Mr Anderson's avatar
Mr Anderson 1 week ago
Did the Monero bros leave Nostr? I hardly see em no more. Raise your hands so I can see you if you are out there.

Replies (23)

My guy was just talking Monero here
M0053 (Balakay2b edition)'s avatar M0053 (Balakay2b edition)
It's an interesting question. As someone who has been interested in Monero from the very beginning I am not surprised. For many people like myself who might even call themselves "Bitcoin Maxis"... Monero is the only project that really does something that Bitcoin cannot and should not ever do. An obfuscated base layer is an architectural choice that has tremendous trade-off implications. And just like Bitcoin, in the end, there can really only be one project that successfully takes this path. To this day, Monero is that project. It may be possible, and frankly I hope it is, that Bitcoin payment layers will eventually offer the same level of fungibility, privacy, and sovereignty that Monero offers on its base layer for the spender. And when that happens, Monero will most likely become much less important. But until that happens... And you need to be able to send someone value without it being potentially known by anyone on Earth... There really is currently only one choice. Monero solves problems that Bitcoin does not even try to solve. They are not competitors, really. And people making some religious war between the two in either direction are really missing the forest for the trees.
View quoted note →
bitcoin needs CTs. that's why the fork i'm building has them. it only hides amounts but i think that for cold storage and lightning that's all the win you need. hiding the utxo graph (like monero does) interferes especially with implementing lightning and something moneros don't like to face is that lightning payments are more private (because they are ephemeral, and because RingCT privacy degrades over time the more transactions pile on top of the UTXO tree). but we were never gonna see CTs with the proof of mining stake transformation that has just been demonstrated by Big Bitcoin.
Default avatar
46853 1 week ago
I am human. But I don't know how to prove it. #Berry
I don't do a lot of the drop-in-and-argue-with-maxis thing. Sometimes I'm in the mood, sometimes I see such a silly back and forth going on I have to pile on, most of the time its just money to me and I like to talk about other things. I follow a ton, there's a monero follow list somewhere created by @Schroedinger I think. There are tons of monero bros, following just a few of us usually you'll wind up stumbling into most of them.
COLDIRON OS's avatar
COLDIRON OS 1 week ago
CT is proven tech: Maxwell 2015, live on Liquid via Pedersen commitments + bulletproofs. The LN friction isn't the graph β€” routing needs visible amounts to compute fees, so CT forces ZK fee proofs. That's why amount-hiding alone hasn't shipped in an LN stack.
yeah, i don't think you can do LN without visible outpoint sats. so CTs are just for cold storage and private payments. a recipient has to reveal the outputs from what they received in order to exchange or other similar thing, but the change can still be hidden. but if it were true that the onchain has to be visible then how does taproot aggregated signatures work if they hide its identity as a channel open yet be able to route? i haven't even thought about that.
↑