Oddbean

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