a combination of proof of time prioritization and proof of stake (size) prioritization?

Is how I am thinking about this correct?