Talk:Nano (cryptocurrency)

Re: "Decentralization"

@Jtbobwaysf - Do you have an academic source for your April 18th edit that says "its decentralization has been disputed"? The Bitcoin Wikipedia article states that Bitcoin is decentralized, and Nano is even more decentralized than Bitcoin. Compare here: https://nanocharts.info/p/01/vote-weight-distribution vs here: https://btc.com/stats/pool. More than one of the academic sources used in this Nano article describe it as decentralized, and almost the entire Bitcoin Wikipedia decentralization list applies to Nano as well. So either we should re-add the decentralized descriptor to the Nano article, or remove it from the Bitcoin article. --Qwahzi (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

We are not able to use these types of blog sources on cryptocurrency articles, we need high quality WP:RS. Certainly not for making WP:PROMO claims. In the future, it would also be helpful if you start new threads farther down on the talk page than the existing ones, rather than starting on top. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Applicability and Appropriateness of Distributed Ledgers Consensus Protocols in Public and Private Sectors: A Systematic Review" is not a blog, and classifies Nano as a public DLT, which they define as decentralized. "Anonymization of Transactions in Distributed Ledger Technologies" also classifies Nano as a decentralized DLT. --Qwahzi (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you put the quote(s) here where they refer to the article subject as decentralized. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Philosophically DLTs can be classified into three broad categories, Public, Private and Consortium, based on the consensus participation, read/write permissions and the level of centralization. Public DLTs are fully decentralised. No one controls the network and participation in consensus process is open to everyone and all transactions are visible to the public. This ‘‘openness’’ ensures that the data on the DLT cannot be changed once it has been validated and accepted by the network. Bitcoin and Ethereum are examples of a public DLTs", with the Nano BLock-lattice listed under Public DLTs in Table 2 from: "Applicability and Appropriateness of Distributed Ledgers Consensus Protocols in Public and Private Sectors: A Systematic Review" 43623, 43633, Volume 7, 2019

Also: "DLT is a technique for managing a decentralized transaction database. This database is stored redundantly by any number of equal participants. Each participant has the same copy of the transaction database, which is continuously synchronized peer-to-peer with all participants. The most prominent DLT is the blockchain technology, which can be implemented in different ways. Some newer DLTs use a DAG, and can also be implemented in different ways. In this paper, the focus of DAGs is on the implementation of the "block-lattice", which was introduced by the cryptocurrency "Nano" [12]." from page 69 of "Anonymization of Transactions in Distributed Ledger Technologies" Qwahzi (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Advertisement Tag

Having reviewed the content of the article as presented, and undertaken a number of edits of my own, I believe all aspects of the article previously meeting the criteria of advertisement have been removed. I'll go ahead and remove the tag; please discuss below any objection. - T&B

@MrOllie - Why did you re-add the advertising tag when all of the listed information is backed by academic sources? What needs to change? The Yahoo and Bitcoinist references were already removed as David Gerard asked, and remaining information is objective statements, not subjective opinions. --Qwahzi (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement tags aren't about quality of sourcing (we have different tags for that) it is about overall tone, especially the promotional tone in the lead paragraphs. - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie - What needs to change then? Should the 2nd paragraph just be removed? The literal reason why Nano was invented was to try to address the scalability limitations of Bitcoin - should that goal not be mentioned at all in this article? --Qwahzi (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs to not consist of a list of selling points, many of which are redundant with each other and features of cryptocurrencies in general. Don't simply remove the tag without addressing this. - MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie - Those listed items are the core defining features of Nano that make it different from any other cryptocurrency. Just like how the Ethereum article introduction mentions a smart-contract, script-executing EVM with gas as the internal transaction pricing mechanism, and the Bitcoin article lists mining rewards and peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries. Nothing that's written matches the WP:Promotion standard - there is no advocacy for any action, there is no opinion listed, there is no gossip or libel, there is no self-promotion, and there is no advertising or marketing: all of the statements are verifiable with independent, third-party sources. When someone wants to learn about any specific cryptocurrency, they want to know what makes it different from everything else - the defining features should be in the introduction. --Qwahzi (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

'Decentralized' is a defining feature? All cryptocurrencies are decentralized. But with only two of us, it seems we are at an impasse. Let us leave the tag up for a bit and see if it draws in more editors. - MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

All cryptocurrencies are not decentralized. In some, the majority of consensus-influencing power (e.g. miner hashrate) is owned by 1 or 2 parties. In others, the majority of the supply is owned by the cryptocurrency creators. I agree we are at an impasse though, so I'll leave the advert tag. Cheers! --Qwahzi (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@2001:569:BF37:5300:E967:D343:A08:C58A - Why were the advertisement/promotion and notability tags re-added? This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the current sources are rigorous mainstream or academic sources that follow WP:RS, and there are no statements that fall under WP:PROMOTION (advocacy, opinions, scandal mongering self-promotion, or advertising). Can you please point to specific statements or sources that are believed to violate WP:PROMOTION or WP:RS so that they can be removed or modified? Qwahzi (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This tag is still not properly addressed, and a single purpose account should not be removing it. MrOllie (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Which specific statements or sources are believed to violate WP:PROMOTION or WP:RS? Which statements are subjective, promotional, and/or contested? Qwahzi (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The same statements I identified above. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You already removed the decentralized descriptor, even though there are multiple WP:RS sources for that statement. Do you have any WP:RS sources that demonstrate that Nano is not decentralized? What other statements in this article still violate WP:PROMO or WP:RS? You haven't specified any promotional, non-objective, or contested statements from the current article - even in the lead paragraphs, every statement is relevant, accurate, uncontested, non-promotional, and has WP:RS sources. Qwahzi (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you don't agree, but the overall tone of this article is still that of promotion. MrOllie (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "tone", but with no specific details. Looking at the listed WP:PROMO guidelines in details, what parts of this Nano article can be construed as advocacy/propaganda, opinion, self-promotion, or advertising? I agree we are at an impasse though, so I'll leave any changes to other editors. I would still ask you to point to specific statements that are promotional/contested/opinion-based though, so that they can be modified or removed. Qwahzi (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie, I would like to help improve the Nanocurrency page as it lacks basic information. Would appreciate to hear from you which parts do sound like a promotion or specifically where we need to change the "tone"? If you could give me some quotes, line numbers or anything to work with it would be great. Satoshizzle (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Sorry tagging went wrong. See my previous comment, thanks! Satoshizzle (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Gregory Maxwell's Criticism

The linked CoinRivet article wrongly states that Gregory Maxwell's criticism was of Nano's zero fee structure. The 1st party source that CoinRivet links to states that his criticism was of Nano's Sybil attack protection: https://bitcointalk/index.php?topic=1219264.msg12775845#msg12775845

Furthermore, his criticism came before (and therefore is not linked to) the January 2018 Piotr Włodarek article.

I have updated the Criticism section to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwahzi (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is Coin Rivet being used as a ref at all? Suggest that every ref on this article be gone through to check it's an RS, if academic that it's actually peer-reviewed at the very least, etc - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree that Coin Rivet is not a suitable reference. JarvisORV (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Gregory Maxwell's BitcoinTalk comment does not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources standard either according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#BitcoinTalk:_/index.php?topic=1219264.msg12775845

Do we need to remove that whole section in order to fix the unreliablesources tag? That's one of the last non-academic/non-notable sources in the reference list.

--Qwahzi (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If that is the only reference for that entry and it unsuitable it would make sense to remove the entry. JarvisORV (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation Speed

Hello @Spellcast - I see you changed the confirmation time from 0.1-5 seconds to 1-10 seconds because the reference only shows two nodes. However, many additional sources also confirm the 0.2-1 second confirmation times: .

--Qwahzi (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Qwahzi: The cited 2018 paper said the average confirmation time is 1-10 seconds. I know Nano is fast but did it really improve by a factor of 10 since then? Spellcast (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Spellcast: Yes, Nano confirmation speeds have improved by a factor of 10-50 since then. https://Nanospeed.live shows live confirmation speeds, so does https://Nanocean.org, https://repnode.org/network/confirmation, and this 2020 IEEE peer reviewed paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9126023 ("A block is confirmed if it gets enough votes to reach a quorum, which happens very fast (in less than a second) if the network is not saturated."). You can also download any Nano wallet and try it for yourself, using any free faucet: https://nanolinks.info/#faucets-free-nano. Regards, --Qwahzi (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

For the interested

Nano is On Wikipedia and they are Working to Move Things to the Next Level in Android on Blockchain Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

Please be advised that all cryptocurrency articles are not using any primary sources or industry sources. We are only using top shelf soruces for this articles to deal with WP:PROMO issues. We also dont use contributor sources. I removed a few today. Do not re-add them and also keep in mind this article is subject of WP:GS/Crypto. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

A lot of the "academic" sourcing isn't peer-reviewed RSes or mainstream third-party RSes. Most of the article is sourced to Nano sites, blog posts or self-published papers. There's also sources that are conference proceedings, not peer-reviewed. Is there any way to shore these claims up? Because on the face of it, this article would need to be cut to the paragraph that's based on actual third-party RSes - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

IEEE conference papers are peer reviewed. Most of the sources aren't blogs or self-published, so the primary source tags seem rather excessive. Now where there may be a primary source issue is citing 4 Nano refs in the design. I've noticed that in crypto articles, there's this problem where the subject is notable but there's no third party RSes for the latest technical details. So there's a balancing act between using good sources and meaningfully expanding the content. WP:Primary sources should be kept to a minimum but they're not disallowed entirely as long as they're used in a limited manner for "straightforward facts" with no spin or promotion. This article treads right on the line in terms of presenting a reasonable amount of relevant, technical content without excessively expanding on details from those sources. Just as primary sources are OK for film and novel plots, I think the same applies to basic protocol info (but obviously use a secondary source if possible) . Spellcast (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's well over the line of material that should be on a Nano internal wiki and not in an encyclopedia, unless there are third-party RSes that care. So far this is glaringly lacking in evidence for the latter. WP:NOTBROCHURE applies - David Gerard (talk)

Puffery in crypto articles is definitely a problem. But giving technical info isn't promoting a software any more than providing a plot is promoting a book or film. It can be if the tone is promotional but I don't see that being the case here. I agree that too much technical details, especially without third party RSes, goes beyond the scope of general encyclopedic content. And that's what seems to have happened when someone added info about hourly distribution numbers, so I wouldn't mind reverting that. But tagging nearly every sentence is overkill. Spellcast (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems this article hasn't really developed. It needs more RS otherwise I guess it gets deleted. It was really only notable for the hack event of the bitgrail exchange. It is an interesting subject and I would like it to stick around. But the excess detail not his article that is terribly sourced should be cleaned up by someone interested in this article. I see a few medium.com sources, that for sure are not allowed. I didn't bother to look at the academic sources, but I am guessing many of these are also primary and should not anchor much of anything here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Notability also extends to journals, not just newspapers. There's a lot of valid content in those journals so it's not like this article is struggling to develop. I removed the PS tags since they were peer reviewed except for the part on Kappture Labs. If there's no reliable third party refs covering the adoption, then the tag is justified. A large percentage of the content relied on Nano primary sources, so I cut it down. The Medium article is still there but per WP:RSPRIMARY, "specific facts may be taken from primary sources" as long as it's used with caution and at a minimal level. Spellcast (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

no, a lot of those are SPSes - un-peer-reviewed preprints, theses, etc. I've just cut these too. Also tagged conference proceedings - these are not "peer reviewed" in the same sense, and frankly a lot of promotional rubbish gets put forward at any blockchainy conference, including euphemisms like "distributed systems"; this sort of thing is academic-washing at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a good way to determine which conference papers are or aren't reliable? Most of the current sources flagged as unreliable have been presented, aren't WP:RSPRIMARY, and have been cited by third parties, but are conference papers. E.g. "Distributed Ledger Technology: Blockchain Compared to Directed Acyclic Graph", "A Comparative Analysis of DAG-Based Blockchain Architectures", "Consensus Algorithms In Distributed Ledger Technology For Open Environment", "Anonymization of Transactions in Distributed Ledger Technologies", and "A Tool for Implementing Privacy in Nano". I see some discussion on WP:RS's talk page, but it doesn't look like a strong conclusion was made, other than pointing to the existing scholarship standard. "Scalability of the Bitcoin and Nano protocols: a comparative analysis" does not seem to fully meet that standard, and so was probably rightfully removed, but the other tagged sources seem like they meet WP:RS (though perhaps with low or medium weight WP:DUE). --Qwahzi (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that there is a consensus to use only very high quality sources for cryptocurrency articles. I mean things like wsj, nyt, Bloomberg, etc. An academic source if we are unsure the quality would far so far from that standard that we don't need to think about it too much, we just lend towards delete. The issue with these edge case cryptocurrencies (like this) is they are barely notable and are prone to promotional text (essentially building product a feature set here in the wikipedia mainspace is not helpful to wikipedia). Thus we have been clamping down. Personally I like this nano article and also the IOTA (technology) article as they offer something different from proof of work for readers to read about. But my personal interest doesn't change the sourcing standards. Please be on the lookout for other excellent sources to add to this article (published books, mainstream sources, etc). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough! We'll keep looking for high quality sources to meet the standard for cryptocurrencies then. Thanks for the feedback! --Qwahzi (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the current sources are rigorous mainstream or academic sources that follow WP:RS, and there are no statements that fall under WP:PROMOTION (advocacy, opinions, scandal mongering self-promotion, or advertising). I would ask 2001:569:BF37:5300:E967:D343:A08:C58A to please point to specific statements or sources that are believed to violate WP:PROMOTION or WP:RS so that they can be removed. --Qwahzi (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: COI (Conflict of Interest) tag

@2001:569:BF37:5300:E967:D343:A08:C58A - Regarding the WP:COI tag, which aspects of the current article do not adhere to a neutral point of view? "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Per WP:COI, this article as it is currently written does not appear to 1) state opinions as facts, 2) state contested assertions as facts, 3) state facts as opinions, 4) make judgment calls or recommendations, or 5) obfuscate, hide, or deny opposing views/alternatives. Almost every statement in the article has a WP:RS reference, but if there are any outstanding claims that do not follow WP:RS, they should also be removed. Qwahzi (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This tag is still not properly addressed, and a single purpose account should not be removing it. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The COI tag has not been removed, but which specifics statements are not written from a NPOV and violating WP:COI? Qwahzi (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

All of your editing seems to be focused on this topic. Can you explain what associations you have with Nano or its developers? MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no association with the Nano developers - I am not paid by them or any cryptocurrency company, and I am not paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia. I am a cryptocurrency enthusiast with some SME-level knowledge of Nano (and a few other cryptocurrencies). I am not the creator or bulk contributor of this Wikipedia article, and I did not remove the COI tag as I own multiple cryptocurrencies (including Nano). Any statements or edits I make, I make with strict adherence to WP:RS, WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:NOTABILITY, as evidenced by the references I use and the talk page discussions. Regarding the COI tag specifically, which aspects of the article are not written from a NPOV, violate WP:COI, or are contested without a WP:RS? Qwahzi (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie, @David Gerard, and @2001:569:BF37:5300:E967:D343:A08:C58A

Qwahzi, Senatus, and others here are working in tandem with the Nano Foundation on this article. If you go to the official nano discord discord (chat.nano.org) you'll find hundreds of messages with the word "wikipedia" that include coordinated discussion on this article.

They have even talked about this very tag, suggesting others from the discord who've edited a wider range of articles before contribute so that they can avoid making you too suspicious.

Getting this article created in the first place was a coordinated effort from the foundation, which you can see on the official nano forum (https://forum.nano.org/t/wikipedia-article/392) and from the archived #wikipedia discord channel. There you'll find familiar names like Qwahzi, who's also a nano content creator on twitter, as well as employees of the Nano Foundation. Additionally you'll find so-called "Community Managers" who, although not employees, have signed nondisclosure agreements with the Foundation that make their suggestions of edits here non-neutral. Many of this article's issues, like it sounding like an ad, come from the direct suggestion of those doing "community management" or "moderation" with a backdrop of applause from foundation employees.

Now I must address a response I expect. You'll find Colin, the creator of nano, saying to not break Wikipedia's rules. But that's not sufficient to ensure the neutrality of this article, as his foundation set up the channels and even created portions of the initial draft to this article. When you're hosting forums for direct coordination on this article it doesn't mean much to say "oh, by the way, don't break the rules".

What you and the other editors should do about this -- I don't know. I'm sure though that the decisions made regarding this article's open issues would benefit from the knowledge that this page isn't as organic as it may seem. ConcaveReality (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I wish I could say it is surprising. Most editors who have dealt with COI issues have seen the patterns on display on this article before. Especially in the crypto space - which tends to be rampantly promotional. Sometimes (because of WP:OUTING) we have to be circumspect in how we word things, but new editors to this article should remember that nobody here was born yesterday. - MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag, the subject had plenty of coverage due to the hack event a few years ago. Dont have much to say about the COI tag. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure the BitGrail hack is notable? Neither BitGrail nor its hack have wikipedia articles and are primarily known by those personally affected. If they are and this is the reason nano might be notable, it may make more sense to have an article on the hack or exchange and mention Nano as one of the coins stolen rather than giving nano a full page.

@David Gerard seemed to conclude nano wasn't notable in the "Rebrand to Nano" discussion topic. I don't think it is either. Are we really at the state where we can remove the tag? I think it should be added back until we reach reasonable consensus. ConcaveReality (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's more of a single event than notability for the coin. I'd also note that a lot of the academic cites are to conference proceedings rather than fully peer-reviewed articles, and conference proceedings in crypto in particular are notably trash - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree David, the coin hack event is far more notable than the coin itself. You can re-add the tag if you prefer, I recognize the subject is probably not notable besides the event (that seems to be notable). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@ConcaveReality, What specific "advertisement language/tone" are you referring to? Any such language or phrasing should be removed, but most (if not all) of the content in the article is factual descriptive language with sourcing that follows WP:RS, and mirrors other cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia. I do not work for the Nano Foundation, and I have signed no NDAs - I am a long term cryptocurrency enthusiast that follows Nano closely and understands some of the underlying code/protocol. I enjoy reading & contributing to technical discussions on many topics, but Nano happens to be one topic where I have enough SME knowledge to contribute.

The collaboration links (forum & Discord) you posted show a clear emphasis on reliable sourcing & following Wikipedia's rules (including following Talk page discussions & other Wikipedia editor recommendations/rules). Even looking at the Wikipedia article's history, it has been drastically re-worked (even deleted & re-written from scratch, with much of the original article's content removed) over time by multiple third-party contributors, with an emphasis on WP:RS & WP:Notability (plus removing conference proceedings & focusing on peer-reviewed articles as @David Gerard requested). As far as I can tell, there is no language in the article that encourages any action - it's purely descriptive, as an encyclopedia should be. I am not opposed to leaving the issue tags as other editors have decided, and I have refrained from making additional edits given the Talk page discussions, but I would like to address any underlying issues to keep the article relevant, high-quality, & technically accurate. Qwahzi (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Rebrand to Nano

I added a section on the rebrand from RaiBlocks to Nano ("On January 31st 2018, RaiBlocks was rebranded to Nano. The Nano Core team's provided reasoning for the rebrand was feedback by the community that improvements could be made to better resonate with the public and a mainstream audience."). I sourced this by using Coindesk after checking the reliable sources page, which mentions that "There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk.". Coindesk here is not being used to establish notability, there is no conflict of interest, and the parent company has no stake in the currency being covered.

I sourced the provided reasoning from the primary source itself, I think that should be the most reliable source for a factual statement, right?

Alternatively, I could source the rebrand from a variety of sources: Kraken, Binance, Coinbase etc. Would that work better? They are not listed in the reliable sources list, but for something as objective as a rebrand happening, would such a combination of independent sources work? 2A02:A466:7E2B:1:A98F:2EDE:31B4:6E5 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to tag @david_gerard. SenatusSPQR (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Coindesk is generally unreliable, and shouldn't be used, so don't use it. If you don't have an RS for the fact, you don't have a source. WSJ has the name change [5] as does Reuters [6] - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the WSJ and Reuters sources! I wanted to use Coindesk solely because they also mention the date, I checked WSJ and Reuters and they unfortunately do not. On the discussion page about Coindesk I saw you mention that "I'd trust it for past and present factual statements - they're fine with those - but it wouldn't IMO confer notability" - do you think it would be okay to link to both WSJ (to establish that the name change happened) and then Coindesk for the confirmation + more exact date on it? SenatusSPQR (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's not in an RS, it's not worth noting. Nano simply isn't all that notable - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the title and description be changed to "currency" or "digital currency" instead?

I believe, from my time using Nano, that they refer to it as a "digital currency," and not a cryptocurrency, even though it's structure is like one. I'd like to start the discussion, as it is a pretty major part of Nano. "Nano is a digital currency for everyone, without fees.​​ It doesn't cost anything to send nano, making it practical and inclusive for all the world." (from their website, [7]) OnlyNano 17:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with how topics are described by independent reliable sources, not so much how groups describe themselves. Independent sources nearly uniformly describe it as a cryptocurrency. MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting point, I'd say that does make sense. I was contested over whether it should be called what the primary source refers to it as, or what independent sources lean towards. OnlyNano 18:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Use cases of Nano

I think "Use cases" section could be added that might include the following:-

- - Nano being used in Gaming (for fees and reward points)

- - proof of concept article paywall where comments would require a nano micropayment to post

- - NanoGPT, users can pay-per-prompt with nano (XNO) to interact with GPT-4 Turbo and DALLE-3 APIs (by OpenAI)

and can someone kindly check whether my work ( https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v25i2.2459 ) falls in this category of use cases? Sujanavan (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, I think it would be best that the use cases be already implemented solutions. NanoGPT is a good example, provided it has reliable coverage. OnlyNano^talk 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate on what you mean here, or more specifically, what you are concerned about? My intention behind my reply is to explain that it's not viable to include proof of concepts in a "use case" section. OnlyNano^talk 20:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)