Oddbean

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,....

"liquid = redundant and LN = attackable" can I ask you, is your problem with current iterations of those, what they will realistically be, or is your problem with non-layer-one solutions in general? 2nd point: "coin agnostic" yes those could be built on another coin, but is that fact that everyone is choosing to build on bitcoin, irrelevant, or at least dismissed by "it's coin agnostic"? Don't you think it's worth analysing why it's all being built on bitcoin? how long ago has Haveno been designed for? has it gone off the ground? or is everyone on Bisq? see it's not that simple as saying something is coin agnostic

In a world where Monero exists there is no need for a sub par federated chain like Liquid. LN has a couple of attack vectors and a severe one has only been revealed yesterday. It's privacy is very limited in comparison to Monero. I use LN myself, but I will never entrust it with serious sums >$100. Plenty of services were built by Bitcoiners and later opened to other chains. The same is happening with Monero btw, where Cake and Stake started as Monero only to later open for more customer choice. Haveno is indeed a project many are wating for for a long time (1 year since ETA). But in the meanwhile bisq does a perfect job and I'd highly recommende it to everybody.

I don't have a problem with layer 2 or 3 as long as risks and trade-offa are well communicated. For a long time I criticised the attitude of many that layer 2 will savely scale us or bring us privacy or tokens or sidechains. It's simply not true today and it was not true almost a decade ago. There are trade offs and I am off the opinion that a base layer needs to perfect one thing and excel at it rather than trying to be everything for everybody. That's why Iove Monero. It does one thing perfect and improved on some of the things Bitcoin could have done better like a security budget for mining (tail emission is not about not having a fixed number of coins, but about known economic assumptions meaning fee markets are not a proven concept one should rely on for all ones networth).

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.

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

Well for starters.... liquid doesn't hide sender or receiver, IP is visible by default, has a microscopic anon set, and is a PERMISSIONED NETWORK Point is that you are acting like those things are full Monero replacement when they are clearly not. We're not even touching on Monero's massive network effect vs those those things. As far as Lightnings being "attackable"...a long time dev just recently quit in part because of critical security issues that are unresolvable without base layer changes: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html The largest trading pair on Bisq is Monero. Even larger than any fiat. https://image.nostr.build/8599b34eccd2f28fc56ee3a749ab7ac044d23a8dcff609020a9ded10f9677c43.jpg