Next big "blocksize war" type of fight in Bitcoin land won't be over scaling, covenants, drivechains or LN.

It will be over privacy. The wheels are in motion and there is a clear split between regulation-good-we-need-ETF-for-NGU maxis and bitcoiners who want freedom internet fungible cash they can easily hold and use without ANY thirdparty that can censor them or compromise their financial privacy.
https://image.nostr.build/e64189f47113e31a8996603b21c1be70d0382872468027ed5b1d5966cd31a17c.jpg


Followed #plebchain


pretty sure this is an unavoidable period on the path to a bitcoin standard

nostr:note13kqem0pg738nlmw0dj4zajk2h0up3ntf4lqhc4wjs7snumflh0dq77fref


Yep this is why I've always maintained that Michael Saylor is the enemy

nostr:nevent1qqs8462kelwmfdh26yx5ywhtf3pjs4hhzkyqj6xm69gqlplghgcd33spp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyr4ajz8c4hw8d0qhe9ps5sz9c4cwd2rn8mlvk4s2mt6w6jhluns8qqcyqqqqqqgp8ns3d


That’s gonna be a tough one. The narrative will be : „we won’t censor bitcoin for you to own, as long as it is with an ETF“
I am just curious if this will be the end boss or if there is another one waiting behind the curtain


I’m more worried about the mandatory neuralink if you want to be able to use the internet or go anywhere future that my grandkids will inherit if fiat daddy Elon gets his way.

We always knew this battle for privacy was coming. It was inevitable. It’s on the individual to be ready and capable of telling these ppl to fuck off.

Appreciate all the devs that are and have been building freedom tech 🙏🏼


#Bitcoin is for everyone, we can't force nor stop ETF. All we can do is to educate on self custody and privacy.
We can't dictate what fiat gates can or cannot do, that's their job. If they want to censor, they will. It doesn't mean they can censor Bitcoin


The only questions that are worth answering in the privacy discussion: does the proposed BIP increase the network decentralization? And does the BIP increase network security?

These are the only two things that matter when talking about any changes to L1 development.


> It doesn't mean they can censor Bitcoin

Except it literally does. Fungibility affects censorship resistance.


I disagree. Over the past years, we have seen people in the bitcoin sphere become more and mroe confortable with custodians, thirdparties and "regulatory clarity and compliance".

That is besides the possible privacy improvements on the base layer.

The complacency and degeneracy of cypherpunk values is well worth discussing.


Bitcoin is fungible, read a definition before using big words. Go ahead and explain how exactly is somebody censoring my #Bitcoin transactions on LN?


Try convince drug dealers, darknet markets, terrorists and political dissidents to use LN by saying it makes it "fungible" and they will laugh in your face.


That's what I expected. You won't read the definition; you can't explain it at all.


Just as long as the "privacy" discussion isn't a veiled scalability discussion. Remember your block chain trilemma.


I don't believe we need a consensus activation chain split risking war for this though. We just need someone to pick up teleports where Chris Belcher left off


Bitcoin will do the ETF thing and by that will marginalize cypherpunks.

There is no way back.

Monero will take care of the freedom and cypherpunk ethos.

nostr:nevent1qqsgmqvahs50gnelah8ke23wet9th7qce456lstu2hfg0gf7d5lmhkspzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgq3q6r0tl8a39hhcrapa03559xahsjqj4s0y6t2n5gpdk64v06jtgekqxpqqqqqqzezr80x


Looking forward to the Bitcoin privacy forks that will come out of this - people with etf "coins" are fucked.


surely the path forward is making coinjoin/payJoin so good that everyone is forced to use them!
just like Uber was too quick with their customer adoption for the taxi cabals to kill it off, we need payJoin to be the default option for all transactions.
If its memory (and therefore fee) efficient to have 1 transaction with 50 inputs and 100 outputs (compared to 50 transactions of 1in-2out each), then let's enable PSBT and collaborative transactions as the default on every wallet.
users will need to opt out, and pay more for doing so


Centralized LSP user asserts his transactions are uncensorable

and in other retarded takes
https://tftc.io/lightning-bugs-and-regulatory-attacks-on-bitcoin/


lol
"can you link the exploit?"

anybody with a brain knows LN hasn't been stress tested yet

nostr:nevent1qqsxt9da2gfk9wknm08hnvtvkjpnl3es6es4qy6e6aejekwh9txs78cpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgq3qdergggklka99wwrs92yz8wdjs952h2ux2ha2ed598ngwu9w7a6fsxpqqqqqqzfyc3lt


I like Monero
-decent privacy by default
-(i believe) favours hashing from home miners (Vs huge data centers)

but its not gonna make it
-tail emissions
-only bitcoin can really stand to fight against the fiat standard and all of its defenders.
-bitcoin has a crazy starting advantage over anything (security/decentralisation/adoption)
-look at what's being built on bitcoin Vs crypto
--liquid
--lightning
--nostr
--btcpayserver/nodeless/zaprite/Oshi/IbexPay
--coinjoyn/payJoin
--i am sure I missed a few

I think it's easier and better to just make collaborative transactions (joining via PSBTs) instead of giving up all the bitcoin advantage to go to Monero


what you described as built on BTC is either redundant compared to Monero but with less privacy like Liquid or CoinJoins or attackable like LN or coin agnostic like nostr or BTCpayserver, SeedSigner, bisq,....


Not going to make it as what? What are your goals/needs?

Monero: Strong default privacy, real world fungibility, cheap tx fees. Superior MoE especially considering Bitcoin's high fee future. It's a better p2p digital *cash*

If Bitcoiners want to claim BTC has properties that make it a better p2p digital SoV/gold/commodity that is a different argument. But really, any future prediction of price is all speculation. You can control supply. You can never control the fickle winds of demand...

-There are only two options for L1s. Tx fees(worse for MoE) or Tail emission(worse for SoV). Tail emission makes the most sense for a digital cash. Let's put this into perspective. Gold has been the best SoV over several Millenia. Monero has less inflation than Gold. If this scares you don't use Monero to save - use it like cash. Save in Bitcoin.

-This is just a claim with nothing to back it. I can easily say Monero mining is more decentralized and discrete (ubiquity of CPUs) and has a similar number of nodes to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is also missing an important aspect of censorship resistance: privacy.
https://bitnodes.io/
https://monero.fail/map

-And Monero "has a crazy starting advantage" over any Bitcoin privacy L2+ that has to start adoption from scratch. Look at lightning and liquid for examples. Almost no adoption vs on chain Bitcoin or Monero.

-Liquid:
>Permissioned network
>Only hides amounts. Transaction graph visible - senders and receivers completely exposed
>IP visible by default

-Lightning:
>illusion of final settlement (nothing is truly settled until on chain)
>relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees
>need capacity to recieve to begin with
>can't send modestly large amounts
>both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
>can be rugged if your node isn't active (or trust to do it)
>bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary
>can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
>ability to grief honest users with zero cost
>worst of all it isn't a real solution for scaling for all the things you downsides you take on
>Recent critical security issues bring even more major doubt and concern:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html

-Even though Bitcoiners built Nostr, the protocol is agnostic and has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

-You can use Monero with BTCpayserver too

-Coinjoins/payjoins are weak obfuscation vs Monero's encrypted amounts and addresses. Nothing is hidden. Range of amounts and connections are all still visible and can be unraveled using offchain data or use mistakes. Privacy also degrades over time.
>Opt-in (You stick out and smaller anon set)
>Makes Bitcoin nonfungible
>Liquidity is split between several protocols
>Privacy degrades over time
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin

- You missed Ecash. The only real contender for Monero's privacy. Only problem is it is custodial and mints can print IOUs that are unbacked by the base layer: Bitcoin.

Not only is it a slim chance these L2/3s overtake Monero's network effects. None of them are full replacements for Monero.


So you still can't explain how you can censor my LN transaction, can't link to the "exploit" you mentioned. Like the true shirtcoin shill you are. Keep attacking #Bitcoin like a little retard, keep helping the fiat side. I honestly don't care. Your shirtcoin with a temporary privacy feature won't be the new #Bitcoin anyway.

You're correct, everybody with a brain knows the #LightningNetwork is still being developed and it's far from the final product. If there's a bug, it'll get fixed. Now go ahead and read about the upcoming hardfork your leaders decided to set for you. Goodbye shill 🤙💜


It's just a time preference problem. Always has been. Multi generationally institutions will win, people just want their cash out after all they arnt going to out live the institutions. They are just voting their interests, as they were taught to to do. You'all have been doing a wonderful job building out the new infrastructure, I'm sure the new digital currency guys will thank you.


I'm glad you use lightning. I agree securety needs working on. there are solutions now where the signing device/keys are separate from the node. I agree it's not perfect yet, but it's being worked on.
yes Monero exists, but you still do need layers like lightning and liquid. I'm not convinced Monero alone could deliver the scale that Bitcoin plus lightning/liquid do deliver.
I think it's been very long since Haveno started. 2020 I think, and still it's not up and running (as far as i know). My point is that it's simplistic to say "all these things being built by and for Bitcoin can simply be adopted by other protocol coins." . It matters that they are being built with bitcoin only in mind. no need to have security trade-offs to support multiple coins. On the other hand, enhancements tested in Litecoin (taproot/segwit or whichever it was) can then be implemented in bitcoin with enough testing. bitcoin is in no rush to innovate at the base layer, and that's a feature not a bug.

anyways, I have much love for Monero and privacy! you'll see my original post was promoting privacy by default!


Bitcoiners often conflate Bitcoin adoption with Lightning/Liquid adoption

Bitcoin adoption =/= Lightning/Liquid adoption

Just because you accept Bitcoin on chain doesn't mean you accept Lightning - much less Liquid. On chain adoption overwhelmingly dominates over any of these.


yeah that's great and everything, but does it apply here? has anyone made that claim?


If no one is adopting those things how will it scale bitcoin?

Any crypto can create a lightning-like network. Lightning isn't unique to bitcoin. It just isn't necessary on other blockchains because they didn't artificially handicap their blocksize. I still don't think Bitcoin should change (only because it would be devastating to confidence), but I think it has been overly and detrimentally conservative when it comes to blocksize rate of adoption VS moore's law + protocol scalability improvements.

Also, what is lightning really scaling? Scaling at all costs? It has completely different properties than base layer transactions. Many, many, downsides that don't make sense imo for the original goals of Bitcoin. I can go more into that if you'd like.

A network that is trying to scale to the world is useless if it has unresolvable critical security flaws
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html

Lastly, none of what I said matters because lightning is not a real scaling solution anyway
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations


dude you are all over the place... what is your goal in engaging in this conversation?
I was discussing some positive moves that bitcoin could do to improve privacy by default, that people would need to opt-out of. Then another Nostrich said why not use Monero instead. I said why i believe only Bitcoin can stand a chance at fighting the Central Bank cabals. that was a conversation of good faith. not sure what your goal is here?

You talk about conflation that didn't happen in the first place...

now you move the goalposts by saying Lightning cannot scale because it is not adopted??
By your own yardstick:
Monero: according to market data, I see for the last few years there are consistently around 20k transactions a day.
Lightning: impossible to measure since 2 nodes can transact via a channel and it's not easy to transcribe how many transactions have occurred. River did a research with a few major routing nodes and came out at 6 million transactions in 1 month. That's roughly 200k a day.

So what is the F is the point of saying Lightning won't scale, use Monero instead, when the known numbers for lightning alone  (plus the millions other txs that cannot be accounted for) indicate a much higher level of adoption than Monero...


What have I said to make you think my conversation is in bad faith? Haven't name-called or anything like that. Sorry, if I came off a certain way. It's hard to transmit tone over text. Maybe I have a strong point of view, I just don't agree, but I'm just giving my opinion like everyone else on here.

My goal is to see what your response/arguments would be to these things (I could be wrong or miss something).

"I'm not convinced Monero alone could deliver the scale that Bitcoin plus lightning/liquid do deliver."
Conflation was implied (Bitcoin is scaling via lightning) That was only a single of my points, but how is that not a valid one (Lightning not being adopted how will it scale bitcoin + lightning and bitcoin are fundamentally different)? But ignore that point if you want. What about the others? Showed you that even with all it's unique issues lightning still cannot scale (it's main goal).

"Monero: according to market data, I see for the last few years there are consistently around 20k transactions a day."
The difference is I'm not making these superior scalability claims for Monero (even though it can comfortably take on between 10x-100x more transactions with current protocol) or saying use Monero instead Lightning (Where did I say this???). Global takeover "hyperbitcoinization" is mostly a bitcoin phenomenon. It's not an expectation in XMR community. It's there for those who will actually use it (this will never be the world or white markets even with bitcoin imo).

"impossible to measure since 2 nodes can transact via a channel"
Most lightning is over centralized hubs and used custodially, so you can definitely measure vast majority of network activity (+95%, but probably even more than that honestly). Very rarely is it used sovereignly and p2p.


Ok thanks. My framework is the following. I want to destroy the Fiat cabal. Although I like the privacy of Monero, i have come to the realisation that only Bitcoin stands a chance of achieving this, so my efforts are best suited to making bitcoin as ready to fight the cabal as possible. For that, I believe bitcoin will need more privacy, and more scalability. The original comment I made was a proposal to make privacy by default (by making PSBT-enabled collaborative transactions as the default).

So now you see why i don't think the solution is to just use Monero instead. My goal is to build on bitcoin so that it's ready for the fight when it comes.

Lightning: yeah I know about the security concerns, and also that they are being worked on for continual improvement. The way forward is to sharpen this tool, in my opinion. And I never said it was already perfectly scalable, but it can operate at a scale much higher than current capacity


Funny how things turn out sooner than expected
https://i.nostr.build/MQWm.jpg
nostr:nevent1qqsgmqvahs50gnelah8ke23wet9th7qce456lstu2hfg0gf7d5lmhksp2emhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtmwwp6kyvfkwgc8gmpcvyenj6rgvdexzurpxqen2dfe0psksum2w94rgues0ym8gvnwx4nhqertxc68vvpkdf6xwettw9jxk734wpkqygxsm6lelvfda7qlg0tud9pfhduysy4vrexj65azqtdk4tr75j6xdspsgqqqqqqs9r27wn


don’t think giacomo is that typa guy, samourai’s ppl in particular are just annoying, drama-stirring fuckwits


there’s not much to fight over in bitcoin in terms of privacy. anything that relates to the base chain that’s worth fighting over would have to be a huge change being implemented


wasn't here for the blocksize wars, will be here for the white/black bitcoin wars


Neither camp needs a hard fork afaik, so idk what you’re talking about.


If you don't know, you don't know. Keep living in happyness


Sounds like you don’t know either

I sure will, no need to be unhappy because some people configure their nodes a certain way.