> apparently Nano is trivially DDOSable for very small amounts of money

Do a little more research - Nano had real life spam attacks, then mitigated the spam problem with an innovative 'bucket' method. This put the lie to the common Bitcoin Maxi claim that "There has to be something expensive to compensate for the lack of central coordination."

As for Nano not being a blockchain; hint: there are chains of blocks. Look at the Nano Wiki page (very short): "Nano uses a block-lattice data structure, where every account has its own blockchain (account-chain)."

I'd say it's funny how confidently wrong your comments are; but it's just way way to common to be anything but tedious. Which was my original point precisely.