Oddbean

It has to be auditable from a supply standpoint. Anyone should be able to verify supply. I think privacy happens at the transaction point like with eCash, or at the wallet level, like every wallet is built-in coinjoin. Or we just decentralize the shit out of coinjoin services so there are hundreds of options so the baddies are overwhelmed (same goal as the former). Unfortunately I don't know enough about the technical stuff to form an ideal situation. But if ANY questions of supply exist it's all fucked I think. #bitcoin

This is a common faq. See https://www.moneroinflation.com You always have to trust something, it is perfectly possible to audit an opaque supply if you are willing to trust a few more cryptographic primitives on top of the usual stuff. Not a bad tradeoff imo.

the problem is that monero is a shitcoin, inflation bug will only be the fun way you shitcoiners will be rugged, but it is not the main problem. If after the invention/discovery of digital scarcity we print out new "better" digital scarcity and use it based on their utility purpose, then we have no more digital monetary-scarcity. There's no limit to the supply of a digital object that moves on the internet in a private way, and so the expected price of a single unit is zero. Theres not internal scarcity (no hardfork-resistance, so a change in the monetary policies could be just being put in the next update from the team©) and there's no external scarcity (you can copy-paste a new better monero for when the fees goes up, so to scale the digital privacy to the world). #Bitcoin is convergence on standard unchangeble rules. One of this rules is the monetary policy and the 21 millions. Every digital scarce object that is not bitcoin admit the possibility of infinite digital scarcity, and this is a paradox; every digital scarce object that is not bitcoin will not gain monetary premium and will go to zero after the bubble of hype will vanish. These are the scenarios: 1) Bitcoin become the money of the world, shitcoins go to zeros. 2) Bitcoin fails and goes to zero, shitcoins go to zero. After some decades we can try to restart the bitcoin project with the new experience we as humanity made understanding why it failed.

Black and white thinking as always. You refuted exactly zero arguments from the very well-written website above, which by the way is what always happens when the matter comes up. Because you don't actually have any valid arguments, and therefore devolve into ad hominem attacks. It's cute you believe in digital scarcity as an absolute thing, meanwhile Bitcoin has actually had an inflation bug in the past, which if you would stop regurgitating dogma for a minute you would understand the implications of that as it applies to your argument. But tempered rational thought is not usually the mark of a religious zealot. Moving further, in a classic display of projection (because it's an all or nothing, black and white thing to you), you imply that any other project that addresses a shortfall of Bitcoin has inherently as its goal the overthrown of Bitcoin. I'm not even going to list the many alternative interpretations (and there are many, believe me),I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. You also seem to conflate scarcity in Bitcoin (let's for a moment assume it is bug-free enough that we will never see something like that happening again, an assumption I would like to hold true btw, unlike you, who resentfully desires us "shitcoiners" to be rekt because, essentially, we don't follow your church) with digital scarcity in general. Seeing as this is all open-source and the cost of copying digital information is essentially zero, it is no surprise we see many cryptos nowdays. And honestly the situation is a lot better than it used to be (even though there are a lot more projects), because there is a lot of really cool technology being developed (and yes, I appreciate that you don't and can't appreciate this, since for you by definition anything outside Bitcoin is a shitcoin, therefore you never really look outside that box, therefore you could never really know what you're talking about). However, it still seems rational to me that for the explicit purpose of protecting oneself from fiat debasement, Bitcoin is the best choice. Unlike you (because I'm not a zealot), I don't think that could NEVER change, but I do find it extremely unlikely (and have allocated my resources accordingly). To finish, your assertion that "there is no limit to the supply of a digital object that moves on the internet in a private way" is just that - an assertion, and a faulty one at that. I would suggest you actually read and study the site linked before in order to reach a more nuanced conclusion. Furthermore, you're also assuming, once again, that it is an all-or-nothing proposition, when it isn't; having a blockchain that is opaque and therefore vastly superior for the single purpose of transacting anonymously and privately is a valuable tool in the arsenal against pervasive mass-surveillance. This does not mean, and does not have to mean, that it is a better tool for everything else too, and it does not mean you should stake your fortune on its fate and unlikely success as a replacement for Bitcoin. More than anything else what annoys me about you maxis is that you can't seem to grasp those elementary distinctions because your minds are polarized and you seem to live in a bubble of people who think the same things. And then unironically refer to others as NPCs. Bitcoin is just a tool, Monero is just a tool. Relax. Use the best tool for the right job, don't be a religious nutjob. Or don't, but then at least don't murder the truth.

the ad hominem part was soft and well contained in the first sentence, then I used argumentations. I dont need to confute the info in the site, as I sayd the point is not inflation, is monero being a shitcoin.

because every attempt to create digital scarcity different from bitcoin is a shitcoin and trigger the paradoxes of scarcity cited prior. These paradoxes are conceptually hard to realize today, but they will be clear to all in the future, when the shitcoin hype will decrease (in reality, if you observe a historic price graphic of shitcoins/bitcoin you can observe already these processes in action).

"absolute scarcity automatically equals value" is a fallacy Value is subjective. Value is a function of supply AND demand. You can't control demand. Any good btc maxi that is obsessed with austrian econ should know this 101 fact but surprisingly few do. That should be plenty to at least ponder that you might be wrong. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Scarcity-Fallacy

I admit the possibility, even not so improbable, that even if bitcoin is a scarce resource could fails to detain value for some reason. I admit also the possibility that some shitcoin could detain value for long time like or better than bitcoin, but I consider it less possible than a scenario where dog-like aliens come to the planet earth in flying toyotas ufos singing taylor swift songs.