I’ve used most of them, and my transactions are always included in the block they say they’re going to be included in. Bitcoin is the only one where you can pay high Sat/vB, and be next in line to be included in the block, and then not be included until 3 to 5+ Blocks later. What’s supposed to be a 10 minute transaction ends up becoming an hour or so.

Replies (5)

Bitcoin is secure enough to accept a 0-conf transaction as a merchant. I would be more than happy to take 0-conf on chain Bitcoin. If it's in the mempool I'm 99.9999% certain I will receive the payment. I'm 20x less certain with any other chain.
Naruto's avatar
Naruto yesterday
This is a retarded point. Bitcoin supports RBF and Monero doesn't. It's way way way easier to steal from a merchant with 0-conf transactions on Bitcoin than it is on Monero, it's literally a supported feature.
Naruto's avatar
Naruto yesterday
Sounds like you're 20x more retarded for not actually understanding how Bitcoin works 😂
When you have that small of a real transaction base of course it's going to be fast to be included in a block. If you want to transact in Monero go for it, but why do you feel the incessant need to continue to promote Monero when discussing hard savings tools? The context is always as an MoE so why do this? Insecure much?!
I literally do not care about SoV, if you want SoV gold is the best SoV, Monero is a decent SoV but not the best. Bitcoin in my honest opinion is actually a worse SoV than Monero honestly but again, to clarify I don’t care about that. My argument is about MoE, Monero has a higher L1 Throughput/TPS than Bitcoin L1, now yes, lightning fixes that but lightning in a self-hosted manner it is too difficult, and a potential vector for centralization. This is on top of miner centralization. My main issue with Bitcoin is that it’s inconvenient, yes in theory it has the better backend tradeoffs for long term node running but it’s fair to imagine this memory crunch won’t last forever, plus pruned nodes also exist. If you’re mining then you have to run at least one full node anyways. People seem to think than more nodes are better, when that’s not necessarily the case. Most people should only run 1 to 3 nodes at most, mainly to keep their own transactions secured, and verified on the network. Monero’s Dynamic Blocksize in my opinion makes the best theoretical tradeoff because at the rate Monero has been appreciating against fiat, it makes running a node economically viable especially when memory prices presumably return to normal trends. Hard drives just faster, more durable, memory dense, and affordable over the long run. So if the biggest tradeoff is you have to buy an extra hard drive or two every few years that’s not an issue, especially as Monero adoption increases, there will be companies that will specialize in monero node storages. There will also be presumably people that join that will find newer mechanisms to compress monero tx’s on L1. Also L2, not to use that as a cop out but that’s also a variable to account for too. Luckily, in the current phase monero does not need an L2 but when it might, I hope that the L2’s in question expand rather than goes against Monero’s key goals, and purpose.