Monero is good from a privacy point of view as long as you also take into account privacy at the network level, which means always using your node.

But the way Monero is set up it has serious problems.

- The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.

- It has a hidden and unsolvable inflation problem due to its technology (ring signatures), it is one of the reasons among others why Liquid did not adopt ring signatures, if they did they could not guarantee the 1:1 backing between Bitcoin and L-BTC.

- There is no consensus or stability in the network, Monero has had numerous hardforks throughout its short history to introduce new features which hinders its adoption as a store of value or currency.

- It has tail issuance, which while low, nothing guarantees given the history of hardforks that this will change in the future.

Monero supporters can cry and come and say I have no idea and blah blah blah, but the reality is what it is and the adoption of monero is what it is and the price of monero is what it is.

You can ignore reality but not its consequences.


#ZAPDEEZNUTS ⚡🥜

#ZAPDEEZNUTS ⚡🥜


Great post 👍

Great post 👍


I’ve been trying to understand this. Some say it is closer to perfect money than bitcoin but from what I’ve read the trade-offs for the privacy are not worth it.

I would have thought privacy layer 2 stuff gives bitcoin what it needs.


I love the "do you have something better" argument,  usually coupled with the "you can't go back" drivel.

If I don't, I can still do better than the worst idea... 😂


Monero is younger than Bitcoin and it doesn't have to compete with Bitcoin but rather co-exist. Ring signatures might not work for pegging BTC 1:1 on liquid but again, Monero doesn't have to peg against Bitcoin. At the end of the day it's just another currency and you either have use for it or you don't.

Would I swap my stack for Monero? Hell no!
Do I own "some Monero? Yes. But I have use for this currency while I don't have use for most other currencies.

Long story short. It's not for everyone. It doesn't have to be and it doesn't have to be the "next Bitcoin" either.


## The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.

There is a cap to the adaptive block size, and we literally have 100gbit connections available now (which would be a lot more than what you would need). Storage is getting chesper, too.

It will be fine.

## It  has a hidden and unsolvable inflation problem due to its technology (ring signatures), it is one of the reasons among others why Liquid did not adopt ring signatures, if they did they could not guarantee the 1:1 backing between Bitcoin and L-BTC.

It has a POTENTIAL inflation problem, but so does Bitcoin and anything else.

Indeed, of the two, it is Bitcoin who has suffered a massive inflation bug, that was not devastating simply because almost no one used Bitcoin then.

This one is a common misconception, see https://www.moneroinflation.com

tldr: you need a FEW more cryptographic trust assumptions, if you verify that portion of the code to your satisfaction, you can be sure there won't be a hidden inflation bug.

## There is no consensus or stability in the network, Monero has had numerous hardforks throughout its short history to introduce new features which hinders its adoption as a store of value or currency.

It's a different culture.

There is consensus at the blockchain level in the sense that all nodes follow the same rules, and there is social consensus that the hardforks, when they must be done, are acceptable.

Also, there hasn't been a hardfork for awhile now. But there will be one in a year or two, it will add more privacy features, and pretty much everyone agrees with it.

## It has tail issuance, which while low, nothing guarantees given the history of hardforks that this will change in the future.


When you have a marketplace that accepts both Bitcoin and Monero, Monero is the one most used, who knows why 👀


My thoughts exactly! XMR is not a good SoV, but it's pretty decent digital cash.


exactly!


No Cantillion Effect is another thing


Ok this is a whole pile of horseshit again from this asshole.
Lets get into it shall we?

>> The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.

Come on... Really? Your gonna preemptively start a block size debate? Now?
So far Moneros dynamic block size has done its job excellently, allowing miners to produce larger blocks when theres a spike in network traffic. It incentivizes miners and helps users get txs mined.
"maybe someday theres a centralization problem" applies to many things and you dont know how its going to work out.
generic block size FUD, not imaginative or interesting.

>> It has a hidden and unsolvable inflation problem due to its technology (ring signatures), it is one of the reasons among others why Liquid did not adopt ring signatures

JFC. Shut all the way the hell up. You are just making shit up here.
There is no "hidden and unsolvable inflation problem" that ring signatures cause. Liquid has implemented Borromean Ring Sigs on their network.
So just go back to school.
https://glossary.blockstream.com/borromean-ring-signatures/

>> There is no consensus or stability in the network, Monero has had numerous hardforks throughout its short history to introduce new features which hinders its adoption as a store of value or currency.

huh? Monero has NEVER had a contentious hard fork. whats your evidence theres "no consensus"?
this is the same argument that btc maxis use for premature ossification of the network.
Ossification vs adding functionality is a nuaced discussion that's been happening for a while.
This is just "i think it would be better without new features"
GFY

   >> it has tail issuance, which while low, nothing guarantees given the history of hardforks that this will change in the future.

this is just a rehash of your objection about hard forks and not actually a separate point.

oh, also "which means always using your node"

using you own node is always a good idea.
but lets be accurate, If you connect to an adversaries node
without hiding your IP and broadcast a transaction
obviously they know you broadcasted that transaction.
But if you did it through Tor, what good is it anyway?
Running your own note is always best, But Monero still protects your privacy better then Bitcoin does if you're not.

  >> but the reality is what it is and the adoption of monero is what it is and the price of monero is what it is.

Got it
Monero is the most used *as money* crypto outside BTC and the price is consistent but you want fiat NGU 😭

put on your big boy pants own that you just want more fiat
and dont know squat about monero and freedom money.


Because Monero offers much more privacy without headache and TX are much cheaper. We see that every month.


Private layer 2 are useless when the base layer has privacy issues.


Yeah but he's not doing standard supply fud here. This is the 2nd time I've seen him blab on and on about ring signatures and supply inflation.

So yeah, supply inflation. so please show me the blog post or writeup or whatever
where Adam Back or some big brain at Blockstream said they couldn't use Ring Sigs because of a potential inflation problem.
Liquid HAS ring sigs ffs.


Everything has tradeoffs.
the tradeoffs that monero makes are closer to my cypherpunk heart than the current state of Bitcoin.
But they are still tradeoffs.

There are legit criticisms you can make about monero.
But the OPs post is basically horseshit and he doesn't seem to know what they are.


The OP is straight making shit up. Ring sigs do not cause inflation.

He doesnt deserve your nice reasonable response.


>The dynamic block size makes it not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to run the nodes.

small blocks make bitcoin not decentralized, because if it has a massive adoption only big companies will be able to maintain payment channels.


what do you think is gonna happen? you're no different from any other maxi who handwaves the problems of custodial bitcoin wallets. when actual centralization enters the room, you look the other way.


Yes. Strengths and weaknesses. Proponents of Bitcoin and Monero would do well to understand the limitations


small blocks are what allows block validation to happen at a reasonable pace because it places an upper threshold for computing requirements to allow for a level playing field for nodes;  to not create incentives to have computing power be a hurdle to validate incoming blocks. little to do with payment channels, all to do with keeping running a Bitcoin node as open as possible whether you are a big company on the newest version or an individual running a version a decade old

your cryptonote knockoff isnt designed this way and can only continue to make excuses to fork constantly, unable to keep nodes in sync or keep a story straight 🤷


Any updates what’s going on in Valencia?


You don't necessarily have to use your own node if you're behind Tor and switch remote nodes often. Monero still provides very strong privacy guarantees even if you don't.

Monero is decentralized right now in terms of node count. It would be harder to run a node if it had similar tx count to BTC, but the reality is it doesn't. And if it ever does, it all depends on when and how quickly that happens. Technology progresses with time as well. Otherwise, we're just left to speculate what will happen.

Monero definitely does have different disadvantages and advantages vs Bitcoin of course


rofl
bro

RingCT hides *amounts*
Ring Signatures hides *the sender*

I know the terminology is confusing
but could you at least do the BARE MINIMUM of research?
nobody mentioned RingCT.

just stop
you're embarrassing yourself


cool bro

You don't know enough about it to call it a shitcoin
Your opinion is standard "if it's not Bitcoin it's crap"


You hurt your argument when this is your answer


You're hurting your answer with these terrible responses


They are the first to insult as usual, I am just defending myself, and I will continue to show the failure of their shitcoin.

They are toxic, I am more so.


I showed my work homie

you're just repackaging old FUD and aren't "showing failure"

also lol
"theyre the first to insult"
as if this was the first.

youve been slinging shit here for months now and refuse to own up to it.


more detail on this here
tldr its more accurate to say ring sigs and Confidential Transactions are *subsets* of RingCT (the protocol)

so although what i say is how the terms are usually used
technically I'm not correct either.

nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzp7v96vy3jlyqtct3n3e3sk6hflp7usra0sdkz477axwx4n39nxamqyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kytcpr9mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmnt9uqzp6clqfzrn6kzm2e4e39whem2ct4983al2wcy934c33c4m02fqqz3yqszak


Of course, it's nonsense to use Bitcoin when we have the possibility to use Monero 👌


In this case that's not the biggest point, Monero is private by default, it's cheaper to transact and in other words it is a better money, pure P2P digital cash, that people can use without any worries


oh yes, I'm sure you know all about the hurdles of validating incoming blocks.

let's suppose every segwit floppy disk is half filled with runestone shitcoin creation and the other half is for lightning channel maintenance, and bitcoin gets really really popular. what happens to the cost of owning a UTXO or opening a lightning channel, and where does that force most of the users in the world to go? they go to fucking cash app. they don't have control over their funds. they are shoved into a CENTRALIZED CUSTODIAN. the cost of maintaining a lightning channel will be greater than the cost of a non-mining node that meets the minimum requirements for being an OP_RETURN shitcoin calculator. you are making it really easy to set up a worthless non-mining node so you can make it really hard to not be in a centralized custodian. you're not protecting decentralization.

https://m.primal.net/MaPe.jpg


unfortunately the OP doesnt know what those limitations are and doesnt help with understanding them


hes isn't actually interested in debating tradeoffs and substance

he doesn't seem to actually know anything
its just
"monero bad because reasons.
and if i say it confidently it doesn't matter if I'm factually incorrect"


gradually I began to hate them


I really think if someone brings back the monero atomic swaps that were on samurai that it beats lightning as a L2 for spending


I dont really hate them
cant really relate to whatever people like this think
the anti intellectualism of it all bothers me.

truth is arrived at through conflict and debate.
so why would someone just talk shit and then mute people who disagree?


you mean a trustless way to send monero and have it flip to an on-chain BTC tx?


Yeah


why not assume users will eventually do their homework and run a node despite crowded blockspace 🙃?  custodians dont last forever either

"non-mining node" is a nonsensical term since 478,558

https://image.nostr.build/a8afeb9ec6538e929847e29c56d863bd6af47e9defae6713bbe970b12a3d50e2.gif


nodes that 90% of installed bitcoin wallets don't even talk to because they are custodial