This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/nanocurrency by /u/Superyellowcake on 2025-08-13 19:44:22+00:00.
Right now Monero is facing claims of a 51% attack, reportedly using rented hash power from Qubic. Whether every detail is true or not, it’s causing a lot of FUD in the community. The fact remains that with enough hash rate, a short-term 51% attack on a proof-of-work coin is technically possible. This allows an attacker to reorganize the chain, double-spend, or censor transactions. As mining becomes more centralized and hash power easier to rent, these risks could grow over time.
Nano avoids this specific problem by not using proof-of-work for consensus. Instead, it uses Open Representative Voting, where each account chooses a representative, and voting power is based on the amount of Nano held. In theory, this could make short-term attacks harder because an attacker would need to control more than 50% of the total voting weight, which would require buying or controlling a huge amount of Nano — something that may be more difficult than renting mining hardware for a few hours or days.
However, Nano still has its own potential risks: • „Too much“ voting power in a small number of representatives • A small number of wallets holding big amounts of the supply • Dependence on representatives who operate voluntarily without direct rewards
These risks can potentially be reduced by: • Spreading voting power across many smaller, reliable representatives • Encouraging more users to run their own representatives • Supporting wider distribution of Nano so voting power isn’t concentrated
TLDR: Monero’s alleged 51% attack shows PoW coins can be hit if enough hash power is controlled. Nano’s system could make such attacks harder, but it still faces risks from centralization of representatives and supply.
What do you think? Are PoW-based coins more at risk long-term, or do you see weaknesses in Nano’s system that could be just as dangerous? And what solutions do you propose long-term?