[rawtxapp]

Channel factories will open/close many channels at once, so you'll only pay a fraction of the blockchain transaction cost. It has the advantages of Bitcoin's security and p2p network speed.

Security and trust are a lot more important for currency, nano doesn't have that. It has easily been spammed [1]. It barely has a market cap of ~1B$ and has never recovered to it's 2017 prices, so it's not even remotely close to being an ideal candidate for a country's currency.

1: https://www.coindesk.com/nanos-network-flooded-spam-nodes-ou...

[pkulak]

Eh, it got spammed and transactions slowed to BTC level (but still with no fees) for a couple months. Spam is a solvable problem. A hard limit of 4 transactions per second isn't.

Ya know what doesn't have security and trust? Putting your entire country on two custodial wallets and having all your citizen's wealth in the hands of two foreign companies (channel factoried or no). No one in El Salvador actually owns any Bitcoin. It baffles me how anyone could get on board with the original ideals of BTC, then defend what's happening now.