This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/nanocurrency by /u/Front_Common3238 on 2025-06-15 02:29:03+00:00.
Hi everyone,
I've been thinking a lot about the potential risks of centralization in Nano’s representative system, especially in a future where governments, corporations, or powerful entities could try to capture parts of the network.
While researching alternative consensus models, I came across how Hedera Hashgraph works, using a combination of "gossip about gossip" + virtual voting. In this model, consensus doesn’t rely on explicit voting or representatives but emerges naturally from the propagation of information and the communication graph between nodes.
Given that Nano already uses a DAG (block-lattice) structure, this type of consensus seems like a very natural fit for Nano’s architecture while preserving its core properties:
- Zero fees;
- High scalability;
- Instant or near-instant finality;
- Extremely low energy consumption.
So my question is:
Has this type of virtual consensus ever been discussed within the Nano community or by the developers? Are there technical, philosophical, or economic reasons why such an approach would be unfeasible, undesirable, or unnecessary?
I’m genuinely curious if this has ever been on the table or if it’s simply something that hasn't been deeply explored yet.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!