In Bitcoin, every node does more than just 'rely on others'—it independently validates all transactions and blocks against the full ledger. This isn't the same as saying 'my friend lifts weights for me.' It's more like being part of a gym where everyone lifts weights regularly. Each node in the Bitcoin network continuously checks for double spends, invalid blocks, or any deviations from the protocol, and nodes would reject such anomalies automatically. Yes, this process is automated, but it is still a form of active verification. Passive node runners are still contributing to the security and decentralization of the network by running this software.

Yes, there have been bugs and issues in Bitcoin's history, but the key difference is transparency. When a bug or double spend occurs, it's visible on the public ledger, and anyone can examine the blockchain to understand what happened. This isn't true for Monero due to its obfuscated transaction data. If a flaw exists in Monero's cryptographic assumptions, detecting it without transparency would be far more challenging, especially for passive users who can only rely on cryptographic proofs, not visible transactions.

Your argument suggests that because most Bitcoiners don’t manually audit transactions, they’re akin to Monero node runners. However, Monero node runners can't manually verify the total supply or audit individual transactions because the protocol doesn't allow it. The difference isn't about whether or not individual users actively engage in auditing; it’s about the system's openness and the ability for anyone, at any time, to verify the entire ledger if they choose.

So, while some Bitcoin users might rely on the broader network to audit the blockchain, they still could audit independently if they wished. This inherent capability provides a level of assurance and trust that isn’t dependent solely on cryptographic methods, unlike Monero. The option to verify independently or trust the network is a choice Bitcoin offers, while Monero, due to its privacy focus, inherently restricts this transparency."

 

 What you say is we need an independent script that verifies the Monero supply. It's actually a great idea as this has been the most prominent critique from maxis.

Pedersen commitments are well understood. 

 It's trivial to do this, learn to code 

 from monero.backends.jsonrpc import JSONRPCDaemon
from monero.transaction import Transaction

# Connect to your Monero node's JSON-RPC server
daemon_rpc_host = "127.0.0.1"
daemon_rpc_port = "18081"
rpc_user = "your_rpc_username"
rpc_password = "your_rpc_password"

daemon = JSONRPCDaemon(host=daemon_rpc_host, port=daemon_rpc_port, user=rpc_user, password=rpc_password)

def verify_monero_supply():
    try:
        # Step 1: Verify total mined supply based on the emission schedule
        total_mined = 0.0
        last_block_height = daemon.info().height - 1

        for block_height in range(1, last_block_height + 1):
            block = daemon.get_block_by_height(block_height)
            # Verify block reward aligns with the expected reward
            total_mined += block.reward

        # Step 2: Verify cryptographic proofs in each transaction
        for block_height in range(1, last_block_height + 1):
            block = daemon.get_block_by_height(block_height)
            for txid in block.tx_hashes:
                tx = daemon.get_transaction(txid)
                transaction = Transaction(tx)
                # Verify Pedersen Commitments
                if not transaction.verify_pedersen_commitments():
                    print(f"Failed Pedersen commitment verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return
                # Verify Bulletproofs (range proofs)
                if not transaction.verify_bulletproofs():
                    print(f"Failed Bulletproof verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return
                # Verify Ring Signatures
                if not transaction.verify_ring_signatures():
                    print(f"Failed Ring Signature verification in transaction {txid}")
                    return

        print(f"Total Monero Mined: {total_mined:.12f} XMR")
        print("All cryptographic proofs verified successfully. No inflation detected.")

    except Exception as e:
        print(f"An error occurred during verification: {e}")

if __name__ == "__main__":
    verify_monero_supply()



There you go.  The problem is it relies on complex cryptography to accomplish this, which is one of the criticisms of Monero.  For more details study the library's implementation of 
verify_pedersen_commitments
verify_bulletproofs
verify_ring_signatures

As far as pedersen being well understood... by whom, by you?  I don't think so. 

 "On the other hand, we need computers, and the method will convince only those that trust both math and the computer they use."


https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/64437/what-is-a-pedersen-commitment#64443


Not a cryptographer, but the math behind is not so difficult. But as the commentor of the link wrote. There is trust involved in math and in the machine you use.

I'd suggest you to talk ti some of the cryptographers you'll find in the Monero community.

For some use cases it is not acceptable to trust, in that cases Bitcoin is preferable over Monero. For other use cases the trust is acceptable.

Most Monero supporters also have been early Bitcoiners. Therefore hold huge bags of both coins. Would I ever consider to spend Bitcoin without going through Monero first? No, because I don't know the future and how the future dictators will treat my financial past. Do I treat Bitcoin as a store of value. Yes.

By the way. Monero is a rather stable coin, like you'd expect from a currency.


 

 Your argument seems to focus around what _I_ do.. It's not about me.  The point is ANYONE can audit it.  In Monero, no one can.

If you still don't understand the difference between active auditing and an inability to audit the total supply then I am not sure how much more I can help you understand. 

 I'm pointing out that if this is your argument against Monero there is little difference between that and the vast majority of Bitcoiners in practice.

How many Bitcoiners run nodes? 
How many of those node runners are actively verifying it's transparent input/outputs- 0.001%?
Far fewer than you make it seem.

An advantage that one never takes advantage of...is not an advantage 

 I'm not arguing "against Monero" I'm simply helping you understand the differences between an open public ledger that can easily be audited with someone with basic python skills and a protocol that requires complex cryptographic proofs just to ask it how many coins there are. 

 Now you too can manually audit the bitccoin without employing and cryptographic proofs:

def audit_bitcoin_supply():
	block_count = rpc_connection.getblockcount()
	total_supply = 0.0
	total_utxo_amount = 0.0
	for block_number in range(0, block_count + 1):
		block_hash = rpc_connection.getblockhash(block_number)
		block = rpc_connection.getblock(block_hash)
		coinbase_txid = block['tx'][0]  # Coinbase transaction is always the first transaction
		coinbase_tx = rpc_connection.getrawtransaction(coinbase_txid, True)
		block_reward = sum(vout['value'] for vout in coinbase_tx['vout'])
		total_supply += block_reward
	unspent_txos = rpc_connection.listunspent(0)
	total_utxo_amount = sum(utxo['amount'] for utxo in unspent_txos)
	print(f"Total Bitcoin Supply (based on block rewards): {total_supply:.8f} BTC")
	print(f"Total Bitcoin in UTXOs: {total_utxo_amount:.8f} BTC")
	print(f"Difference: {total_supply - total_utxo_amount:.8f} BTC") 

 You can't audit fractional reserves in CEX. Not for Bitcoin and not for Monero. 

 People who fractionally reserve bitcoin go bankrupt.  See FTX for details.

Rehypothecating the most bullish asset in human history in it's infancy when volatility is incredibly high is not something experienced asset managers would even consider.  It takes a fool like SBF to have the hubris to even attempt it.  And you see where that ended him up, in a prison cell. 

 Those who don't know how to operate proper fractional reserves go bankrupt.

Binance for example managed quite well so far.

Coinbase and BlackRock will only go bankrupt when USD hyperinflates as they can print as many USD for cash settled ETFs as they need to not default on bad trades thanks to the BlackRock-FED connection. 

 And what proof do you have that binance fractionally reserves things?  You have none this is just speculation and conjecture. 

 Well, as you are not new you seem to have ignored the discussions around it for at least 3 to 4 years. What does that tell me about you?

It at least tells me that most Bitcoiners so far did not learn anything from Monero's past which to me signals that Bitcoin is not fit to challenge the state apparatus. You either do have exceptional observation, adversarial thinking and executing strategies (like early Btcoiners from 2009-2012) or you will get played by forces that do.

 

 For a starter try to use a search engine and put in Binance + fractional reserves then read up on a ton of observations, test runs, withdrawal issues,... 

 Yes but I don't care in the least.  I give exactly 0.00000000 fucks about Binance or if/when/where/why they are defrauding people. 

 There are very real threats to bitcoin, Binance is not one of them. 

 I don't care if Binance is rehypothecating bitcoin.  It matters nothing to me, nor to bitcoin.  Anyone stupid enough to do that will be exposed in the end.

Binance is no threat to bitcoin. 

 do you see how easy that was?  Simple arithmetic.  Now compare that to the logic required to attempt to verify Monero:

transaction.verify_pedersen_commitments():
transaction.verify_bulletproofs():
transaction.verify_ring_signatures():

have a look in the Monero python cryptography libraries for those functions.  So much for simple arithmetic.  They are vastly complex, certainly beyond my ability to understand.  Maybe you're a better software engineer and cryptographer than me.

So your argument that "Monero can be audited too" is just simply invalid.  It's not the same, apples and oranges.
 

 But what if you're the vast majority of Bitcoiners that never do that "simple arithmetic"

You just keep bragging to us that you can (but don't ever do it) 

 I just fucking did it for you, lol.  Run that script and see for yourself. 

 I know and I see that. But it still doesn't avoid that the vast majority of Bitcoiners don't do this. They don't even run a node.

For those that do (and do so often) I already agreed they have a reasonable argument against Monero if they want the best possible verifiability/auditability 

 yes that's entirely possible and would explain why we keep repeating ourselves.

The reason I brought up Monero at all in this conversation was that I was suggesting Bitcoin is feature complete, and that adding new opcodes, while they could potentially add some marginal improvement, are incredibly risky and irresponsible.  

Someone suggested that bitcoin should have privacy and I was attempting to explain why that can't really happen and some of the tradeoffs associated with it.