Has there been peer review? Does it support smart contracts? How does its consensus algorithm (and the other parts) compare to Avalanche? It sounds as if Nano is still vulnerable to a 51% attack. Does it lead to a catastrophic compromise?
Every cryptocurrency is vulnerable to a 51% attack including Bitcoin.
2. Once enforcement crashes the hash rate, fire up government controlled miners to perform a 51% attack on BTC. Repeat as many times as it takes to make the point.
The question is, which states need to be convinced to join the coalition, and how hard is that? I can see pariah states like e.g. Russia seeing an opportunity in encouraging mining instead of banning it.
And I don't think central banks would want to destroy it. In many ways, many useful transactions in crypto occur in stablecoins pegged to the dollar. If anything, central bank might want to participate and innovate with everyone rather than try to destroy Bitcoin.
In the Holochain model (https://holo.host/) of distributed agent-centric consensus, a single non-fraudulent DHT node can detect any fraudulent transaction, and all other non-fraudulent nodes are informed of the self-incriminated fraudulent agent and transaction, confirm the fraud, and no longer respond to the fraudulent node.
So, only a 100% attack will succeed. And, the ill-gotten gains are permanently useless.
And Holochain is not a cryptocurrency as far as I understand: while they say something about mutual-credit cryptos they definitely not the main scope of the project.