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.
Replies (64)
I prefer to die but not using monero.
Should I add you on my monero mute list now or is that next week?
😃😃
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.
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.
consistency matters
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.
Oh boy, I'm out. Good luck with Monero!
> and those who support BIP110 have lost their way.
This is the only part where I disagree. Supporters of #BIP110 represent a group of Bitcoiners focused on preserving Bitcoin’s core principles. It’s far from clear that Monero, if placed in Bitcoin’s position - under the full scrutiny of governments, TradFi institutions, and mass normie adoption - would handle that level of pressure as well. Given that level of pressure, Bitcoin has held up surprisingly well.
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.
It will become permanent. The one year period is like a trial period. To test if everything works and to give the broad community time to work out the details of the permanent solution.
I think that monero and bitcoin hashpower cannot be compared. Monero hash power is lower but more difficult and expensive to obtain.
Espera, es el día de los inocentes l algo. xD o has sido hackeado? xad
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.
Litecoin has MWEB and supply can be verified.
But we know the tradeoff of L1 long ago. I'm still amaze with lightning. For me, for a long shot is nothing near.
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!
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
"- 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."
Good luck with your trust, I prefer fully verifiable. this is huge tradeoff for privacy when you have the knowledge to transac oc with privacy.
I think the question should be how to coordinate so Bitcoin has (more) layer one privacy and fungibility.
All that Bitcoin cares about is that in each block all transactions are valid. “Nothing” stops us from making a single transaction per block with all inputs and all outputs arranged in a way that subset sum analysis is broken. Not the same as Monero's ring signatures, but both for good and for bad.
And then of course move as far away from the base layer as possible, because blockchains don't scale.
IMO Monero just chooses different tradeoffs and pushes the scalability problem further, but does not solve it.
oh nooo this scary guy wants to put somebody on a mute list, very cruel, who the fuck cares about you putting people on mute, go on then and shut the fuck up with your life-threatening behavior, jeez..
when was the last time you personally verified the Bitcoin supply?
I'm betting never and you just push trust onto different people.
which is a reasonable thing to do
it just isn't fundamentally any different.
nobody wants to use a PUBLIC L1. obviously, because nobody is.
LN is pretty cool but if it's privacy was broken you'd never know because you don't have L1 security guarantees.
Constantly as I run a few nodes.
just running a Bitcoin node doesn't verify the supply.
you're outsourcing supply verification to others. ie TRUSTING
(in contrast to Monero nodes actually, that make sure every tx isn't doing something fishy.)
like I said, i think it's a reasonable trust assumption. but it isn't any different from your point of view than trusting *different devs and a *different implementation.
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.
I fully support the idea of Bitcoin for the state and Monero for the people
If no one wants to use a public layer 1 why are we using bitcoin?
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.
Bc idk how you can prove there is a capped supply with 100% certainty otherwise.
So you literally only use bitcoin as ngu technology
we will end up with All The Things 👍
I would push back on that.
The biggest risk for both ASIC and CPU mining is general trust in fiat currencies that enable central bank "handlers" via access to CEX to naked short/fractionally reserve the fiat price and by that control the incentives that are meant to provide enough "security budget".
Monero community needed a long term to learn about the depth of this attack so they push forcdelisting wherever possible.
Bitcoiners are findkng out about
step 1 holding a taxable coin is worthless
step 2 ETFs and custodians are meant to price suppress through fractional reserves
step 3 they'll understand how that is the most easiest and most effective way to under-mine the security budget.
fun fact
trust in cryptography increases over time.
cue the purity tests and social shaming for falling out of line with the Maxi narrative
No, p2p digital cash all the time.
Even if that is the case I'm not sure I agree with the economics of its issuance for SOV
But no one is using bitcoin lol
In my view the privacy issues in Bitcoin are only a problem in the Fiat world where Bitcoin is a minor player, that's the world we're leaving behind. In a world on a Bitcoin standard the lack of privacy on layer one means the bigger the wallet the more eyes are on it and any activity.
In the new world of a Bitcoin standard, those who are the most wise and patient will be the most wealthy as they outlast those with high time preference who spend what they accumulated.
I'll take 20 years of questionable privacy for thousands of years of honesty.
Me and my customers are so that's all I need
you mean that you prefer that only transactoors bear the burden of paying for network security?
so you can hold up hodl without being bothered about how to pay for it yourself?
instead of equitably paying for it through supply inflation i mean
Are yall using bitcoin or lightning network?
The problem is that this world of standard bitcoin is not materializing; in fact, we are losing the war.
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.
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.
Liquid ewwww
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.
Fair enough ❤️
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.
Good to read this tbh, make me want to follow you again.
Being open to doubt is a strength.
And if lightning network was bitcoin it wouldn’t be a layer 2
Just my opinion as the lightning network wasn’t on bitcoin first and can be used on any cryptocurrency that implements it…
bear cycle does it to people
stay humble and stack sats
Monero is dumping too. It's not about the money.
🎯
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
It’s such a foolish take: “I think you have to cover yourself by holding both in case one fails.”
If Bitcoin fails, all shitcoins will fail with it.
View quoted note →If you need to ask then yes sell all your bitcoin.
🎯
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
there's nothing a Bitcoin node does to make sure the supply is what it should be.
a Monero node verifies that the sum of the inputs and outputs of every tx equals zero.
maybe learn how things work before you run your mouth online.
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
cool.
the node still doesn't verify the supply is what it should be.
which was the subject of the conversation.
thanks for playing.
Fyi: i also know about value overflow incident
Of course it does. Thats how the math works. Axiom leads to theorem.
Don’t play dumb now.
Are you a bot?
![ꓘɨℓσꬺƄɨP110ꓘɳσ[Ŧƨ] 𓅦丰's avatar](https://image.nostr.build/23ee33cac87bf71b98e809e2d990cf0a04c5aa1af452383f8a845479e072d79f.gif)
