pull down to refresh
@expatriotic
stacking since: #457256npub138xw4...qzmscakdee
36 sats \ 1 reply \ @expatriotic 22 Mar \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Beginners Newsletter, Issue 44 bitcoin_beginners
Ahh, yes I understood you to be saying something else.
So yeah, a misunderstanding I suppose.
Happy to keep posting here. It's my favorite territory after my own
Your post was the only one this past week deemed worthy of an award, based on zaprank.
Which was withheld due to it's controversial nature? Or did I misunderstand.
To be clear, I didn't post it to win an award in your territory. It just seemed an odd way to adjudicate the situation.
If anything why not just give all the awards to me LoL...
I think me posting in your territory is generally a good thing. But feel free to disagree by withholding awards for arbitrary reasons.
Again it's all moot since it's your territory and you do what you like. I didn't even know to expect anything and as I said, twas not why I posted here
If you go to top and sort by zapranked for the week it's buried... And Darth gets 1000 sats for his BS first comment.
It's infuriating.
He's the actual thought police
I'll be posting the remaining 6 of this series elsewhere then.
You say controversial, but only one voice was heard. Everyone else was just zapping it out of appreciation. >3300 sats is pretty decent for a post IMO.
And one deranged person shouting shouldn't deter from that.
I was contemplating quitting SN because of how aggressive that one person seems to be...
But I decided to push on and not be bullied. And so I find your decision to be sad.
I spent a lot of time on that post and put it in your territory intentionally because of the good vibes.
I guess the vibes are gone.
Adios
I'm -13m sats (that's a minus sign).
Wow. That's a lot... How is that possible though? Is that you personally or in regards to the ~bitcoin territory. I was specifically referring to that territory. Your overall deficit could just be a habit of zapping others. Presumably if you were ONLY the ~bitcoin territory founder, you'd be positive.
But I take your point that your not "filthy rich" from your general use of SN ;)
I wish I had read this before making the ~monero territory haha...
It's good to take a peek into the psychology of it.
At the end of the day though, 50k sats is just really steep for something niche. Unfortunately, it's like the Joe Rogan effect, or the long tail effect, to be more technical. Similar to the 80:20 rule. Basically, the ~bitcoin territory will garner 80+% of the posts and thus make @k00b filthy rich (speculating).
Meanwhile others in the long tail are going to have to be okay taking a loss every month (again, speculating).
In fact, I'm surprised there are as many territories as they are. People got loads of cash sats to burn it seems.
That's where we're different then. Jesus is the most important thing for me. After that my family. Money/Bitcoin is just a tool. A way we communicate value with other humans. I mine Bitcoin. I value it, but it can't be spent everywhere... That's just life. Sometimes I need a plane, train or bus ticket. Or some gas... Or a bottle of water at a random convenience store in Tunis. Or an espresso in Morocco... I barely speak enough French to order, let alone convince this person I'll never meet again to accept bitcoin. I might not even have internet. Life is messy... Deal with it. And relax. Tranquilo amigo.
If taking my toddler to visit family isn't part of the bitcoin ethos 🤷🏻♂️
You can't actually refute any of my points.
You've simply isolated yourself.
People > bitcoin
I have small children and fly across the globe to visit their abuella y tio/a. Sometimes we need to buy things and they don't accept bitcoin...
I'm not going to die on your hill.I make guides in part to help me educate myself.
Your venom is unwarranted.
If you're not learning, you're already dead.
I read your post by the way. #576140
It's interesting. But doesn't account for reality.
Doesn't account for:
- Nomads who can't convince everyone to accept bitcoin for every microtransaction of their day
- People on long range trains, planes or buses. Imagine being in an airport for 18 hours. That employee doesn't care that you want to pay in bitcoin. They're a peon.
- People in China (no explanation needed) or Indonesia (where it's illegal for vendors to accept bitcoin as payment) either the locals themselves, or expats/visitors.
- People on road trips. You suddenly need gas and stop at a gas station. Oh let me ask if they accept bitcoin for gas. No? Okay, let's try again. And again. Oh damn, no one accepted. No me and my family with toddler in tow are broken down with no gas because I was resolute in only paying in bitcoin...
There's a reason I started my post saying:
- First try to pay in bitcoin
- If 1 fails, use cash
- If 1 & 2 fails, use a prepaid visa or gift card.
Why? Because options 1-3 don't require you to have a bank. And most people DO have a bank account. And this is something they should strive to eliminate.
It's a process. And unfortunately, you like to come to my posts and spout nonsense. I've literally had this conversation with you ad nauseum. And yet you persist.
Noobs are already in fiat.
Until you can go to Target, Ace, Wal-mart, Publix, gas station, etc. and pay in bitcoin directly, people will use tools like this...
And that's okay.
Calm down.
Did you even read it?
- @evankaloudis is an advisor
- I state clearly at the beginning DO NOT DO THIS, spend bitcoin instead...
Lightning transactions may be private, but they're anchored to Bitcoin's transparent blockchain. Every channel opening and closing transaction is permanently visible, creating immutable fingerprints that can be analyzed. With Monero, privacy exists at the protocol level - there's no transparent base layer to compromise your privacy.
You mention creating new Lightning nodes on phones, but this glosses over the technical complexity required to do this securely. Most people use KYC versions of the LN or custiodial due to UX issues with the LN. Monero's privacy works automatically without requiring expert knowledge of channel management, routing, and proper node configuration.
The distinction between exchanges rejecting Monero for "regulatory reasons" rather than "technical issues" actually proves Monero's effectiveness. Regulators pressure exchanges precisely because Monero's privacy works too well to be easily surveilled.
When you pay with Lightning, your channel opening/closing transactions are visible on-chain. Chain analysis can link these to your identity, especially if you've ever used KYC services. With enough data points, your Lightning privacy can be compromised. Not to mention that if LN was a perfect privacy solution, I think it would be getting attacked more like Monero getting the boot from a lot of exchanges (the bounty to crack it) and the Samourai Wallet devs and Tornado devs. When it REALLY works, they come for you.
This wasn't "added later" - it was part of Monero's original design to ensure long-term security. Bitcoin faces a potential security cliff when block rewards diminish and must rely solely on transaction fees. And Monero is STILL deflationary because even with a tail supply, the percentage that that tail represents compared to the total will keep declining. And it helps to replace coins that were lost due to entropy such as people losing access... I've heard really fascinating arguments about the tail of Monero vs Bitcoins hard stop. I'd argue a hard stop is actually not going to be great for bitcoin, but that's down the road.
Monero's supply is verifiable through mathematical proofs. It's just a little more complex of a process than verifying the supply of bitcoin.
5 sat payments aren't that interesting IMO... But Lightning's capacity for micropayments is a separate innovation that could theoretically be built on any base layer.
The fundamental difference remains: Bitcoin bolts privacy features onto a transparent system, while Monero builds privacy into its foundation. This architectural difference creates entirely different security and privacy models.The capital definition you cited from KU's MBA program perfectly captures what Bitcoin actually does - it functions as financial capital that can fund operations, purchase assets, and enable investments. This is distinct from government-issued currency, which primarily serves as a medium of exchange with decreasing purchasing power over time.
Your point about the self-reinforcing cycle is spot on. If people want Bitcoin's value to increase, encouraging merchant adoption creates the network effects that drive both utility and value. The irony is that many holders won't spend because they expect appreciation, yet that very appreciation depends on expanding the network of users and use cases.
The distinction between "selling" to an exchange versus spending directly with merchants is crucial. When you sell to an exchange, you're converting to fiat and reinforcing the legacy system. When you spend directly with a merchant who holds Bitcoin, you're strengthening the Bitcoin economy.
Regarding education, the signal-to-noise ratio on most Bitcoin forums is abysmal. Places like r/Bitcoin have become echo chambers focused on price action rather than fundamental education about Bitcoin's mechanics and value proposition. Stacker News uses bitcoin as an incentive to help distill signal from noise.
Your comment misses the fundamental issue with Lightning's privacy model.
Yes, if you use Lightning perfectly - with your own node, after a coinjoin, with wrapped invoices, LNAddress, Bolt 12, etc. - you can achieve decent privacy. But this requires expert-level knowledge and perfect execution every time.
The problem is that Lightning's privacy is bolted on as an afterthought, not built into the protocol. Your opening and closing transactions are still permanently recorded on Bitcoin's transparent ledger, creating immutable fingerprints that link to your financial history.
Lightning Network's total capacity is only ~5,000 BTC - that's just 0.002% of Bitcoin's total supply. This makes it completely inadequate for large-scale private transactions. For context, the Lazarus hack alone was ~15,000 BTC worth - the entire Lightning Network couldn't handle even a third of that.
You're right that base layer Bitcoin isn't practical for small transactions - that's why Lightning exists. But this creates a multi-layered privacy approach where you must maintain perfect operational security at every layer or risk complete exposure.
With Monero, privacy isn't optional or dependent on perfect user behavior - it's mandatory at the protocol level. One transaction, one set of privacy guarantees, regardless of user expertise.
Your anecdote about using Lightning in Lugano is great, but it doesn't address the fundamental privacy weakness - that Lightning channels are anchored to a transparent blockchain. And many people open these channels with KYC bitcoin using services like Strike or Cashapp...
This comment is a classic example of someone throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Let me address the key points:
-
"How do we know Monero had a fair launch if it's untraceable?" - The launch was publicly verifiable. The blockchain was transparent at genesis and the code was open source from day one.
-
Your "you need your own node, TOR, VPN" argument misses the point. With Bitcoin, even with all those tools, your transactions are still visible on-chain. With Monero, privacy is built-in.
-
Your "all Monero is tainted" argument is backwards logic. When all coins are private, none are discriminated against - that's the definition of fungibility. Some exchanges don't list Monero because of regulatory pressure, not technical issues.
-
The point-of-sale correlation attack you describe would work against ANY cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin. The difference is with Bitcoin, they'd also see your entire transaction history.
-
Your dynamic blocksize criticism ignores that this is a deliberate design choice to balance fees and throughput.
-
"Wide acceptance" - There are numerous Monero-accepting merchants and services. Just because Bitrefill doesn't accept it doesn't invalidate the hundreds that do.
-
The "inflation bug" concern is theoretical and applies to Bitcoin too - both require trusting the code. Monero's supply is verifiable through other means.
-
Your hard fork comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how Monero upgrades work. The network upgrades are scheduled and coordinated, not chaotic.
I could go on, but most of these criticisms apply equally or more severely to Bitcoin, while ignoring Monero's fundamental privacy advantages.
The article itself proves why Monero is necessary. Even the author admits Bitcoin's transparent ledger "can be disastrous for anti-authoritarian pro-democracy protesters."
Lightning doesn't solve this fundamental issue. While Lightning transactions themselves aren't on-chain, channel openings and closings create permanent blockchain fingerprints that can be analyzed. As Andreas Antonopoulos himself said: "If you can do analysis on the base layer, that gives a great degree of insight into what's happening above."
Research has already exposed Lightning privacy vulnerabilities. Even Lightning advocates admit "there are scenarios where Lightning is not great for privacy" and users must implement multiple complex techniques correctly to achieve decent privacy.
The privacy problem compounds with Lightning's increased attack surface - another layer means more complexity and greater likelihood of exploits and data leakage.
Monero solves this at the protocol level with mandatory privacy. No optional tools needed, no channel fingerprints, no special configurations - just hit send and you're done.
When people's freedom or lives depend on financial privacy, they choose the tool designed for privacy from the ground up, not the one with privacy bolted on as an afterthought.