Nano now adding a limit on how many transactions can occur and an unconfirmed transaction pool... Hmmm where have i seen this idea before!?

The recent spam event has pulled back the curtains and shown reality to the Nano people. The reality being that the UX was a bad magicians trick which appeared amazing at the expense of sacrificing basic spam protection.

Colins proposal to solve spam

https://forum.nano.org/t/bounded-block-backlog/1559/7

Eventually it is possible the block will have low enough difficulty that it will get removed from all ledgers in the network because there is a cap on the number of blocks the node will keep in the backlog. This will require the block creator to increase the difficulty on the block and publish it again. The functionality to increase this difficulty and republish already exists.

Turns out when you add spam protection to Nano you get the same UX as all other decentralised chains because it only prevents spam if it's too expensive for a spammer to spam. Regardless of whether you're paying a fee or making your computer do a calculation, the cost IS the spam protection.

The spam attack also revealed that Nano has not solved the scaling issue and nodes began falling offline.

The scaling issue, simplified

If all nodes have to process all the transactions in the network then your network is only as scalable as 1 computer. Which is not and will never be, enough.

Sidechains, sharding, rollups and L2s all tackle the scaling issue because they, in one way or another, avoid all nodes having to process all transactions.

DAGs, feeless networks and huge block sizes, do not solve the issue because they don't prevent all nodes from having to process all transactions.

There is 1 exception to this rule, if you throw decentralisation out of the window you can scale to whatever you want by running your network on AWS.

"This is good for Nano"

Just because you can remember a time when Bitcoin or Ethereum had an issue does not make the current Nano issue good for Nano. These narratives conveniently don't mention the 51% attack on ETC or the EOS spam which made its ledger bloat to 4TB in just 8 months... Because in those examples it completely wiped out any faith people had in those projects and that wouldn't fit nicely into the narrative.

Over time as bigger and more mature networks begin to scale, I think the Nano community will begin to fade as they move towards something which actually solves the scaling issue and can be used for mass adoption.