ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
I have to make this post because otherwise I'll explode, and obviously I don't think it will make anyone happy, but that's what it means to be free and not care what others say. As you know, I've had my ups and downs with Monero supporters, but a few weeks ago I decided to put that behind me and start trying out everything in the Monero ecosystem, and I can only say that Monero's privacy works and in that respect it's wonderful. Bitcoin on layer 1 has nothing on Monero in that area. Monero is totally fungible and by default, without complications. That said, my conclusion is that Bitcoin and Monero are like night and day, so different that I don't think they even compete with each other, but so different that I think you have to cover yourself by holding both in case one fails. - Bitcoin has a limited supply, never more than 21 million. Monero has a queue emission of 0.6 Monero per block approximately every 2 minutes. In practice, by 2050 there will be 22.64 million Monero and by 2100 there will be 30.53 million Monero. This is a totally different model for securing the network through subsidies. - In Bitcoin, the supply is fully verifiable. In Monero, you have to trust that the underlying cryptography has no implementation errors and that there has been no hidden inflation. This is the price to pay for privacy. - Bitcoin has a maximum block size of 4MB and scales through layer 2 solutions. Monero has a dynamic block size that allows it to remain functional in times of stress, but it must be accepted that if the chain were heavily used, decentralization would be lost. - Mining is also completely opposite. Bitcoin chose to professionalize it at the expense of decentralization but being more resistant to state attacks due to its hash power. Monero is the opposite, preferring to make it more decentralized with conventional equipment but vulnerable to state attacks due to its low hash power. - When it comes to privacy, the discussion is quite short. Monero is private and fungible at layer 1, Bitcoin is not. And aside from these things, which I believe are objective and I am not going to evaluate, what I am going to evaluate is that Bitcoin is losing the Cypherpunk ideals, as demonstrated by its development. I believe that both Core and those who support BIP110 have lost their way. So, given that Bitcoin and Monero are diametrically opposed and given the danger of Bitcoin's failed development, it is worth considering Monero as an alternative.
💬 33 replies

Replies (33)

DarthCoin ₿⚡️37d ago
I prefer to die but not using monero. Should I add you on my monero mute list now or is that next week? 😃😃
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
Or no, I'm not in that position, I'm just in the position of drawing attention, these are thoughts out loud. I don't think my current vision fits with anyone. It was just a thought I needed to express as a way of drawing attention. I don't know, it's hard to explain, sometimes I'm a bit of a woman.
0000 sats
DarthCoin ₿⚡️37d ago
consistency matters
0000 sats
Daedalus37d ago
You are betraying a deep level of irrationality here. You are gonna lose so much respect from the community if you keep up the insane purity tests.
0000 sats
ꓘɨℓσꬺƄɨP110ꓘɳσ[Ŧƨ] 𓅦丰37d ago
What's better, using private Lightning channels or using Monero? Obviously layer 1 has to be public, nobody wants to use a private layer 1. For privacy, there's Lightning. When you're thinking about continuing to post about Monero, let me know so I don't waste my time and can just mute you.
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
Or no, that's not my intention at all. This is just a wake-up call about everything I believe is happening in the development of Bitcoin.
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
Wouldn't it have been better to offer a permanent solution instead of rushing to create bip110, which is only temporary? I don't agree with this approach to development at all; it only brings instability to the network.
0000 sats
Daedalus37d ago
Really good post, very accurate. I'd push back slightly on the claim that Moneros hash power is the reason it's vulnerable. The real reason is because the energy and compute cost is proportionally lower than Bitcoins due to the smaller market cap. The RandomX hashrate will always be lower than sha256 because it is intentionally less efficient. The real metric is energy expended, cost of hardware, and what devices are the most energy efficient. If market caps are equal, total energy expenditure is roughly equal but Monero has a more decentralized, harder to co-opt mining economy since it consists mainly of gaming PCs and botnets. "One CPU one vote" as Satoshi so famously wrote. The Bitcoin mining environment is not "professional miners" it's Proof of ASICs in which only large corporations or governments are the only entities that can afford to compete to buy the most Bitmain ASICs due to economies of scale. This resembles a security model closer to Proof of Stake than the pure Proof of Work provided by Monero's RandomX algorithm. Really this is the only think I can think to push back on though, overall very honest and reasonable take!
0000 sats
Reed37d ago
What about Monero vs lightning... Different tradeoffs for Bitcoin there. Increased complexity and centralization but also increased privacy but it's still hard money that no one can fuck with. Similar story with ecash for Bitcoin... It's tradeoffs all the way down
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Nobody wants to use a public L1, but some should be forced to. States, charities, etc should be required to hold in L1, and if they use L2, at least the size of their channels should be public.
0000 sats
Daedalus37d ago
With Monero, those institutuons can make their wallets' private view keys public then you can see the ins and outs of those wallets. Well actually right now only the ins, but after FCMP++ it will be a proper view key implementation and will add perfect transparently ONLY for the wallet with the shared key.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Yeah, I think I will personally keep building for bitcoin, but once I have a clawd bot running securely, my plan is to make a way to publish nip99 listings on monero exchanges, and then just accept it using pay anything on cake. I like monero as a tool for transactions, I just won't store my wealth in it.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Bc idk how you can prove there is a capped supply with 100% certainty otherwise.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
No, p2p digital cash all the time.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Even if that is the case I'm not sure I agree with the economics of its issuance for SOV
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Me and my customers are so that's all I need
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
The problem is that this world of standard bitcoin is not materializing; in fact, we are losing the war.
0000 sats
Daedalus37d ago
Yeah I think that view complements what I've said. I was controlling for market cap, but you're absolutely correct that if we view the security budget as fiat market cap as currently its valued at in both blockchains, any fiat price dump nukes the hashrate for both. Though, this is just a free market force, most will mine for a slight profit, and little to nobody will mine for a loss such that if mining rewards become less than electricity, you just consequently find less miners. Maybe one day we will have true price discovery and equivalent security to match, but for now it's really tied to market cap unfortunately.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
Lightning is bitcoin... Lightning and ecash for small stuff like honey, on chain for big stuff like half hog/lamb/cow for easy utxo mgmt. Some use liquid wallets like manna.
0000 sats
AU991337d ago
I said I'm not sure. I haven't elaborated my thoughts beyond I don't want a centralized entity responsible for printing. I lean towards deflationary strategies for SOV, but I have thought that defined inflation could have interesting outcomes.
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
bear cycle does it to people stay humble and stack sats
0000 sats
Daedalus37d ago
Monero is dumping too. It's not about the money.
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk37d ago
🎯
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
🎯
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
lol wdym running a node doesn’t verify supply? *Logic: running monero node ensures rules are followed, but that’s not the case for bitcoin* COPE HARDER
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
Bro please. The block reward is known to eternity. Each transaction has input = output + fees verification Go try fool someone else Maybe just stop with your malicious intent ridiculing bitcoin and try being honest
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
Fyi: i also know about value overflow incident
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
Of course it does. Thats how the math works. Axiom leads to theorem. Don’t play dumb now.
0000 sats
ꓘɨℓσꬺƄɨP110ꓘɳσ[Ŧƨ] 𓅦丰37d ago
Are you a bot?
0000 sats
brito36d ago
Well.. he might be writing this stuff right now to get some credibility and later go back to promote fedcoins again. Let's see.
0000 sats
Saberhagen The Nameless36d ago
With private channels your counterparty can see your node pubkey, onchain UTXOs used to fund the channel, and it's balance. If you trust everyone you're opening channels with, and don't care that they can see that info, I suppose it doesn't matter. But for transacting with strangers it does. It's a trade-off for both.
0000 sats
₿k37d ago
Of course all shitcoins dump with bitcoin. The bear cycle makes you wonder if you made a mistake and that is what he is feeling and trying to distribute his portfolio
0000 sats
Cyph3rp9nk31d ago
I live a 100% Bitcoin life. Words like “portfolio,” “distribute,” “investment,” and all that stuff don't make sense to me. Neither do bear markets. That's for people like you who treat Bitcoin as an investment.
0000 sats