Not going to make it as what? What are your goals/needs?

Monero: Strong default privacy, real world fungibility, cheap tx fees. Superior MoE especially considering Bitcoin's high fee future. It's a better p2p digital *cash*

If Bitcoiners want to claim BTC has properties that make it a better p2p digital SoV/gold/commodity that is a different argument. But really, any future prediction of price is all speculation. You can control supply. You can never control the fickle winds of demand...

-There are only two options for L1s. Tx fees(worse for MoE) or Tail emission(worse for SoV). Tail emission makes the most sense for a digital cash. Let's put this into perspective. Gold has been the best SoV over several Millenia. Monero has less inflation than Gold. If this scares you don't use Monero to save - use it like cash. Save in Bitcoin.

-This is just a claim with nothing to back it. I can easily say Monero mining is more decentralized and discrete (ubiquity of CPUs) and has a similar number of nodes to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is also missing an important aspect of censorship resistance: privacy.
https://bitnodes.io/
https://monero.fail/map

-And Monero "has a crazy starting advantage" over any Bitcoin privacy L2+ that has to start adoption from scratch. Look at lightning and liquid for examples. Almost no adoption vs on chain Bitcoin or Monero.

-Liquid:
>Permissioned network
>Only hides amounts. Transaction graph visible - senders and receivers completely exposed
>IP visible by default

-Lightning:
>illusion of final settlement (nothing is truly settled until on chain)
>relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees
>need capacity to recieve to begin with
>can't send modestly large amounts
>both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
>can be rugged if your node isn't active (or trust to do it)
>bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary
>can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
>ability to grief honest users with zero cost
>worst of all it isn't a real solution for scaling for all the things you downsides you take on
>Recent critical security issues bring even more major doubt and concern:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2023-October/004154.html

-Even though Bitcoiners built Nostr, the protocol is agnostic and has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

-You can use Monero with BTCpayserver too

-Coinjoins/payjoins are weak obfuscation vs Monero's encrypted amounts and addresses. Nothing is hidden. Range of amounts and connections are all still visible and can be unraveled using offchain data or use mistakes. Privacy also degrades over time.
>Opt-in (You stick out and smaller anon set)
>Makes Bitcoin nonfungible
>Liquidity is split between several protocols
>Privacy degrades over time
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin

- You missed Ecash. The only real contender for Monero's privacy. Only problem is it is custodial and mints can print IOUs that are unbacked by the base layer: Bitcoin.

Not only is it a slim chance these L2/3s overtake Monero's network effects. None of them are full replacements for Monero.


Looks good to me. Better than 99% of people.

Perfecton doesn't exist. The goal is to greatly increase the cost and time for any adversaries so it isn't worth it. Don't be low hanging fruit.

Some thoughts:

Consider toggling on  "Block connections without VPN" under phone settings Network & Internet > VPN > gear icon.

Would it be possible to sell the Bitcoin back and rebuy KYC free? If not, maybe use Samourai ore Sparrow whirlpool to mix (preferably with your own dojo).

Maybe when you can upgrade to a newer Pixel for security updates. I think Graphene is retiring 4a soon.

Maybe you already know of these, but a few things you might find useful:
Privacy oriented swap aggregator https://trocador.app/
Proxy shipping https://anonshop.app/
P2P KYC-free Monero/Bitcoin on/off-ramp https://agoradesk.com/


Examples of default transactions for each...

IP: ?
~6% chance Alice sent $[?] to [?]

IP: Alice
[?] sent $[?*] to Bob

* = discoverable

As you see, with lightning, your IP being exposed nullifies lightning's good sender privacy (You know based off IP that it was Alice who sent to Bob)

Even if you optionally hide your IP when using lightning with Tor or at least a VPN: The receiver remains distinctly visible (non-ambiguous) and potential to discover amounts is still there.

With Monero, the best an adversary has (all things equal) is a probabilistic  ambiguous sender (AKA guess work). (1 real sender, 15 decoys) ~6% chance of a ring member being the true sender and that chance falls off rapidly even after 1 hop = ~0.4%, 2 hops = ~0.02%, etc...
And unlike Lightning, amounts and recievers are completely hidden.


TLDR; Monero privacy is better

The good:
Lightning *sender* privacy is good (onion routed) and it is ephemeral (must actively probe and collect to get any data at the time transaction occurs or it's gone)

The bad:
Lightning *reciever* privacy sucks, your IP is not hidden by default, and even hidden balances can be discovered.
"We identified 27,183 private channels, discovered hidden balances, and showed how a passive adversary can infer payment endpoints with very high probability."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf

For Monero, IP address is hidden by default (Dandelion++), and amounts and addresses ARE NOT EVEN VISIBLE! (using Confidential Transactions and Stealth Addresses) They are completely hidden!

I would strongly recommend Monero if privacy is priority. Although lightning is an improvement over on chain privacy.


I often see LN users conflate Bitcoin adoption with LN adoption and I don't see it. LN has a fraction of acceptance with businesses vs on chain Bitcoin.

Everything has trade offs. And LN is not without it's share of downsides:

-illusion of final settlement (nothing is truly settled until on chain)
-relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees
-need capacity to recieve to begin with
-can't send modestly large amounts
-both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
-can be rugged if your node isn't active (or trust to do it)
-bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary
-can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
-ability to grief honest users with zero cost
-worst of all it isn't a real solution for scaling for all the things you downsides you take on

Monero lacks all the compromises of L2 and just works. Still not perfect, either, yes. But the trade-offs for what the original goals of Bitcoin were make more sense to me.

https://image.nostr.build/ce5fbe19fd498ed948ec66e2f91efb9dc8fcfd388f56a23c97735d9bb86d3460.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/5a409dca8ccb4b10f8879a4e7bc99137fc104cef5ce01fbdd8e3aad3724ebba0.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/8599b34eccd2f28fc56ee3a749ab7ac044d23a8dcff609020a9ded10f9677c43.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/06cc8e656fc2781f9323aec3bbde678ebde86eb0631414ca1db05b736c0445e0.jpg


The same reason why I think you should still have free speech even though you have nothing intelligent to say.

 And because it's none of your god damn business what other people do with their money. No further reason needed.


Confirmations > DSP + noRBF > RBF > LN

Agree nothing beats confirmations, nothing is final until it's on chain, but if you are going to go the non-final settlement route DSP + noRBF is definitely safer than RBF (much smaller chance) and better than LN (automatically confirms shortly after and doesn't have all the other problems adn complexity involved with LN).

Yes, I get what you mean by cash not being perfectly fungible. I think you are right. It is just a simple and easy to understand analogy because almost  everyones accepts cash as the same without discriminating based off the ID number. You also cannot know the full history of a cash bill and everyone who it passed through. The same way many Bitcoiners use the digital gold analogy even though there are differences.

Yes, even Monero is a double edged sword. The problem I see is corrupt governments won't use Bitcoin since it is transparent and accountable. Just like they could be transparent and accountable right now and don't do that. We can't force them to use it.

They will demonize Bitcoin and Monero in the eyes of the public because they can't control it. But that is ok because we can use it and they can't stop us.


I do find it courageous when someone chooses to put their true identity's reputation on the line for something controversial or dangerous that they believe in since they can't run away from that.


Even though I disagree, I always like a good LOTR analogy.

Just because you post under a nym doesn't mean there is no cost. Whether it is a nym or true name you can lose reputation. It takes time and is hard to build reputation and you can burn that in an instant. That reputation is valuable psychologically, socially, and/or monetarily.

There are many nyms that are more credible and trustworthy to me (because they have been around so long and proven themselves) than some people who post using their true identities (either because they are new or have shown themselves to be dishonest/wrong all the time.)

You also don't have to choose. You can have your true name and multiple nyms that are unconnected and use those nyms to freely speak and work out more controversial or even dangerous topics depending where you are from.

While I agree with you that free speech and being yourself "should" be normal and the honest and upright "should" always be able to post as themselves, that is not the reality of the world we live in. I don't think we will ever live in that world. We can only get closer and farther.

Anonymity helps offset the asymmetric advantage that the powerful and corrupt have.

Like you said, Frodo uses the ring to hide from powerful foes many times where he would've been captured or killed. He even uses it for good on occasion. The ring is just a tool. It is not good or bad. The person is the one that uses it for good or bad. That's how I look at it.

You can always disassociate from the bad faith and troll nyms by muting. But I found it isn't really an issue in my experience.


Just swap your Bitcoin to Monero and spend Monero. Coinjoining is second best.

Using Monero as a privacy in between (BTC -> XMR -> BTC) is not recommended unless you really know what you are doing. Too many ways to mess up.

Definitely DO NOT use Houdiniswap if you need serious privacy. They see both sides of the swap.


Aww, we're on your mind? Please stop you're making me blush🤭


Yea same, Liquid never made sense to me either if you have something like Monero available to use. Liquid only hides amounts, but you can see the transaction graph (who is sending and receiving), anon set is vanishingly small, IP origin not hidden by default, and it is a permissioned network. Price fluctuation is negligible, or can even be slightly to your benefit if you are using Monero short term. And far less people accept or use Liquid than even Monero.

The downward slide brought by gold-backed reserves is what slowly brought us to this moment in fiat world. That is why final settlement (bearer assets) are important (and arguably a massive reason why Bitcoin was created). Imo there is little reason to have a non-final settlement/bearer asset in the digital realm. It doesn't have the same downsides as physical bearer assets like gold (heavy, slow, tedious, expensive to transport). Although, I can see the other side of the argument that at least it is transparent and auditable (unlike fiat) and you can just use it for small spending amounts. Even besides that point - Lightning has so many other problems that Monero (or even Bitcoin) doesn't:

-relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees,
-need capacity to recieve
-can't send modestly large amounts
-both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
-can be rugged if your node isn't active
-bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary
-can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
-ability to grief honest users with zero cost
-worst of all it isn't even a real solution for scaling
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/

I sympathize somewhat with BCHers because it is at least a better way to do it if you are going to do it. Not 100% safe, but 0 conf is much safer for them because they dont have RBF (Replace by fee) like BTC and further make it safer by implementing DSP (Double Spend Proofs). So the vast majority of the risk is within the first 3 seconds of a transaction if i remember correctly. And it automatically settles shortly after, unlike holding lightning.

Think of what would happen if Bitcoin Core implemented a change that Bitcoin users didn't want. Users who didnt like it would just refuse to adopt it and refuse to update to that version. Same thing that would happen with Monero. What Bitcoiners really want is compatibility with all versions and networks, but no market works like that and doesn't have to. Imo people don't owe compatibiltiy with others. Freedom of association. The same way businesses can offer CDs still, but don't have to if they don't want to. It's nice but not necessary. If there is demand they will. And those who want to will offer both. Transparency of code, permissionlessness, and ability to opt out is what is most important imo.

I don't like ordinals either. I think it is a glaring example of Bitcoins non-fungibility that it is still even possible and easy to do.

"You don't ask nicely that everyone else not spend your coins; You just protect them using a cryptographic key.
Similarly, you don't ask nicely everyone else not distinguish your monetary units; You just make them *technically* indistinguishable AKA fungible."

-BinaryFate

This line of reasoning makes sense to me.


Yes, agree everything comes with pros and cons. But some trade offs don't make sense for Bitcoin's original goal of removing trusted third parties.

Moving to L2 for privacy comes with it's own unique sacrifices different to Bitcoin or Monero. Think of current solutions: Lightning trades away p2p/final settlement. Liquid trades away permissionlessness. Ecash trades away self-custody.

None are complete replacements for L1 privacy that doesn't sacrifice self custody, permissionlessness, p2p, or final settlement like Monero.

What aspects of decentralization do you prefer?

Decentralization of software?
Bitcoin is at least theoretically better because it doesn't hardfork. But in reality Bitcoin Core and Blockstream have a lot of centralized influence. And in reality 98% of nodes are running Bitcoin Core's software.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html

Decentralization of nodes?
Bitcoin and Monero are similar in count.
https://bitnodes.io/
https://monero.fail/map

Decentralization of mining?
Monero CPU mining is more ubiquitous because it is more easily accesible to anyone (everyone owns CPUs) or at least potentially more decentralized than ASICs.

I dont' think we really disagree on anything (or disagree on little), but thanks for responses 👌


Sorry for the essay lol. I'll try to keep it short as possible.

Good video to skim thru about scaling L1 and putting things in perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RJ5HDmuucY

There are a couple realistic scenarios for L1 scaling. And two of them will work (and imo the most likely scenarios):

1) Slow adoption:
If Monero adoption rate is equal to or lower than consumer tech advances (Moore's law) and protocol scalability improvement (Monero tx size has been reduced a total of ~80% since creation)

2) Niche market:
If Monero remains a small niche crypto that only a fraction of the world ever uses. (Monero can increase betwen roughly 10x-100x more users and be still be ok with current state of the protocol)

If adoption rate massively and suddenly increased, both Monero and Bitcoin would both be shit out of luck in terms of full node decentralization anyway (even with lightning). Admittedly, Monero would fall first, but it is still in the same ballpark.

I think Bitcoin's inability to upgrade is both a strength and weakness. It is not private by default (and weak privacy via obfuscation even when you opt in), it is not fungible in the real world, and is not a good p2p digital cash (high tx fees that will increase over time). Monero picks up the slack on those things. They are both complementary to each other and masters of their own realm.

Bitcoin: SoV, transparent, immutable, scarce
Monero: MoE, private, adaptable, fungible

Different tools for different jobs


Of course he's not going to say switch to Monero. It's a Bitcoin conference and a Bitcoin audience lol.

Outside of this he's made it clear that his preference is for Monero, and even Zcash, unfortunately.

"it’s not enough for a few to know best privacy practices" is a dig at the state of Bitcoin privacy. Because then only a fraction of users will ever use it privately. And even calling coinjoins "private" is dubious because nothing is hidden. It is weaker obfuscation. Amounts and transaction graph are still completely visible.

Like you said: "Privacy must be the default." Bitcoin is definitely not that and can never be without hardforking. And we both know that is never happening.


What a baby


"Does it really make you poorer if both variables increase at same rate?"

It only makes you poorer if you are actually using Bitcoin often as a MoE vs better alternatives.

We can see that during times of high use Bitcoin transaction fees sharply increase (And are increasing on average over time). And that makes sense. There is limited blockspace and a growing number of users. For the sake of argument say you are correct about both variables increasing at the same rate. In absolute terms, it would still be more expensive to use Bitcoin onchain for transacting vs something like Monero.

https://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/

If your retort is that you use LN for transacting - fair enough. But imo LN is not Bitcoin. It is a very different beast with many problems. And on top of that has tiny fraction of adoption vs onchain or even vs Monero. I could expand on this if you want.

--------

Maybe you are right. This is all uncharted ground. Who knows what will turn out to work? Maybe they both will? Or both will fail (hopefully not)? Or a third path like demurrage is better?

Tail emission was introduced so that there would always be incentive to mine and produce blocks. A lower bound. It also helps keep fees low.

Monero's tail emission is not the only thing that keeps transaction fees down on Monero though. Dynamic blocksize also plays a big role. Blocksize is elastic and changes to demand (unlike Bitcoin). I could also see a similar argument as yours and say 0.6 XMR will slowly grow in value over time (although not as well as BTC). I guess we will have to see how it plays out.

-------

Nothing is technically stopping the economic policy of Monero from changing aside from strong community consensus.

But nothing is stopping those who disagree with changes to Monero from selling, swapping, or forking Monero either. If there was an unpopular enough update users would refuse to update, fork the code, or split the userbase and no one could stop them. That hasn't happened yet though and hopefully won't. But transparency and the ability to opt out is what is most important imo - not necessarily backwards compatibility.

You have to understand Monero is not trying to be "p2p digital gold" or SoV like Bitcoin. It is trying to be p2p digital cash. A MoE - priority is transferring value cheaply, easily, and privately. No promises are made about saving or storing value in it.

-------

PS: Your pfp always makes me laugh lmao


Yes, any of these tools must be permissionless and neutral, otherwise it defeats the point of doing any of this. If some centralized power can choose who or who can't use Bitcoin, then it will be abused and biased like anything else. And often the people controlling it are some of the worst to begin with. Think of the ring of power from LOTR. That power eventually corrupts any who wield it even if they start with good intentions.

From the bitcoin white paper: "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required..."

Appreciate it. I don't have LN, but if you want here is my Monero address:
86VVQzMJ9FGGkPcpNC8YXLHLiADQXXRZg7sfbjjsscHfQdU3wDWDhY6UtHApNUGbzmQoAtQZS62QBdnvjBCv9UvaQwbM73n


With blockchains, you have two choices to secure the chain:
1) transaction fees (Better for SoV)
2) block subsidy (Better for MoE)

Monero is trying to be p2p digital *cash* with low transaction fees, thus chose tail emission route.

Bitcoin transaction fees will continue to grow on average making it a poor MoE to use all the time especially in the future (the more you use it, the poorer you'll get).

0.6 wasn't arbitrary in the sense that it was trying to have less inflation than gold, roughly match estimated annual lost coins, and chose a constant, instead of a percentage, meaning in relation to total supply the % inflation would constantly be shrinking.

But it was arbitrary in the same way that every number chosen for Bitcoin was arbitrary (21 million, 1MB blocksize, etc).

How would devs be abusing tail emission? There is no Dev Tax.

As far as "fee structure failed to sustain the system"...not sure where you get this from. Proportionally to market cap, Monero gets far more use than Bitcoin (roughly ~8x more)

https://image.nostr.build/06cc8e656fc2781f9323aec3bbde678ebde86eb0631414ca1db05b736c0445e0.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/8599b34eccd2f28fc56ee3a749ab7ac044d23a8dcff609020a9ded10f9677c43.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/ce5fbe19fd498ed948ec66e2f91efb9dc8fcfd388f56a23c97735d9bb86d3460.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/5a409dca8ccb4b10f8879a4e7bc99137fc104cef5ce01fbdd8e3aad3724ebba0.jpg


M O N E R O

👁  👄  👁


There are three main coinjoin protocols all with different pros and cons. Main ones are from Wasabi, JoinMarket, and Samourai.

AFAIK nothing is wrong with Wasabi's new protocol Wabisabi 2.0 *itself*. BUT I would avoid Wasabi because they collaborate with chain analysis companies.

JoinMarket is not beginner friendly and from my understanding is not as good as Whirlpool.

The gold standard for coinjoins imo is Samourai Whirlpool + their spending tools (As long as you run your own Dojo).
https://samouraiwallet.com/
Sparrow desktop app also implements it: https://sparrowwallet.com/

As far as hardware wallets...check out SeedSigner. Highly recommended!
https://seedsigner.com/

...Honestly though. I just recommend using Monero for spending if/when you can. Easier, cheaper, and superior privacy than any of these methods. Swap Bitcoin to Monero with a DEX like: https://unstoppableswap.net/
Or a exchange aggregator: https://trocador.app/en/
Or buy directly: https://localmonero.co/

Amounts and addresses aren't even visible on Monero's blockchain to begin with, there is no transaction graph, unlike Bitcoin.
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin

You can still use Bitcoin for saving.


Tools are neutral. Tools cannot be good or bad. That is only applicable to the individual using them.

Criminals and immoral people live in houses, drive vehicles, own smartphones, drink water, eat food, etc...I'm assuming you still use all these things


 "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required..."

The main thing that makes Bitcoin special is not needing to trust a third party. If you are asking permission and don't have custody over your funds - What is the point? Why not use Paypal or another similar payment method? Much more convenient at least.


Then don't save with Monero if inflation less than gold worries you. Just use it like cash. A fungible, private, and cheap medium of exchange.


Lol says the bitcoin maxi

Keep derailing the topic and throwing insults because you have no answer to anything ive said


No shit...what did you think I meant?


Yes, please don't positively associate Monero with a game literally about fiat banking 🤦♂


> Monero will be too large to succeed when it gains adoption.
>Monero will always remain a small altcoin.

Which one is it?

There has been massive growth in storage capacity, processors, and internet speed even just over the last two decades. How quickly do you think Monero, or even Bitcoin, will get massive real adoption (if ever)?


Just in case there was any confusion:
note1xvu8t58r3auccw90jd8ex9d3mxa33seg0kdkpv0h7ylcx4z5f5sskhvtvz


Like I said, you're assuming this doesn't happen gradually over time. Tech is not static, it advances. Multiple terabytes will be very reasonable and affordable in the future just like 1 Terabyte harddrive is right now, but wasn't that way a decade ago.


What does storage cost have to do with government compliance? Now you are reaching. If anything it is easier to control Bitcoin because:
1. No privacy = less censorship resistance. You can find and target users more easily and threaten with prison or worse just like the Canadian trucker donation fiasco proved.
2. Mining centralizes on large corporate mining farms = easy targets for governments.

And we are still in your fantasy world where Monero has the same amount of transactions as Bitcoin *today* (it doesnt). If Monero grows to have the same amount of transactions as Bitcoin in the *future* - technology is not static, it also advances and gets better and more affordable for consumers.


Multiple terabytes. But if that slowly happens over 5-10+ years it would be very reasonable. The same way ~180GB is reasonable right now.

10-15 years ago 1 terabyte was expensive and massive amount of storage. Now it fits on a tiny microSD card that you can get for $50 on Amazon. You're discounting Moores law.


But you don't factor in that Monero is only half of 1% of Bitcoin's mcap. If they had similar mcaps, and we assume proportional usage, Monero would do roughly 8x more transactions.


Most of the blockchain size of Monero was before tx size was reduced by ~80%

You keep going back to hypotheticals and "ifs" that might not ever exist.
I'm talking about reality today.
Monero takes less resources to run than a Bitcoin node.
~180GB vs ~500GB which is smaller and easier to download?


Limited blockspace and increasing demand wouldn't lead to higher mining fees?...

This is deomnstrated every bullrun and literally just happened with ordinals. But sure it's FUD.


"if it were to have the network effect like bitcoin..."

Any sharp increase in use would effect Bitcoin the same way in centralization. If Bitcoin took on 10x-100x txs right now it would also become near unusable in confirmation times and transaction fees (Not so for Monero). Hypotheticals are fun, but let's stick to reality. Monero's full blockchain size is 1/3rd the size of Bitcoin (easier to run a node) and it's blocksize is only 0.3MB and cannot grow beyond this without sufficient and sustained demand.

This is not some inevitability either. Gradual enough adoption and consumer tech advances over time mean none of what you say will happen.


The privacy gained by a noob hitting send on a Monero transaction is easier and better than some opsec god coinjoining on Bitcoin.

Privacy by default + encrypted amounts and addresses will always be better than Opt in privacy + obfuscation (nothing is hidden)


If someone stumbles on your key that is your fault lol

Guess what anyone who responsibly self custodies their Bitcoin can't be rugged by any amount of federations that collude or carelessly mishandle your money. So I don't get your point.

Self-custody > Federation > Single custodian


Even though Federations are somewhat better they are still custodial.

Mints can also print tokens unbacked by Bitcoin.


Aside from it being expensive, tedious, and slower - Nothing is hidden when you whirlpool. It's weaker privacy via obfuscation. All amounts and connections are visible to be uncovered with more data or user mistakes. Your privacy via coinjoins also degrades over time:
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin

Lightning receiver privacy sucks and hidden balances can be discovered by passive adversaries.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf

Amounts and addresses are truly hidden when you use Monero. There is no transaction graph.


Then don't use it to save if inflation less than gold worries you.
Spend it like cash. Problem solved.

L2 privacy can't ever be a full replacement for L1 privacy. You sacrifice a lot moving up to L2. Ecash is custodial and Liquid is permissioned. Lightning has too many problems to list.


Then don't use it to save if inflation less than gold worries you.

Spend it like cash. Problem solved.


Watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1PRKKlI-Jo


Yea it all depends the time frame you're looking at and when you got in. I don't think it's as simple as most pretend. You could've bought BTC near the top of last bullrun and are doing much worse than someone that bought XMR at a better time.

Also, any forecasting into the future about price is all speculation.


He fails to mention that no one is forced to update their node. All participants are opting in. If there was an unpopular enough hard fork, the community would either split, or if it was notorious enough, most would refuse to upgrade and stay on the previous version.

I guess he doesn't know that BTC is not the original Bitcoin either. It has hardforked several times early on. They conveniently draw the line after those hardforks.


https://image.nostr.build/06cc8e656fc2781f9323aec3bbde678ebde86eb0631414ca1db05b736c0445e0.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/8599b34eccd2f28fc56ee3a749ab7ac044d23a8dcff609020a9ded10f9677c43.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/5a409dca8ccb4b10f8879a4e7bc99137fc104cef5ce01fbdd8e3aad3724ebba0.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/ce5fbe19fd498ed948ec66e2f91efb9dc8fcfd388f56a23c97735d9bb86d3460.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/608a6726c6c72b1558d46c7866e547ca8ce55694e3585b730f5e3217eae292a1.jpg

https://image.nostr.build/a1d9adfc5a5d79e2851f765985232a49a63bf6a1f6e0c323ec5e0572991e83ae.jpg


Yea, I wouldn't call Monero a normie coin, but I find it the exact opposite. There are so many options for Bitcoiners yet all most Bitcoiners talk about and do is hodl and stack. Not spend (Maybe you aren't one of these). Even on Nostr, the most Bitcoin place ever, most spending is through custodial wallets like WoS. Can you really call that using Bitcoin?

You cant buy a cup of coffee on some street corner (that I know of), but you can definitely buy coffee with Monero and more: https://gratuitas.org/

Buy Maple syrup from:
npub172mu27r5yny0nnmvgjqwhx055dmsesrrx7j0p5d3pxagfx6xgxfsv75p3q
Buy carnivore bars from:
eataupa.com
If you need a phone alias or burner:
silent.link
phantomphone.app

Many privacy FOSS tools take Monero:
GrapheneOS, Mullvad, IVPN, TailsOS, Whonix, Qubes

Here is a massive directory and p2p white/gray market:
https://monerica.com/
https://moneromarket.io/

Atomic swap for BTC/XMR:
https://unstoppableswap.net/

Swap aggregators:
https://trocador.app/en/
https://orangefren.com/
https://intercambio.app/

Obviously I wouldn't count this as spending Monero, but if someone needs it, here are giftcards for anything else:
https://coincards.com/
https://buy.cakepay.com
https://www.coinsbee.com
https://stealths.net/

Alot of exciting things not far down the road. Better XMR atomic swaps for BTC and ETH, SeraiDEX, BasicSwapDEX, HavenoDEX, MoneroSigner, Nostr Monero Client, Seraphis. Too many things to remember and list.


But apparently you can limit the upper bound on centralization

You're free to break RandomX anytime you want and prove us wrong though


"RandomX (and hardforks more generally) show a poor understanding of incentives and centralization. Poor system design."

?

I showed you a poor understanding of incentives and centralization. Ignore facts.


How? Everyone is using the same algo with RandomX and proving they solved it. You can't fake it and that's what matters for PoW. It's anchored to the real world.

SHA256 algo is just as artificial and arbitrarily chosen, so I hope you aren't making some kind of convoluted argument like that.


Yes, it's one of several things I think BCH does better than BTC and XMR.


I think both BTC and XMR would benefit to adopt the way BCH does it's proposals


I'm referring to specific aspects. I didn't paint broad brushstrokes like your are saying. The distribution of BCH *node software* is among 3 different main versions vs BTC 99.9% using Bticoin Core.

What is more decentralized 1 or 3?

As for NIPS they only pass if Core greenlights them. While CHIPS in practice is more open and anyone can introduce one and anyone can vote. What is more centralized one gatekeeper or all major stakeholders?

https://github.com/cashtokens/cashtokens/blob/master/stakeholders.md


That's not what I said. You're putting words in my mouth. Reread what I said.


All good. Not expecting to change someone mind who is dug in. I do this mostly for anyone reading thru these threads that is open to have another opinion to consider.

Will probably never get honest discussion from these guys. It does happen though and when it does it's great.


Straight to insults. Sure sign of a secure position.


-need capacity to recieve
-can't send modestly large amounts
-can be rugged if your node isn't active
-both parties must be online at time of transaction to transact
-ability to grief honest users with zero cost
-can be force closed onto the base chain against your will
-relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees
-bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary

Sounds like a real Monero killer!


FOSS and permissionlessness is all that matters. Anyone has the ability to exit by selling, swapping, or forking and no one can stop them. All funding that pushes Monero forward is by community support and all voluntary. There is no dev tax or premine.

Inability to hardfork, just like ability to upgrade, is a gift and a curse with it's own unique trade offs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to talk centralization include all inconvenient aspects of it. BTC is centralized via a handful of Bitcoin Core developers/maintainers and the company Blockstream. That's why Blockstream pet projects like Lightning and Liquid are quickly given the greenlight and any other ideas outside their cabal flounder. Even BCH is better decentralized by node software and CHIP upgrade proposals in practice.


RandomX has nothing to do with centralization. Exact opposite in fact for mining. How many people own CPUs vs ASICs? The ubiquity can't be beat.

If you argue that it is easier to attack using CPUs, that is a different argument. But it is also easier to bring more CPUs online from honest actors to defend or pushback against an attack as well. Exact opposite for ASICs.

Only two pools, AntPool and Foundry, make up more than 55% of the mining hashpower alone. Those miners are using their nodes. So Bitcoin has it's own centralization issues to work on as well.


Governments commit atrocities all the time. They'll frame Bitcoiners as extremists or some shit if necessary, propagandize the public, and those human rights groups and other nations will fall in line for the most part like they always do. Look at the covid hysteria. Majority bought that shit up.

They don't need to be able to directly control your Bitcoin to bend your fingers. If they know you own Bitcoin they can threaten you with prison if you don't cooperate. In more extreme regimes, they can torture or kill you and your family. 99% of people will give in to that kind of duress.

That's why privacy and anonymity are both important.


You said you don't do something because of potential future legal consequences (not even illegal right now). So it doesn't make sense why you hold bitcoin if they can just make it illegal in the future. They already did that to gold. It makes even more sense they would do it to something as threatening to them as Bitcoin.

We also have the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th amendment. But words on paper didn't ever stop government before. I'm not going to impotently beg politicians and governments to respect my rights. We have to take our rights and make them unassailable. Privacy and anonymity via encryption are one way to do this.

Hey, I get the sentiment man. It's not about hiding in the shadows though. It's about consent. Your business is no one elses unless you want it to be.

Mass adoption doesn't concern me. Some will learn by being burned. If they need it they'll find it and use it. If someone doesn't want something you won't be able to convince them. Adoption should happen organically if your tool is valuable and useful to people.


XMR = p2p digital cash


Monero is already PoW


No-KYC, no javascript, privacy-centric, swap aggregator:
https://trocador.app/en/

Atomic swaps BTC/XMR:
https://unstoppableswap.net/

Massive Monero directory:
https://monerica.com/


Because Lightning doesn't hold a candle to Monero's privacy. Receiver privacy sucks and hidden balances can be dervied by a passive adversary.

need capacity to recieve,
can't send modestly large amounts,
both parties must be online to transact,
can be rugged if your node isn't active,
can be force closed onto the base chain against your will,
ability to grief honest users with zero cost

Sovereign UX for LN also sucks. That's why over 95% of users are on custodial wallets like WoS.

No, Monero doesn't have a limited supply. Inflation is less than gold though. And it's issuance is fixed and predictable unlike fiat. Only use for spending if that worries you. Continue saving with Bitcoin.


Agree. Many caveats and pitfalls. Better than nothing though. BitcoinQnA one of the best guides to Bitcoin privacy. Prepare to read!
https://bitcoiner.guide/privacy/

Also, here are some additional weaknesses of coinjoins.
https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin


So, as long as there are potential legal consequences in the future you'll comply?

Then there is no point in owning Bitcoin. They can just 6102 you and make it illegal to own in the future.


Exactly


L2 privacy can never be a full replacement for L1 privacy.

L2 sacrifices major aspects of onchain like self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, final settlement, etc

Monero is already king of privacy coins too. Network effect has too much momentum. You'll have to get users and markets to switch over. Look at Lightning and Liquid. Been around for years already but only a tiny fraction of those businesses and users that accept onchain Bitcoin accept them.


Dude...Lightning has many problems of it's own (arguably worse) that Monero does not have.

Relies on large middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees,
need capacity to recieve,
can't send modestly large amounts,
both parties must be online to transact,
can be rugged if your node isn't active,
bad receiver privacy and hidden balances can be discovered by a passive adversary,
can be force closed onto the base chain against your will,
ability to grief honest users with zero cost

Those are just a few. Sovereign UX is also terrible which is why over 95% LN users are on WoS.

https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/


Yea, Bitcoin has Monero beat when it comes to liquidity, obviously.

But Monero is a far better user experience if you want to actually pay privately and cheaply.

LocalMonero is your friend to directly buy Monero KYC-free

localmonero.co
kycnot.me/search?q=&type=exchange&xmr=on

https://image.nostr.build/06cc8e656fc2781f9323aec3bbde678ebde86eb0631414ca1db05b736c0445e0.jpg


What if you don't want your privacy cucked by custodians? AKA holding your nuts


Yea I've been keeping tabs definitely a cool project from Calle and an improvement, but it is not a complete solution it only reduces the rugpull risk as he outlines at the end.

That would be dope! This is what FOSS is all about.

I have a question maybe you can answer: When do you think Fedimint is coming out of alpha? (roughly)


Only way I can think of is via an old laptop or phone that is physically disabled from going online. Transfer the files over with a USB stick then stamp the seed on steel.

Would also like to know if there is a more covenient way. Can't wait for MoneroSigner to drop.


Have fun staying surveilled


It's clear Drivechains aren't happening anytime soon.

And even if they did they would have to buiild their own network effect. Liquid and lightning been around for years and only a tiny fraction of the on chain market accepts them.


HFSS


That's all you reading into it.

I'm plainly stating facts, but you rather divert the conversation to focusing on  my "tone" because you can't dispute it.

Yes, none of this is new, so now you've revealed you're not ignorant just intentionally dishonest.

Irrelevant. You don't have to hodl Monero to use it. Now one is forcing you to choose either. Save with Bitcoin.


Agree that everything is trade offs and incentives. But if a bankrun is happening that means it's already too late for many.

The main improvements I can see of ecash over fiat is the mint being blinded, FOSS, anyone being able to participate by creating a mint (open and subject to market forces), and that the mint is at least ostensibly backed by a hard commodity like Bitcoin.

I do sometimes mine using p2pool, but that's not how it works with Monero afaik.

https://github.com/SChernykh/p2pool
"There is no pool wallet, funds are never in custody. All pool blocks pay out to miners immediately."


My point is, unlike Lightning for example, Ecash is an offchain IOU not anchored at all to L1 and can be arbitrarily printed by the mint. See the difference?

"enable more privacy on bitcoin" sounds as though the privacy is a part of Bitcoin or tethered to it somehow when they are completely unrelated.


Coinjoins are weak obfuscation nothing is hidden. It must be maintained going forward, degrades over time, and can be undone with mistakes or additional data.

Amounts and addresses are truly hidden on Monero. There is no transaction graph either.


I'm responding to your "privacy over decentralization" comment.   I didn't say FOSS alone does that and you didn't say anything about "hard money".

Can someone force me to use their crypto against my will? Can I be stopped from swapping or selling it? Can someone stop others from forking it? Am I forced to use only one crypto for every use case possible? Sounds like a free market and that's all I care about. Remember, it was Bitcoin that had a contentious userbase split with the blocksize wars even with no hardforks and *still* had to compromise with the half measure Segwit.

Yea, I've heard talk about stratum v2 for quite awhile now still vaporware and isn't a completet solution anyway. The average person still can't afford to participate in mining to keep the network decentralized.

It seems Bitcoin and Monero's approaches have the same potential problem on the opposite sides of the coin.

The tragedy of ASICs is they will continue to consolidate on farms and grow more centralized and susceptible to state attack. It's conveniently wrapping up Bitcoin's censorship resistance and handing it over to governments over time.


Great idea! Post your idea here whenever you have the chance and I'll try and get the word out. I'm sure it would be funded.

https://bounties.monero.social/


Divirta-se em um blockchain de vigilância que custará um dia de salário por transação no futuro.

Ou peça permissão a intermediários para transações privadas e baratas na camada de custódia quatro

Parece bom!


Qualquer um que seja acessível para uso em transações diárias e proteja sua privacidade das garras estendidas dos governos


https://monero.fail/map
https://bitnodes.io/

Both FOSS.
Both same ballpark of nodes.
Only one of these has decentralized mining that isn't concentrated on large law-abiding corporate mining farms though.


While I think ecash will be useful for many...

ecash =/= privacy on bitcoin

Ecash is a private offchain IOU


Why are shitcoins dominating Bitcoin in privacy?

What is your favorite layer 6 custodial solution to address this problem?


Monero's transactions are larger than Bitcoin's because it is actually private and fungible***

You're talking about a future hypothetical that may never even happen (slow adoption + moore's law = scalable). But this also says nothing about the reality of total blockchain size today. Running a Monero node requires less resources.

Lightning is broken tech that doesn't translate all properties of Bitcoin that make it great. That is why 95%+ use custodial wallets like WoS. And the worst part is it still can't even scale by it's own metric.

Network effects also apply to Monero. King in the privacy coin category. No competition in sight.

If you think Monero is complicated to use, try using lightning in a sovereign manner:
need capacity to recieve,
can't send modestly large amounts,
both parties must be online to transact,
must run an additional ln node,
can be rugged if your node isn't active,
can be force closed onto the base chain against your will and pay higher tx fees.

When was the last time you took advantage of Bitcoin's transparent simple math?
Or do you just run a node and sometimes have a command spit a number back at you? Exactly like any Monero user.

Finding an inflation bug after it's exploited doesn't help.


Bitcoin wouldn't scale with sharp increase in adoption either so I don't see the difference.

Monero blockchain size: ~180 GB
Bitcoin blockchain size: ~500 GB
🤔 Monero looks less bloated to me...


The funny thing is no Bitcoiners take advantage of Bitcoin's transparent simple math to verify the supply.  None of them are making sure all inputs = all outputs let alone every 10 minutes.

All they do is run a node and sometimes type in a command to have a number spit back at them. Exactly like any Monero user.


It's more that users won't want to deal with the risk of tainted funds because of increasing regulation. Tainted coins might not be accepted or undervalued elsewhere for the same reasons. So people will either refuse them and ask for coins with "clean" histories or they will accept tainted coins for a discount:
https://news.bitcoin.com/industry-execs-freshly-minted-virgin-bitcoins/

For Monero this bifurcation is not possible because there is no history. It doesn't have the problem of splitting between tainted and clean coins within itself like Bitcoin. 1 XMR = 1 XMR. It is either all accepted or it is all banned. In either scenario it is fungible.

Monero has less inflation than gold, likely not even enough to make up for yearly lost coins, so could be argued to be deflationary.  While it doesn't have a limited supply like Bitcoin, it's issuance is fixed and predictable, unlike fiat money.

For a Store of Value, p2p digital commodity, it is reasonable to choose Bitcoin over Monero for that use case.

But for a Medium of Exchange, p2p digital cash, Monero is the more ideal fit. Private, fungible, and tx fees a fraction of a penny.

No other coin can copy Monero and get the same adoption. Monero is already king of privacy coins. Just like Bitcoiners bring up the power of network effects, the same could be said of Monero's adoption.


I believe similar results are acheived with NIP59 and NIP101:

https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/fd914c600fd590e6188534cd7555116da7855503/59.md

https://github.com/water783/nips/blob/nip101/101.md

This chat app that is in beta uses them. No metadata leak about who is speaking with who:
https://github.com/0xchat-app

It's just a matter of client adoption I think.


The measurement analogy breaks down when you realize:

1 BTC =/= 1 BTC because it is not fungible irl - unique histories mean each bitcoin is not indistinguishable from the other, they are taintable, and potentially have differing values. 1 meter must = 1 meter

21 million as a standard is also not true either. Yearly lost coins can never be accurately accounted for. It's not a fixed unit. It's like a meter that is ambiguous or constantly changing.

These are not my arguments. I'm just trying to follow your line of logic.

Ultimately, Bitcoin has certain properties that make it excel for certain use cases. Then there are a few alts, like Monero, that have properties that are better suited for other use cases that Bitcoin or other L2s cannot achieve or are less ideal. Unless Bitcoin hardforks, which would invalidate the strengths of it's previous use case. The abstracted nature of L2s sacrifice one or more of L1 core aspects like self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, finaly settlement, etc.


Tribalism. Being emotionally and financially invested doesn't help either 😅


polygon pill me?


Pretty good rundown. Was this AI generated?

Only got one thing wrong at the end. Monero tx fees would not be higher with more usage because of dynamic blocks. It's the exact opposite.


FYI

Ring Signatures (sender privacy) is actually the weakest part of Monero's privacy tech. It is relatively weak obfuscation; not truly hidden.

Confidential Transactions (amount privacy) and Stealth Addresses (receiver privacy)
are truly hidden by encryption and where the real privacy magic of Monero comes from.

This might also interest you:  https://localmonero.co/knowledge/ring-signatures-vs-coinjoin


Very valid question.

The fact that you fear backlash for even asking this is telling.

If you want strong default privacy, real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees WITHOUT sacrificing self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, final settlement, etc on L2...

Use #Monero


No value? That's not for you to decide for others. Value is subjective. Bitcoiners should especially know this.

Are you someone who wants strong default privacy, real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees? #Monero


I'm not worried. Sounds based af.


Stop projecting. Just because you prioritize getting rich quick over cypherpunk goals and actual utility doesn't mean others do.

You still haven't figured out that privacy and anonymity = censorship resistance. Or that a chain with $20 tx fees is unusable to 99.9% of the world.


Just like Monero - gold has it's own advantages that Bitcoin doesn't and vice versa - like not being reliant on a complex network to use and exist and being fungible and private. It also has several millenia proven history as a SoV vs Bitcoin's ~15 years.

It's not just math its subjective value. Bitcoin can control the supply side of the equation, but never the fickle demand side. That is a constantly changing market process.

Agree that you can just cross swap between Monero and Bitcoin, but comparing it to coinjoins is apples and oranges. Coinjoin is weak privacy via obfuscation. Nothing is hidden. You can see everything. So that means deobfuscation is possible (and even happens to DNM OGs a decade later) with more data or future user mistakes. While Monero amounts and addresses aren't available on it's blockchain. No transaction graph is visible either.

Lightning receiver privacy is weak and unannounced channel amounts can be derived by a sophisticated adversary. Any privacy on L2s always  give up main value props of Bitcoin like self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, final settlement, etc. Ecash for example (probably the strongest privacy contender) is custodial and mints can arbitrarily print unbacked tokens without anyone knowing. None are full replacements for Monero.

Monero is FOSS. That's all that matters. At any moment anyone can sell or swap their Monero if they don't agree with the path it takes and no one can stop them. They can opt out. The community can also fork Monero and no one can stop them.

It's great both expirements can exist and I think they occupy different realms. Bitcoin is trying to be a SoV a digital commodity, while Monero is trying to be the best MoE a digital cash.


Well, I wouldnt say it doesn't matter.

The governmet stuff is just one side of it. KYC is also risky because that info will eventually get leaked or hacked. Happens all the time if you pay any attention to these things. Now criminals will know your personal info and potentially your address (or indirect info to figure these things out) and how much Bitcoin you bought.

https://github.com/jlopp/physical-bitcoin-attacks/blob/master/README.md


Introducing EXIT

You broke up with your ex; it wasn’t treating you well, maybe it was shadow banning you or your friends; it was manipulating you into becoming your worst possible self.

But over the years you accrued a bunch of quality shitposts, and perhaps some nuggets of wisdom.

Introducing: https://exit.pub:

The last bridge you’ll need to port over your data into the new world of decentralized freedom-tech.

1. Download your twitter archive
2. If Elon agrees, you’ll get a zip file; uncompress it and just use exit.pub to import your data into nostr

✅ original dates are used; whatever you posted in 2009 will show up as posted in nostr in 2009
✅ granular control of which tweets to import (threads, non-replies, replies)
✅ V4V, you choose how much your shitposts are worth
✅ it *should* preserve embedded images
✅ granular control of which relays you want to publish to

Try it out:

https://exit.pub


As governments catch up - Tighter regulation, unrealized and realized capital gains tax increases, mandatory KYC enrollment to use Bitcoin above the table. All this only applies to white markets of course.

Bitcoin/Monero will always be black and gray market money first, and tentative white market money second imo.

The only longlasting solutions are parallel and circular economies outside the current system.


Not true. If Monero was used as much as Bitcoin it's tx fees would be just as cheap because of dynamic blocks.


Haveno is basically this. They just released their testnet GUI a couple weeks ago. https://github.com/haveno-dex/haveno/releases/tag/v0.0.11

https://haveno.exchange/


As soon as Bitcoin gets it's privacy problems straightened out WITHOUT compromising self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, etc core value props then you will be justified in calling Monero an unecessary shitcoin

Until then Monero remains legitimate and closest in spirit to what cypherpunks envisioned as private and anonymous digital cash


Always a nonzero chance, but unlikely.

You should plan around worst case scenario, but you're free to roll those dice.


Coinjoining or using Monero doesn't erase the record that you bought X amount of BTC or Monero. That record is always accidently leaked or hacked eventually.

Ideally buy nonKYC + coinjoin (or use Monero)


New bounty for a Monero Nostr client recently dropped.

https://bounties.monero.social/posts/94/8-550m-nostr-client-for-monero


SimpleX Chat v5.3 is released – with new desktop app and local file encryption!

Also in this release:
- group improvements.
- simplified incognito mode
- better app responsiveness, stability and 40% reduced memory usage.
- new privacy settings: show last messages & save draft.

Added 6 new interface languages thanks to our users - Arabic, Bulgarian, Finnish, Hebrew, Thai and Ukrainian.

Read more: https://simplex.chat/blog/20230925-simplex-chat-v5-3-desktop-app-local-file-encryption-directory-service.html

Downloads page: https://simplex.chat/downloads/

#privacy #security #messenger


Monero is superior in different areas from Bitcoin.

Strong default privacy, real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees = Better MoE without sacrificing core aspects of self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, etc on L2s


Almost everything has a virtually unlimited supply if you invest more time.

Monero has less inflation than gold. And unlike fiat money, it's creation is  predictable. You can never mine more than 0.6 XMR every two minutes.

Monero is meant to be used as an ideal P2P digital cash. Save with Bitcoin if you think SoV trend will hold. But honestly any prediction into the future is speculation. Bitcoin can control the supply side of the equation, but the fickle demand side is out of it's control.


Why


Two years ago German police murdered JStark and dumped his body in front of his parent's house.

https://m.primal.net/HLyC.mp4


The way I understand Monero's ring signatures weakness (sender privacy) is from sophisticated statistical attacks (because it is the only part that is not hidden, only obscured). OSPEAD was started to find the best way to optimize how decouys are chosen, and thus diminish these kinds of attacks (still in progress it seems).

Now you honestly got me thinking I have misunderstood Seraphis somewhere (and maybe I did)...to my knowledge Full Membership Proofs greatly diminishes this statistical attack relative to the current state of things, but I see you might be correct that it is a different approach and not a complete solution to the problem.

This is a good article that explains it succintly: https://localmonero.co/knowledge/seraphis-for-monero

Great analogies 🙂
I guess we will have to wait and see what happens with DCs. I'm somewhat neutral, mostly because I don't know enough. But a lot of maxis seem to loathe the idea of it, so it seems like it is in for a rough fight.


I'm not saying Monero would be accepted on white markets. But whether it is or isn't, doesn't effect it's fungibility, unlike Bitcoin. Monero must either all be accepted, or all be banned, because each monero is indistinguishable. There is no historical transaction graph. It can't be bifurcated into clean and tainted Monero based on history.


It's more that white markets won't want to deal with the risk of tainted funds because of increasing regulation. Tainted coins might not be accepted or undervalued at other places for the same reasons. So businesses and people will either refuse them and ask for coins with "clean" histories. Or they will accept them for a discount.

I think Bitcoin/Monero were always meant to be black/gray market money.

I just feel more cynical about it and don't see how this isn't the outcome. But I rather have what you are saying be true.


1 BTC = 1 BTC on a protocol level, not in the real world. You have to make one Bitcoin technically indistinguishable from another to achieve that. And it can't because it is a public blockchain and they each have unique histories.

As chain analysis services and tools become more sophisticated, accessible, and easier to use, and regulations increasingly clamp down, all those businesses will  be forced to be more choosy to save their own asses. You already see this with KYC/AML laws. Automatically assumed guilty if you can't prove the history/source of your money.

We will see a bifurcation of black/white market bitcoin at different premiums/discounts based on history. There are already examples of this: https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/fungibility-graveyard/#compliant-mining-and-virgin-bitcoin

Of course, this won't matter as much for gray and black markets, but will still matter to some degree.

I'm saying this as someone who also holds Bitcoin.


Do que diabos você está falando? Estou dizendo o oposto disso. O vídeo que você vinculou possui um código QR da Carteira de Satoshi. Você está promovendo isso, não eu.


E quanto a esses problemas do LN?:
-precisa de dinheiro para receber e abrir um canal
-não é possível enviar quantias modestamente grandes
-ambas as partes devem estar online para realizar transações
-pode ser roubado se o seu nó não estiver ativo
-pode ser fechado à força na corrente contra sua vontade

Você está errado. LN não é totalmente privado. A privacidade do receptor, em particular, é terrível. Os valores também podem ser inferidos por invasores mais sofisticados.


Não está a perceber, pois não? Um terceiro (Wallet of Satoshi ou Alby) pode ver a sua transação entre si e qualquer outro par com quem interaja. Eles também podem impedir-te, porque não é sem permissão, a menos que faças Bitcoin soberanamente e autocustodialmente. Compreendes o problema que a Bitcoinn estava a tentar resolver? E eu estava a referir-me à pessoa no vídeo, não necessariamente a ti.

Impossível, é uma blockchain pública. A Bitcoin nunca pode dar privacidade (acções ocultas), apenas semi-anonimato (identidade oculta) na melhor das hipóteses.

Ó pá, se gostas de fantasiar com pilas de 30 cm e esperma na tua cara, guarda isso para ti 😂


Não, não mostre o seu node ao mundo. Mostra apenas à Wallet of Satoshi todo o teu saldo e todas as pessoas a quem o recebes e envias. Além disso, peça-lhes permissão para usar o seu dinheiro no seu livro-razão centralizado.  🤣

Então, por que não usar dinheiro fiduciário? 🤦♂


Wallet of Satoshi...LOL! 🤣🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂


damn straight brother


"Notice the change here: linkable ring signatures are replaced with a combination of membership proofs and authorizing proofs. Roughly speaking, membership proofs show that a consumed output is part of a larger set, similar to what happens in RingCT. But unlike RingCT, membership proofs don't involve the linking tag at all! Authorizing proofs show that the linking tag is valid and are used to sign the final transaction."

https://localmonero.co/knowledge/seraphis-for-monero?language=en


Yes, I agree with you about OSPEAD is what I am speaking of the relative weakness of ring signatures for sender privacy (...though in practice this has been robust enough for now. There has never been any busts or criminal trials because ring signatures were broken)

The only disagreement I have is that DC automatically inherits all Bitcoins eyes/capital/network effect.

We can clearly see this is not true in the community split and controversy. DCers are the minority. There is huge resistance.

We can also see L2s like Lightning and Liquid that have been around for sometime already and only have a tiny fraction of Bitcoin onchain adoption. Just because you accept Bitcoin onchain doesn't mean you accept lightning or liquid. More likely than not you dont.

I'm curious why you think Seraphis is a bandaid? Are you speaking of the initial large increase in ring size (128)? Then I agree that is a temporary bandaid. Though I was specifically referring to full membership proofs that will come after. It is essentially the same ZK proof as Zcash. It is not effected by OSPEAD afaik.


Monero is FOSS that's all that matters. It's a free market. At any moment if you or the community don't like the direction it is heading you can sell your Monero, swap it for another, or fork off and no one can stop you.

You audit Monero the same way you audit Bitcoin. You run a node then pay no attention so you don't even take advantage of it's transparency and simple math. Typing in a command to tell you total supply doesn't count. Otherwise you are doing exactly what every Monero user is doing. No Bitcoiner is making sure all transactions in 800,000+ blocks total inputs = total outputs. They are *definitely* not doing this every ten minutes.

https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/dispelling-monero-fud/#you-cant-audit-the-monero-supply


nostr:npub1phhmun8stkdvlmwkrw2zre7tddepvk6wvaycgqeqwddz04r7z3rslefkvq

Hey Adam, do you have a personal Monero address anywhere that we Monero-heads can use to donate to you? Or for No Agenda?


nostr:npub1qwt5hlmnc5gt27wy7y6pwwkmh7w2lwft3ypaqwcq38vj37ykgxzq5fykff

Not "crypto". The lightning network.

Both the V4V spec and the lightning spec allow for other monetary types.

Why has another type not been implemented? Many reasons, first and foremost is the ability to do micro payments.

Second is the middle men. All fiat systems and all tokens outside of Bitcoin and monero (to my knowledge) have middlemen you cannot "get rid of".

1/2


I find many Monero users more often than not are disaffected Bitcoiners who are hardcore ancaps/voluntaryists/agorists/austrian econers. There are many who are synergists who use Bitcoin/Monero for different purposes.

Fungibility is an underplayed aspect of sound money. Absolute scarcity is not a preqrequisite. Especially because you cannot control the demand side of the equation no matter how absolutely scarce something is. We've had an inflationary SoV for thousands of years: Gold. Monero has even less inflation than gold that is actually predictable. So it isn't that crazy of a jump.

https://mises.org/wire/why-fungibility-important-understanding-money-and-crypto


A great MoE can be a lesser SoV and vice versa. Bitcoin's has been a great SoV so far, but you would go broke quick using it for daily transactions. And this problem increases with more adoption.

Ecash is probably the only great privacy contender to Monero, but is custodial and the mints can arbitrarily create tokens out of thin air.

Lightning receiver privacy is shoddy, and sovereign UX is the reason everyone gives in to WoS. Incentivizes middlemen that centralise the network for cheaper/succesful routing also at the expense of privacy.

L2s will always sacrifice core aspects of Bitcoin. Trade offs to all of it.


You can implement Monero tips in a manner that is private. For example, +1 anonymous increments per donation regardless of size. Your client could take care of broadcasting +1 increments.

You could also have ranges/levels of a note "heating up" the more tips it gets to be even more vague. You could even have optional transparency and let  users decide where they want to reveal they tipped.

If you want to be really safe, only allow tipping to a sub address tied to a particular note, with nothing broadcasted publically. It would work like normal anonymous Monero donations.

If you have better ideas, or can see problems with any of this, please leave a comment here:
https://bounties.monero.social/posts/94/8-498m-nostr-client-for-monero


Agree. Zcash tech is better for sender privacy and should be used instead (or something similar). If implemented in a DC and adopted I would use it.

But seems like it's such a long shot in my opinion... By the time this happens, if it ever does, Monero will already be that much further along since it is also constantly being improved. Seraphis full membership proofs will obsolete ring sigs. It is already being actively developed by Koe and other Monero devs for some time now. Maybe 2+ years or so away. Which isn't very long.

There is an additional uphill battle. Just as lightning/liquid adoption struggles vs on chain Bitcoin - DC would have to build it's own network effect from scratch.


This is your periodic reminder to install Amethyst (and all other Nostr clients) through Obtainium instead of Google's PlayStore.

Just follow this video:

https://cdn.satellite.earth/2bd7e308c1797d64fca09b1d61e9bde24c68dd45e501c7383eff1e85392df11f.mp4


Ignore the drivechain stuff


The first open source thing is no longer true as of last month i believe*** (took them long enough 😅)


Ok, but if the goal is permissionless money, the partiular sacrifices liquid makes don't make sense imo. Especially for the meager privacy you get.

Open to seeing an advantage, but I still don't really see much for using liquid unless you are just worried about slippage/volatility. And in the short term is very minor, virtually non existent, or even a slight profit in your favor half the time so it evens out.

To each their own I guess. Maybe youll find this of interest: https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/1689337656319016960


deleted


Great write up man


You act as if you have to choose one or the other. I use the best tool for the job that is required.

Historical price trend =/= future price trend. I know most Bitcoiners hate this fact, but any extrapolation into the future is speculation.

If you believe the trend will hold, don't use Monero as savings. Use it for it's strong default privacy utility, as you say, and it's real world fungibility, and very cheap tx fees. A better Medium of Exchange.

Bitcoin can never be made private. It will never be allowed to change L1. Privacy gains on L2 come with major sacrifices to one or more of self-custody, permissionless nature, P2P,  and/or illusion of final settlement.

The strongest L2 contender to Monero is Ecash and that is completely custodial. And the mint can arbitrarily print more Ecash without you knowing. Doesn't sound like Bitcoin to me.


And here is one of the most popular white market gift card businesses by volume. (Notice Lightning is almost non existent)

https://image.nostr.build/5a409dca8ccb4b10f8879a4e7bc99137fc104cef5ce01fbdd8e3aad3724ebba0.jpg


Here is Monero as the most popular currency by bolume on Bisq. Even more so than any major fiat currency.

https://image.nostr.build/d7a7922cd087031b88c0daf85467d1ca922e9cf747bfd476d8e7fe446f8f49d6.jpg


Rivals Bitcoin on Freenet Markets and trending upward. Data is already 2 years old.

https://image.nostr.build/1f90427dc509f688d750d255d92b72f31f9bd43b8d097617e5418697e49f98a7.jpg


If it's good enough for the Freenet Markets it's good enough for me! 💯


Lame

You're scared of "getting in trouble" for something that is supposedly unstoppable digital cash. You've lost the plot or your crypto doesn't work.

NGMI


oops


Seems like a similar situation to torrents and p2p file sharing. Practically unstoppable.

Also, hoping this happens too:

note1d75r7ez8gkejh92nfyaq6r20eklj4wdn8jvvngrljupcqc9rphmsuxyk8a


Damn ShiShi, you consider that an essay?  If that's the case how are you going to write an article on Monero? 😂

I've read your opinions before. We've gone round and round many times so I know enough.

What specific points? It's not that you have no good points. It's the framing of the your points and no mention of trade offs involved. Let me know when you write your article and I'll read it.


L-BTC only hides amounts. The transaction graph is still completely visible. It is also a permissioned network.

Monero is superior privacy and permissionless


ShiShi is one of the real Monero reply guys

I don't get why they care if they think Monero is a non-issue. But it's the crypto they love to talk about the most aside from Bitcoin.

It always seems to come from a place of insecurity. Monero excels in it's domain, Bitcoin is a king in it's own. But they want to deceive themselves that one coin can be great at everything without making any changes. Or that building privacy on L2s have no major trade offs vs the base chain.

They think that a public chain is just as private as one that specializes, has the freedom to adapt, and was designed from the ground up around privacy.

Not as an afterthought.


It's okay. We never expected you to know how to copy/paste a simple address

😂


Yea, same thing


Se é tecnicamente centralizado neste aspeto, não me interessa. Tudo o que importa é que as pessoas podem entrar e sair quando quiserem, tal como num mercado livre. Qualquer pessoa pode também bifurcar o projeto se assim o desejar. Obviamente, os utilizadores do Monero valorizam estes programadores e mantenedores ou não estariam a utilizar o Monero.

Não houve um único hardfork contencioso no Monero porque os seus objectivos são claros. Pode o Bitcoin dizer o mesmo, mesmo com a sua política de não hard fork? O Bitcoin tem tido uma base de utilizadores dividida com guerras de tamanho de bloco e AINDA teve que se comprometer com o Segwit. E poder-se-ia argumentar que o Bitcoin Core toma as decisões actuais e não é verdadeiramente descentralizado na prática. https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
O Bitcoin Cash é ainda mais descentralizado na diversidade de software de nós do que o Bitcoin.

A falta de capacidade de mudança do Bitcoin é tanto uma força quanto uma fraqueza. Quase 15 anos e ainda não há privacidade e muitas meias medidas.

Fazes muitas suposições se pensas que só porque o Monero tem um tamanho de bloco dinâmico, já não é descentralizado. Tudo isso depende da taxa de adoção, dos avanços tecnológicos do consumidor (lei de Moores) e das melhorias de escalabilidade do protocolo (o tamanho do Monero tx já foi reduzido em ~ 80%). O tamanho do blockchain do Monero é menor que o do Bitcoin e também tem aproximadamente o mesmo número de nós. Não há razão para que a centralização de nós seja uma inevitabilidade. Não é binário.

https://sethforprivacy.com/posts/dispelling-monero-fud/#monero-cant-scale
https://monero.fail/map
https://bitnodes.io/

Não, seria marxista se as pessoas fossem obrigadas a usar Monero e


Está a ir longe demais. Talvez não tenha uma compreensão completa de como o Monero funciona.

Mesmo com este cenário muito improvável, o Monero continuaria a ser muito mais privado do que o Bitcoin. Portanto, ainda não seria "tão vulnerável quanto o Bitcoin", como você diz. O montante enviado e o destinatário continuariam a ser completamente ocultos. Não posso exagerar este facto. Não existe um gráfico de transacções como no Bitcoin, mesmo que se descubra o remetente. Também não há valores visíveis.

Também não se saberia necessariamente a identidade do remetente literal. Talvez seja a mesma entidade que enviou uma quantidade desconhecida de Monero para um destinatário desconhecido.

O Monero também tem proteção IP padrão com "Dandelion ++", pelo que não se saberia a origem IP da transação, mesmo sem Tor ou uma VPN.

Monero neste cenário é improvável:
Talvez Alice tenha enviado $[?] para [?]

O Bitcoin funciona perfeitamente como normal:
Alice definitivamente enviou $X para Bob


Não vejo como um projeto como o Monero pode ser considerado centralizado. Ele é FOSS assim como o Bitcoin.

A qualquer momento, se a comunidade não gostar da direção que está a tomar, pode ser bifurcado. Toda a utilização é voluntária. Ninguém está a ser forçado a comprar ou usar o Monero. A qualquer momento, se não gostares do caminho que está a ser seguido, podes vender o teu Monero ou trocá-lo por uma criptomoeda diferente e ninguém te pode impedir.

Quase todo o software que está a usar agora é hard forked. É preciso poder atualizar numa corrida ao armamento como a privacidade. Tudo o que importa é que o projeto seja FOSS, então o código é verificável e pode ser bifurcado.

A mineração Monero tem mais potencial para ser descentralizada porque usa RandomX para mineração de CPU, o que significa que qualquer pessoa tem acesso à mineração, não apenas fazendas de mineração corporativas ou pessoas que podem pagar ASICs de mil dólares. Toda a gente já tem várias CPUs por aí. Até se pode minerar no telemóvel. Além disso, a mineração de CPU é muito mais discreta e furtiva do que a de ASICs. Os ASICs são barulhentos, quentes e consomem muita energia. É muito mais óbvio que se está a minerar criptomoedas.

O Monero tem um tamanho de bloco dinâmico, o que significa que ele muda com a demanda. Isto garante que as transacções no Monero serão sempre extremamente baratas. Quanto maior for o número de utilizadores, mais rentável será para os mineiros e mais barata será a transação. Atualmente, é menos de um cêntimo. Tecnicamente, no momento, o Monero tem um tamanho de bloco menor do que até mesmo o Bitcoin. O tamanho do bloco do Monero é de 0,3 MB. Não pode crescer para além disso, a menos que haja uma pressão sustentada a longo prazo sobre esse limite.

https://monero-bitcoin-fees.vercel.app/


Ah, sim, vi este vídeo.

Vários problemas...

1. Todas as potenciais questões de privacidade que aborda afectam muito mais o Bitcoin do que o Monero.
É como uma pessoa nua a gritar a outra pessoa completamente vestida para ter alguma decência porque a sua mão pode estar a aparecer.

2. Monero tem 3 camadas de tecnologia de privacidade para o remetente, valor e recetor. “Ring Signatures”, “Confidential Transactions”, e “Stealth Addresses”. Portanto, se uma camada for quebrada, as outras 2 não são afetadas. Ele está a falar de “Ring Signature” que apenas afectam a privacidade do remetente. A comunidade Monero está bem ciente de que esta é a mais fraca das 3, porque não está verdadeiramente escondida, é apenas ofuscação.

Transação Monero:

Talvez Alice tenha enviado $[?] para [?]

3. Tudo o que precisa de fazer para evitar esta situação muito improvável de que ele fala é usar uma carteira diferente para actividades diferentes ou enviar algumas transacções para si próprio. O que ele próprio admite no final do vídeo.

O orador também comete um erro ao dizer que o Monero ainda tem um tamanho de anel de 11, quando agora é 16. O Monero terá em breve um tamanho de anel de pelo menos 128 com a atualização do Seraphis. E dentro de alguns anos, o Monero terá "full membership proofs" e as assinaturas de anel serão completamente obsoletas.


Surveillance lovers are twice as funny. #monero


You and me both 😤


O que é o "doom principle"?


New tech for Monero? 👀

note1ahp57tff7klke0usgzh2zt39ylr5vv99z6tl4rs82ea2d92lc7hq7v0fdg


I don't see why not. I can't give any technical details how it would specifically work for Monero though...maybe we should start the conversation about it


A Monero e a Bitcoin têm os seus próprios pontos fortes e fracos. São excelentes nos seus próprios domínios. Não sou um maximalista. Utilizo cada uma delas pelos seus pontos fortes. Da mesma forma que se usa uma ferramenta diferente para tarefas diferentes.

O Monero não está a tentar ser uma moeda global padrão como o Bitcoin. Ou uma reserva de valor. Essa é a diferença de pensamento.

É apenas uma ferramenta para transferir valor de forma privada e sem permissão ou intermediários. É para aqueles que precisam dela, não necessariamente para todos.


Tecnicamente, o Monero não é um token, estou apenas a dar um argumento amigável, mas concordo, somos todos livres de escolher o que preferimos. Isso é tudo o que realmente importa

🤝


New Monero bounty: "Nostr client for Monero"

https://bounties.monero.social/posts/94/0-034m-nostr-client-for-monero


Uma tendência óbvia e maciça para o aumento da utilização do Monero na rede livre. Não se esqueça que este gráfico já tem 2 anos.

https://image.nostr.build/1f90427dc509f688d750d255d92b72f31f9bd43b8d097617e5418697e49f98a7.jpg


Monero e Bitcoin não precisam de ser inimigos ou mutuamente exclusivos. Você pode usar ambos. Use o Bitcoin para suas economias e reserva de valor. Use Monero como um meio de troca. Dinheiro digital privado e fungível com taxas de transação muito baratas.

Não há necessidade de manter o Monero a longo prazo ou armazenar grandes quantidades se achar que a sua tendência de preço vai continuar. Use-o como dinheiro para gastar.


Sim, estou numa bolha, mas sei disso e não me iludo com o facto de a Bitcoin ou a Monero serem tão amplamente aceites e omnipresentes, ao contrário de si.

O mercado global ainda prefere muito mais a moeda fiduciária, por isso não sei como é que a popularidade ajuda o teu argumento.
Os mercados da Freenet (também conhecidos como o berço do Bitcoin) estão a escolher cada vez mais o Monero em vez do Bitcoin. O verdadeiro teste de adoção num ambiente livre e contraditório.

Não há diferença no mundo real entre auditar o Bitcoin e o Monero. É tudo uma questão de teoria. Para o fazer, é necessário ter nós e confiar no software de implementação adequado para ambos. Como eu disse, encontrar um bug de inflação depois que ele acontece é quase inútil uma vez que ele tenha sido explorado. Nenhum Bitcoiner tira partido da transparência do Bitcoin. Sabes o que é LARPing?

Sim, mas o Monero não tem *apenas* anonimato. Portanto, não vejo como seu argumento de paus e pedras se aplica.

Privacidade e auditabilidade absoluta são mutuamente exclusivas. O Monero faz uma única troca decisiva. E em termos práticos, da forma como os utilizadores do mundo real auditam os nós de confiança do Bitcoin, não há diferença.

Gostas do que o Satoshi diz? Bem, esta é a opinião de Satoshi sobre a questão da privacidade e está mais actualizada. Ele descreve todas as características de privacidade que estão no Monero:

https://image.nostr.build/1d76ce41f9e58aaa100484d22356101b72ffc9b70cf7984032af2e23d2d77a7f.jpg


If you don't think anyone accepts Monero, it doesn't make sense to suggest something even less accepted than: Lightning. A fraction of Monero's acceptability and usage.

Lightning is not as private as Monero. Why do yall keep pretending it is? Receiver privacy is trash and private channels can be derived.

"We identified 27,183 private channels, discovered hidden balances, and showed how a passive adversary can infer payment endpoints with very high probability."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf

Look at all these inconveniences that come with LN that you conveniently leave out:
Reliance on middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees,
illusion of final settlement,
need capacity to recieve,
can't send modestly large amounts,
both parties must be online to transact,
can be rugged if your node isn't active,
can be force closed onto the base chain against your will.

..and it still overpromises on scaling!!! 🤦♂

https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/


Fiat is a billion times more acceptable than Bitcoin. By your logic  Bitcoin = shitcoin?


Bruh, do you just close your eyes and plug your ears?

Everything is a trade off including Bitcoin and building on layers. You make sacrifices there too (arguably worse trade offs)

You can send 0-conf transactions which are 99.9% safe relative to Bitcoin because Monero doesn't have RBF

Great. Monero has been a bad SoV compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a bad MoE compared to Monero (very low tx fees, strong default privacy, and real world fungibility). Trade offs like you say.

You don't know anyone that uses it because you are in your maxi bubble. I don't know a single person IRL that uses  Bitcoin or Monero. 99.9% of the world doesn't know or care about Bitcoin.

Monero is the premier currency of the freenet markets and many white market merchants that accept Bitcoin also accept Monero.

It's simpler to just plainly say you don't like Monero because you don't like it. You don't have to lie or mislead others about the facts.


Thank you Calle, very cool!


As long as you saved your seed words I don't know how this would be possible


Aww, have we grown on you? 🥰


Se leu o livro branco, sabe que Satoshi dedica uma secção inteira à privacidade. Você minimiza a enorme história cypherpunk que levou ao Bitcoin.

O Monero tem cerca de ~$150 de valor neste momento e é a principal moeda para os mercados livres e faz muitas coisas melhor do que o Bitcoin. Pela sua lógica, nada tem valor em comparação com o Bitcoin, o que obviamente não é verdade. Muitas coisas no mundo têm valor que não são Bitcoin. O valor é subjetivo. Se estivesses a morrer num deserto de sede, darias todo o teu Bitcoin por um simples copo de água.

Você está numa bolha. 99,9% das pessoas no planeta não aceitam Bitcoin como pagamento. O mercado e a sociedade se pronunciaram. Acho que o Bitcoin não tem valor pela tua lógica.

Você audita o Monero exatamente como faz com o Bitcoin. Você administra um nó. Nenhum Bitcoiner tira proveito da transparência matemática simples do Bitcoin. Eles administram um nó e não prestam atenção, assim como o Monero. Você se assegurou de que todas as transações em mais de 800.000 blocos são iguais? E faz isso a cada dez minutos? Não, você confia em um nó para fazer esse trabalho para você. Isso significa que você está confiando na implementação do software do nó para estar correto e não ter bugs. O mesmo risco que o Monero. Apanhar um bug de inflação depois de acontecer não o ajuda.

Shells e sticks não podem ser enviados instantaneamente para qualquer pessoa no planeta. Eles também podem ser confiscados. Não são fungíveis. Decaem com o tempo. Também não são convenientemente divisíveis. Comparação ridícula.

Sacrifica-se muitos aspectos fundamentais da Bitcoin ao subir para níveis mais elevados, como já expliquei. Portanto, eles não são realmente substitutos para o Monero. A não ser que gostes de pedir autorização, de dar o teu dinheiro a depositários, de passar por intermediários, ou que gostes apenas da ilusão da liquidação final.

É esse o problema. A privacidade é sempre tratada como uma questão secundária. Privacidade significa acções ocultas. Diferente de anonimato: identidade oculta. A privacidade está perpetuamente a apenas alguns anos de estar no Bitcoin. Se você precisa de privacidade robusta por padrão *agora* que não comprometa os valores fundamentais do Bitcoin, existe o Monero.


Sim, veremos, e espero que fique estranhamente calado quando perceber que não se trata de um ASIC 😂


Agora passaste de potencialmente mal informado a desesperado. Os mineiros da Bitmain não são mineiros ASIC, como já lhe expliquei. Não são mais eficientes do que qualquer CPU que tenhas no teu computador graças ao RandomX. A sua vontade de atacar o Monero sem sequer conhecer os factos mais básicos é óbvia.


O anonimato e a privacidade foram fundamentais para a pré-história da bitcoin. Nunca leste o manifesto cripto-anarquista ou cypherpunk? Ou qual era o objetivo da sua tecnologia? O objetivo era dinheiro anónimo e não rastreável.

Não sei onde foste buscar a ideia de que o Monero não tem valor. É a moeda de escolha para os mercados mais adversários e livres do mundo. Mercados Darknet.

"A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" O título do livro branco. O valor fundamental do papel-moeda é a sua combinação de privacidade, fungibilidade e natureza peer-to-peer. A moeda física é utilizada para poupanças a longo prazo? Não, é utilizada como meio de troca, com custos de transação muito baixos,  tal como o Monero.

O Bitcoin só pode atingir o nível de privacidade do Monero em L2s, o que sacrifica a auto-custódia, a ausência de permissão, a descentralização e/ou o peer-to-peer. Com o Monero, é possível manter tudo isso.


L2s in the flavor of lightning bring more problems than they are worth imo...
Reliance on middlemen nodes for succesful routing and cheapest fees,
illusion of final settlement,
need capacity to recieve,
can't send modestly large amounts,
both parties must be online to transact,
can be rugged if your node isn't active,
can be force closed onto the base chain against your will.
Monero lightning would have all these problems. Bad trade.

https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/lightning-limitations/
https://moneroinfodump.neocities.org/#JustUseLightningNetworkBro

Worst of all, even after all these sacrifices, lightning overpromises on it's one supposed advantage: scalability.

It's terrible sovereign UX  is why 95%+ of users are on custodial wallets like WoS. Which defeats the whole purpose of crypto.

XMR doesn't have RBF(replace by fee), so 0-conf transactions are relatively safe anyway, unlike BTC, especially for trivial amounts. BCH makes this even better with DPS (double spend proofs) which make this 99.9% safe. I think BCH handles "instant" transactions in a better way and Monero should adopt it.
https://bitcoincashpodcast.com/faqs/Tech/what-is-0-conf#double-spend-proofs-dsps


The Optout podcast sommerfeld mentioned is a gem. Highly recommend. It's a major reason I got into the privacy world. Each episode revolves around a different privacy tool for the most part.


Also consider switching over to an open source and encrypted password manager like Bitwarden. Probably the most convenient and popular. Or you can checkout one of the KeePass forks if you like your passwords completely offline.

I would avoid NordVPN if you can. MullvadVPN and IVPN are better choices.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/vpn/
https://pluja.github.io/awesome-privacy/#VPNs

Check out those links and don't get overwhelm yourself by switching everything at once. Do the easy stuff first and slowly switch over time.


O "Dandelion++" também oculta a origem IP de uma transação


Sem ofensa, mas esses dois anfitriões não parecem ter nenhum entendimento técnico básico da privacidade do Monero.

Eles apenas discutem "assinaturas de anel", que é uma tecnologia de privacidade baseada na ofuscação e apenas para a privacidade do remetente. É apenas 1 das 3 camadas de privacidade que o Monero usa.

O Monero também utiliza "transacções confidenciais" para esconder completamente os montantes e "endereços furtivos" para esconder os destinatários através de encriptação. Estes dois não podem sequer ser vistos no seu blockchain. Eles estão completamente escondidos.

Exemplo:
Talvez Alice tenha enviado $[?] para [?]


Se quiser uma conversa honesta e ponderada sobre os pontos fortes e fracos do Monero entre dois respeitados Bitcoiners e utilizadores do Monero - nada melhor do que Giacomo e Seth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1PRKKlI-Jo


100% agree

Just pointing out either choice is a risk and doesn't skirt it's own unique consequences


Making the choice to ossify and be conservative is a valid approach and strategy for a protocol.

But many Bitcoin maxis erroneously equate not changing Bitcoin's protocol as "playing it safe"

Not changing is also a choice. Bitcoin is not avoiding risk and consequences by doing this. Big difference.


Coinjoining is weak privacy via obfuscation (vs encryption). The range of connections and amounts are all still visible. Can be unraveled with more data or user mistakes.

Lightning sender privacy is decent.  Reciever privacy is bad and amounts can be derived.
"We identified 27,183 private channels, discovered hidden balances, and showed how a passive adversary can infer payment endpoints with very high probability."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf

Liquid only hides amounts. The transaction graph is still visible. And it is a permissioned network. Among many other problems.
https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/1689337656319016960

Ecash is great privacy - better than anything above. But unfortunately Ecash is custodial and rehypothecatable.


Yes, 99% of alts are trash. But there are a handful that are legit. There are many things alts provide that Bitcoin cannot.

Strong default privacy, real world fungibility, extremely cheap transaction fees are just a few. All while remaining non-custodial, permissionless, and P2P.

You can't be good at something you don't specialize in. You also can't be good at everything because each aspect requires trade offs that are mutually exclusive.


Politician simps are the worst. That goes tenfold for any bitcoiner who is one.


Also:

+non interactive
+no hot wallet necesary
+no routing problems to deal with
+can send any arbitrarily large amount without failing
+don't have to make sure you have enough capacity to recieve a payment
+truly private

All this while remaining completely non custodial, p2p, and permissionless


The guy is a watchmaker if I'm not mistaken. True craftsman.


Agree, but it's still nice that Samourai is available for those who are using Bitcoin out of necessity or ignorance


Monero is comparably as decentralized as Bitcoin by node count.
https://monero.fail/map
https://bitnodes.io/

Monero is FOSS just like Bitcoin. It can be forked if the community doesn't like the direction. No one is being forced to buy or use Monero. At any moment if you don't like the direction it is heading you can sell it or swap for another crypto and no one can stop you. Completely voluntary free market.

Still not a single contentious hardfork in Monero because there are clear goals. Meanwhile, Bitcoin doesn't hardfork but *still* couldn't avoid userbase fear and turmoil during the blocksize wars. And they *still* had to compromise with Segwit.

But good thing both projects can exist and run their own expirements. They're not mutually exclusive either you can use both.


Many things in this universe have no hard cap, given more time invested, and are still  valuable. You're falling for a false narrative.


fiatjaf is fun, but his opinion changes with the wind. He usually provides no arguments or evidence to backup his opinions either.


You're choosing the custodial + arbitrary money printer option just because the word "Bitcoin" is slapped on it. Sounds like fiat.

Some Bitcoiners really have lost their way


As long as you have an active node and channel state backups or trust another person to do it. The potential to be rugged by your peers or channel host is always there after you make a transaction. This caveat doesn't exist for L1. Once the transaction is sufficiently confirmed you can't be rugged. It is final. Maybe there is a different term for it.

Worse, in practice, most lightning users don't even use it this way. They use it custodially.

I'm willing to entertain trade offs. But we're throwing away major value props of Bitcoin for scalability. The few things that differentiate it from fiat.

Defeats the whole purpose.


So, I always find several implied assumptions when it comes to scaling.

1) That everyone on the planet is going to be using crypto.
+won't be a black/gray market niche

2) That everyone on the planet will use a *single* crypto.
+won't be a range of different cryptos that provide differing utility

3) That it can't scale given a slow enough rate of adoption.
+consumer tech advances (Moore's law)
+protocol scalability improvement (Monero tx size shrinking by 80% since inception)

4) That decentralization is binary and not a spectrum.
+otherwise why not 0.1MB blocks instead of 4MB? It's unlikely and seems pretty convenient the 4MB blocksize just so happens to be the "cut off" point for being considered decentralized.


Lightning in practice is not p2p. Due to it's nature it consolidates into massive nodes people must route thru if you want the cheapest fees and transactions that don't fail.

LN limits the value you can transfer.

Arguably not final settlement (Nothing is until on chain)

You can be force closed making you pay on chain fees anyway.
npub169n9eaf0t20j0nefwqlqtnqcpsym22k2nw6e3tevtrrru4et7wrsh5w47v

And ~96% of users are on custodial wallets because of its terrible sovereign UX.

Many other problems besides these...all of these sacrfices to be able to scale and it still can't scale. What a bad trade.


I'm not talking about transparency argument. That is another topic.

I'm talking about hard limiting the blocksize. Current limit revolved around conumer tech from 2000s. It is a handicap if your goal is to scale L1 value props to every user.


He's right. Bitcoin can't build on the base layer because it handicapped itself. They're forced to build on L2s that compromise core value props of Bitcoin that bring us back full circle to the very problems it was trying to solve.


Bitcoin maxis have no exclusive claim over Nostr. We're staying right here😘


What is your opinon on Prime for scaling Bitcoin? (client side validation)

Seems like an interesting idea for scalability + privacy


Exactly.

Fixed emission > fixed supply for long term blockchain security.

Gold doesn't stop working or threaten it's security if people stopped mining it. Unlike Bitcoin.


Value is subjective. You would think a bitcoiner would know this. So it's weird for you to make such an objective statement as if it is fact.

Bitcoin controls the supply side of the equation. It can never control the capricious demand side.

Second, using "infinite vs finite" supply to define value is clearly not true. All resources in the universe are virtually limitless given more time, but still have value. We've been mining gold for thousands of years. Does gold have no value?

What is important is that the creation is not arbitrary and ideally predictable (unlike fiat). Using Monero's time hardcap as an example is 0.6 XMR every 2 minutes.

And I'm not even touching on the value of an L1 MoE that has real world fungibility and privacy combined with progressively cheaper transactions (without giving up core value props)...utility that bitcoin lacks.


https://github.com/lnbook/lnbook/blob/develop/16_security_privacy_ln.asciidoc#attacks-on-lightning

"We identified 27,183 private channels, discovered hidden balances, and showed how a passive adversary can infer payment endpoints with very high probability."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.12470.pdf


He's not wrong. Seems inevitable with how lightning functions. Custodial wallets like WoS are what 96%+ of lightning users are on.


There is already a big push to do what you're saying. They are trying to get rid of physical currency like cash in many countries and replace them with fully controlled and surveilled CBDCs. FedNow is the precursor of that in the USA launched back in July.


Because they don't have any direct control over Monero. Every other reason is a ruse.

There is already a push in many countries to phase out cash to take away that little bit of privacy. You are already percieved as automatically shady or guilty just by having or using cash.


Great find! Thanks!


If it is custodial, it is an IOU, not Bitcoin.

Those IOUs can also be printed by the mint arbitrarily and don't have to be backed by Bitcoin.

You have private unbacked IOUs. AKA shitcoins.


deleted


Thou doth project too much, methinks


"And you can tell that they have no interest in spreading Bitcoin around the world"

Says the person accusing me of being in a cult 😂

I'm not trying to "spread" bitcoin in the same way I'm not trying to prosyletize hammers, Mr Cultman. If someone is interested they will find it. If someone needs it they will use it.

I find this "hyperbitcoinization" talk naive (and ironically cultish). Crypto like Bitcoin  thrive in p2p black and gray market. The state is not going to to allow  unhampered white market use with businesses and institutions. Any white market use will be under growing restrictions and become more and more regulated until it is nearly identical to fiat.


XMR is not an investment. It's p2p digital cash. That is your disconnect.

There is no speculation around Monero's privacy unless you just don't understand it. You can't see amounts or recievers on Monero's blockchain, period. They are completely hidden unlike Bitcoin or coinjoins. Monero has no transaction graph.

I don't understand the Fluffy Pony ad hominem. You don't like how he looks? You're basing your technical opinions of a crypto on how the devs look?...🤦♂

How do all these future scalability hypotheticals invalidate Moneros usefulness right NOW? For all you know Monero doesn't ever grow to these massive sizes and remains a niche black/gray market crypto (most likely scenario). Or it grows at such a slow rate that it easily scales.

You audit Monero the same way you audit Bitcoin. Users run a node. No Bitcoiner takes advantage of Bitcoins simple math transparency and makes sure all inputs and outputs in 800,000+ blocks equal out. They also don't continue doing this every ten minutes ad infinitum. They run and trust their node to do it and pay no mind. Exactly like Monero. No real world difference.

If you are scared that legislators can kill your crypto it doesn't sound very unstoppable and permissionless to me. You sound like early critics of Bitcoin.


I don't see "store of value" mentioned anywhere in the white paper. I do see "peer to peer electronic cash".

Any privacy features built on layers on top of Bitcoin so far sacrifice self-custody, permissionlessness, p2p, or final settlement.

Just look at eCash eNuts that just dropped. Not only can they issue unbacked tokens - they literally and metaphorically hold your nuts. I prefer having the option of uncucked privacy, thanks.


Lol if this is only a popularity contest fiat demolishes Bitcoin.

You're acting like the average person in the world truly knows what Bitcoin is - much less actually uses it.